/edu/ - Education

Education, Literature, History, Science

catalog
Mode: Thread
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(21.43 KB 331x286 1570719182043.png)
Comrade 05/22/2020 (Fri) 19:30:01 No. 1741 [Reply] [Last]
Is there any Marxist historians you recommend? >inb4 Grover Furr
27 posts and 7 images omitted.
>>2163 Can you recommend to me something about modern historical materialism? Ideally some sort of summary or primer?
>>2168 >Can you recommend to me something about modern historical materialism? Ideally some sort of summary or primer? This is a good question for which I have a less than satisfactory answer, because I'm not sure that there are great *purely theoretical* primers on historical materialism (though I'm probably just revealing my ignorance - others hopefully will be able to chime in to correct this). I think you'd actually be better off with just some contemporary applied works. https://b-ok.cc/book/2853542/f37d6c https://b-ok.cc/book/899406/db0456 https://b-ok.cc/book/2641054/c620a7 https://b-ok.cc/book/686518/97e25e https://b-ok.cc/book/1248134/d11f24 https://b-ok.cc/book/2075341/831818 https://b-ok.cc/book/916406/032dcc https://b-ok.cc/book/885467/35a915 The closest thing I would think of as a theoretical introduction to historical materialism is https://b-ok.cc/book/848583/b5df69 not because I endorse everything in there, but because it's the only work I can think of that's (1) written in a very clear style and (2) aims at being an utterly general account.
hobsbawm really is the marxist historian gigachad. should be essential reading for anyone on the left
>>1743 >>1755 lol, Hobsbawn became a complete revisionist later on, and even helped pave the way for "New Labour" to emerge.
>>2018 >He describes Marxism as "the greatest fantasy of the twentieth century", a dream of a perfect society which became a foundation for "a monstrous edifice of lies, exploitation and oppression." He argues that the Leninist and Stalinist versions of communist ideology are not a distortion or degenerate form of Marxism, but one of its possible interpretations. Sounds like hot garbage.

Historian 03/04/2020 (Wed) 17:45:16 No. 220 [Reply] [Last]
We should make a general history guide for an overview on leftists history movements/people/thinkers that type of thing There's a lot to cover so we should just stick with what would make the best overview
7 posts omitted.
bump
>>2187 I do not speak with Dengists.
>>2179 >guy interested in psychology Try introducing him to Mark Fisher
(336.88 KB marxisms.pdf)
Here you go.
you guys gotta read Hobsbawm. his whole Age Of series has been indispensable to me

Non-western philosophy and Marxism Comrade 07/07/2020 (Tue) 07:08:09 No. 2207 [Reply] [Last]
We all know that Marxists philosophy has roots in the classic European works of Hegel, Greeks etc.. So are there some works/philosophers that would be benefitial to read for Marxist from other branches of world philosophy like Chinese, Indian, African etc.?
3 posts omitted.
Li Zehou’s “History of Classical Chinese Thought” is from from a Marxist (albeit also vaguely small-n nationalist) perspective and people may find it useful https://b-ok.cc/book/5576067/51bb02 I have personally found Karyn Lai’s “Introduction to Chinese Philosophy,” while not Marxist, accessible and interesting https://b-ok.cc/book/730929/dc0ae1 The social context of these matters but is interesting and not at all Strange and Inscrutable to westerners really - Western philosophical revivals also tended to happen in the midst of periods of interminable interstate wars etc
>>2210 >Hegel even said he studied Chinese and Indian philosophy and found nothing except meaningless superficiality. p rich coming from Hegel lmao
This just underlines the need for the project outlined in the OP here: >>220 >We should make a general history guide for an overview on leftists history movements/people/thinkers that type of thing
Taoism used/use a dialectical method
Hegel was basically importing eastern dialectics and applying a few changes.

(239.04 KB 1536x2048 uib.jpeg)
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Comrade 05/19/2020 (Tue) 22:07:16 No. 1706 [Reply] [Last]
define needs. is it the bare minimum to survive?
(49.87 KB 960x784 cmon man.jpg)
>according to HIS needs >define needs. is it the bare minimum to survive? bruh
it’s subjective. not in that anything goes. in that it depends on the person. only you know what you need.

(166.04 KB 1200x960 Graphene.jpg)
Graphene General Comrade 07/04/2020 (Sat) 03:41:01 No. 2188 [Reply] [Last]
I guess lots of people are somewhat skeptical it'll be anything, since a bunch of media outlets hyped it up a decade ago and nothing came of it, but they were hyping up its discovery then, when it was still a whole world away from the production process. From what I understand, silicon was much this way at first as well; groundbreaking discovery but a long time before they could figure out mass-production and implementation. Now it seems at last the stuff is ready to be mass-produced and the actual production line is ramping up, and consumer products with marginal amounts of the stuff are already available. So this thread will be for general discussion about what graphene is capable of and its implementations, as well as for advancements in the production process and availability of graphene. Some articles: https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/what-is-graphene/ http://news.mit.edu/2018/manufacturing-graphene-rolls-ultrathin-membranes-0418 https://phys.org/news/2020-07-solar-cells-graphene-armor.html https://www.zmescience.com/science/graphene-clothes-thermal-regulation-18062020/ https://newatlas.com/bicycles/graphenlube-graphene-bicycle-lubricant/ https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/technology/2019/graphene-2d-materials It's coming.
(6.30 KB 180x180 kuma_slurp.png)
I've been reading some of this and this just feels too unreal. Like it can do so much things better and faster and its like "press x to doubt". Nonetheless, it sounds exciting, especially with the solar panels, and how it will affect renewable energy. Also if you don't mind, do you have anything about the history of Silicon. I kinda want to see how opinions changed as it was being rolled out, like you described.
>>2189 In all honesty I might've just gotten confused and am overexaggerating Silicon somewhat. It's really hard to find articles so I've genuinely no idea where I got my history of it to begin with. Regardless, Silicon was invented in the 1820s and it wasn't figured out that they make computers good until like the 1950s/60s/70s. The issue I'm thinking of might not have been the mass production of silicon itself, but rather the mass production of the integrated circuit, which silicon was of course quintessential in enabling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_the_integrated_circuit http://www.mobileranger.com/blog/a-very-small-big-deal-the-history-of-the-integrated-circuit/ Now ignoring the fact that it was discovered in the 1820s, if we just take the timeline from when they figured out how it could be used in an integrated circuit to when it actually became commercially available en masse, it amounts to about 15 years. Though even then it still took far more time for it to be cheaply available.
>>2188 A graphene battery (phone charger) released awhile ago, but it was a little underwhelming. It had clear advantages, yes, however perhaps not enough to warrant aping the market. https://youtu.be/dnE1nO6o-do I am going to give the benefit of the doubt that it's being underutilised in this product.
>>2195 Yeah this is just the beginning of what's capable; they just added like a sheet of it to already existing battery architecture, and that alone has improved charge time from 1.5 hours to 20 minutes, as well as slightly improving capacity. Actually designing electronics architectures around graphene and incorporating the material in every facet of the device is what will offer the truly immense improvements.

Capitalist here Comrade 07/01/2020 (Wed) 18:04:31 No. 2146 [Reply] [Last]
By marxist standards, I do not provide labor, I own capital. From what I understand, the commie concept of wage labor is "exploitation" in the sense that we take the surplus value you produce. Since this board allows non-leftists to ask questions, mine is, why do you think you have the right to the full product/end result of your labor and not just a small compensation? If I were to pay my wagecucks the full amount, or give them control over my company instead of paying them a pittance, I won't be able to stay competitive and maximize profits. In capitalist philosophy on the other hand, exploitation requires the use of force. A worker is not forced to work for me for example, they are 100% free to go find a different job or start their own company. I just wanna know your point of view, and why you think you are entitled to your surplus labor.
9 posts omitted.
>>2151 If you agree with first premise then it is easily to see how capitalism is exploitation by force. In fact every economic system require force, whether capitalism, socialism, or etc. At the most basic level, you need force over nature. Let talk about an example. In your company, if many workers only want to work 8 hours a day, but you want them to work 12 hours a day. Do you accept their demand? Of course not, you will force them into submission by firing all workers who refuse to work 12 hours a day. Or for example, the workers voice their opinions that you should allow them more times in order to polish the end products, but you don't want to do that because it will cut into the profit. What to do? Of course forcing them to work faster by cutting corners either by profit bonus or other ways. Anyway, it is force, because you can control other people to do what they don't want to do, by which means, it's not important. You should discard the notion that force is something inherently bad. No, there is nothing bad with force, but only wasteful or harmful way of using force. 2. and 3. You should read my points carefully again. I don't talk about whether capitalists deserve their riches or not. We are not Gods who have right to judge other people. I just want to talk that it is nearly impossible for normal people nowadays to live their independent lives from the capitalists, because either they don't possess capital, or cannot risk borrowing from the bank, as the average rate of profit of our days is near zero already, if not negative. There is very high chance to lose everything rather than succeed. Anyway, are you really a capitalist? If you are a true porkie, I think you should quickly understand what I said. 4. In the main ideas, you're right, the system will return to capitalism. But you should focus more on the lower nature of economic system. You only see business as the smallest division of the system, and economy is nothing but rearrangement of those businesses (atom). However, it's necessary to see that in reality, a single business is not a self isolated thing, but a mobilisation of many labour force from everywhere in the world. Without seeing that fact, the picture is very mystified. 5. In socialist society, the profit indicator should be abolished. The economy should be control by a public plan, which everyone could check and voice their opinions. In fact this is what happened in Soviet Union during Five Years Plan. The GOSPLAN only decide the input and output of each company, but don't care about its profit. The mission of every company is to fulfil its plan, nothing more, nothing less. The downside of this system is that it's very hard to optimise the quantity of output products, as there is no powerful tools to force the workers to work hard. The profit indicator of capitalist is actually more powerful the force of the state. Therefore, by switching to this economic model, we must sacrifice the ideal of maximising total GDP growth. So how could a system like Soviet Union possible? It's only possible when GDP don't correlate to actual power in reality anymore, in other words, when a high GDP country, such as the USA, cannot defeat a small country with much lower GDP, such as Iran or North Korea. The condition during early 20th century was exactly as such. As the capitalist nations were busy fighting each other, the USSR could develop in a rather stress-less environment. But in the latter half of 20th century, when all capitalist countries united to fight against USSR, the planned economy wasn't viable anymore, so they switched into a hybrid between socialism and state capitalism (Kosygin reform), where the state controlled the economy by profit indicators. However during 80s, when the crisis hit, the profit of USSR was too low compare to the rest of the world (due to their socialist policies), so there were only two ways out for USSR. Either return to planned economy (as the environment then was quite peaceful, and they just won the war in Vietnam), or restructuring by discard the low profitable parts of the economy. Sadly, they chosen the second choice due to inactivity of workers and state managers (they're too lazy to do planned economy, control the economy by profit indicators were much easier) and other capitalist roaders elements in USSR. The rest of story is history.
>>2147 >>2151 https://bunkerchan.xyz/leftypol/res/638070.html ctrl-f for 648507 648557 649246 vol edit: fix the post links above: >>>/leftypol/648507 >>>/leftypol/648557 >>>/leftypol/649246 >>2153 >if business assets could be acquired trivially or did not allow for passive income (if all profit was simply the result, as is sometimes breezily suggested, of the genius or hard work of entrepreneurs) then the market would not value these assets. THIS.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Edited last time by antious666 on 07/01/2020 (Wed) 20:41:43.
>>2158 (cont.) I want to say an additional observation, which I think you wouldn't find frequently in Marxist literature. I call this the Golden Law of Socialist Economy: ~ In the condition of good environment, the lower GDP of a socialist country is, the better efficiency it will achieve ~
>>2155 >Why can't someone start a business though and go from rags to riches? Such examples are rare, but in any event even if they were more common that would not be the relevant point. An enterprising peasant in the Mughal empire could become a zamindar - whether people change the positions they occupy doesn't change whether those positions are exploitative. >The market values assets because of demand, and if you are able to fulfill this demand, you get rewarded This might be a plausible account of CEO pay - that investors pay CEOs much because they know they're so good at their jobs. (There are of course other explanations, but we're not worried about that issue right now.) However, when you buy a company's assets, you're not buying the CEO's time - you're buying the assets. This can be seen most clearly in the purchase, valuation, and payoffs of securities which don't have to be actively managed at all. (If you're a Nazi this is proof that bankers don't do "real" work but factory owners do, but if you think through the logic of the market at all you'll see that people who own shares of each sector are collecting rent on it in similar ways.)

(776.84 KB 1521x2337 tt.jpg)
Claude Levi-Strauss Comrade 07/01/2020 (Wed) 11:39:21 No. 2139 [Reply] [Last]
Where does one go after reading Tristes Tropiques? I have heard The Savage Mind is the way to go, but the English translation is supposed to be erroneous For those unfamillar: CLS was a Marxist/structuralist anthropologist and ethnologist
Haven't read much of CLS yet, but I suppose Structural Anthropology is the next important work after Tristes Tropiques. Also check out Maurice Godelier, he was a student of CLS but developed Marxist Anthropology. CLS was a structuralist first and foremost, him being a Marxist is not that relevant.

(211.61 KB 1400x788 685795.jpg)
Comrade 04/15/2020 (Wed) 14:25:23 No. 1087 [Reply] [Last]
Et tu, brute?
8 posts and 4 images omitted.
Fortune pisses on me once again!
Titus Androdicus is the better Shakespeare play about Rome tbqh

(332.53 KB 2048x1280 sleeping-man-cropped[1].jpg)
General problem with reading 06/27/2020 (Sat) 18:24:20 No. 2095 [Reply] [Last]
I am constantly feeling sleepy. I cant say wheter this is normal or not. Like, I dont know in which moment it becomes pathological. I rather dont have serious issues if any at all when talking. I rarely go into internal monologues but when I do explain something I dont have significant problems. Thinking seems to work well in theory but I am somewhat unsecure wheter I dont think too slow too. In my life I rather had at least average intellectual abilities but when I deal with abstracts it doesnt work too well. Whenever I do read something, no matter wheter it is philosophical, political or fictional work, I am getting tired very quickly which makes productive reading very hard for me. The fact that focusing and remembering stuff also seems to be generally hard for me doesnt help. I can recall various things when I try but still its quite hard to go on with the reading for prolonged time. I can also comperhend the material quite well if I really slooowly study it, but it seems like I am getting way to slow than I should go with it. Whenever I try to read regularly I fail. I also have impression that reading on the pc is easier for me than reading real books, although when I read the digital books I get distracted easier. I really think that I could read something with the interest if I wouldnt feel so fuuucking tired all the time, I dont do anything interesting anyway and I like theory. I also lack motivation, but I think that I could overcome this if not the tiredness (Or perhaps I somewhat rationalize my lack of motivation with the tiredness problem). So basically Id have few questions for you guys: Did or do you have simillar situation to me? What could cause it? Is there any way to get rid of it or to cope with it? If you read regularly, how long did it take you to get used to it? Did you have problems with focus and memory and did they have gone after some time? How did you managed to form a habit of reading in the first place?

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

People are creatures of habit. Stick as much as possible to a fixed sleep schedule. Fix a time and spot for reading (not the bed). Don't set a goal in terms of reading X pages. Don't allow yourself to do anything else than reading during the special slot. It's either reading or doing nothing. Spacing out and staring at the wall counts as not doing anything so don't be mad at yourself for doing just that. Over time you will become more used to reading without interrupting yourself.
Things you might want to try: 1) standing desk 2) varying the time of day in which you read 3) stimulants (from coffee to adhd meds) 4) find discussion groups of something intellectually interesting in person (or uh places like here i guess) 5) change your diet, in particular try cutting out/reducing sugars 6) cut out other superstimuli like social media (or at least any with likes), vidya, porn 7) less ambitious works, scaffold up with wikipedia, etc 8) meditation 9) look into sleep hygeine if your sleep is off (bed only for sleep and sex, get up/go to bed at consistent times) IMO if you throw these against the wall one or two is likely to be helpful, even if it doesn't solve your problem entirely.
>>2095 I used to imagine I was reading so I could sleep faster. It was such a sleeping pill that just the thought of reading made me drowsy. It takes some time until your distracted mind can focus on the subject matter. The harder the reading is, the more time it takes. You also need to form a habit of reading in general. You should also sit somewhere and not lay down. I've also tried just giving in and taking a nap, then when waking up, do my reading. I've gotten much better at it. >>2135 This is golden advice. 10/10

(120.92 KB 1200x630 Mao_Zedong_last_photo.jpg)
Comrade 06/28/2020 (Sun) 20:02:10 No. 2106 [Reply] [Last]
I'm having a very difficult time reading even Marx's "easier" works. I find the language he uses is far too dense and it seems to fly right over my head. Is there anything I can do to fix this? Am I just retarded?
4 posts omitted.
Read this fam, it was written for illiterate proles and was approved by Marx himself: https://www.marxists.org/archive/cafiero/1879/summary-of-capital.htm
>>2115 This is so much easier to read and understand than Capital, thanks a lot anon.
>>2116 I recommend Critique of the Gotha Program as a kinda easy read. It's a point by point take down so is more friendly for our twitter/10-minute-youtube-video brains. You're not retarded if you've got this far friend
>>2120 Where's the text it is taking down point-by-point? There's not much sense in reading something like this without being familiar with the thing it attacks.
(28.59 KB 263x251 09876.png)
>>2125 It's the first few pages of the PDF in the "Letter to Bracke". The Gotha Programme is that short Another source https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111gotha.html

Delete
Report

no cookies?