/edu/ - Education

>>7419
>>7515
this book seems to romanticise mascukinity as primal warring.
It makes the classic mistake of equating technology and mechanisarion to castration.

It accuses modern men of being mommas boys simply for not living in primitive times fighting large animals to bring home to the tribe.
The author is a self described "gentleman" growing up in rural Pennsylvania.

>Since most anons here seem clueless about what masculinity actually is
I for one am very sober about what that means to me, you might be projecting your own insecurities.

>>7833
>accuses modern men of being mommas boys simply for not living in primitive times fighting large animals to bring home to the tribe
It would actually be nice is it were that simple. Even primitive man had the technology to be a threat to any other creature. A man with a stick is at the top of the food chain. I also don't see why women with bows and arrows or spears couldn't help out too, I've seen some big strong chicks IRL that definitely have it in them to kill a mamoth… I also doubt we know the exact relationship between sexes in the time of cavemen, extrapolating from geological evidence wouldn't give you a good picture IMO. Who is to say the men hunted and the women stayed home? Seems like projection of our times onto theirs.

The problem for the men and women of our time is so much more comprehensive in scope it is an intimidating task for us and would be unfathomable to early man in comparison.

We the proletariat, by far the majority of men and women on the planet, have to learn how to fight and win against the ruling class or face complete annihilation. In no uncertain terms, it's either socialism or extinction. And we don't even know what to do exactly.

China has a long term plan to grow their productive forces to the point that a socialist model of production is superior. Even this goal remains to be realized. But even if we in the west are completely fucked, even if we don't know what to do yet, we must struggle. In the words of the witch: there is no alternative.

Ironically I think it's OP that needs to man up and read serious theory and start thinking about actual material issues, not some feels-based creative writing about how to be more of a man based on whatever definition of manliness some other man created.

>>7881
This. Most discussions about masculinity often delve into the same cartoonish impression of "Conan The Barbarian" against some giants or fighting an epic war.


Gender roles were mainly just about who makes seed and who bleeds every month
All that "women are dainty and must be worshipped" is a modern invention made by Germanics.

>>7886
Sounds like you genuinely want to help people. Based as fuck.

This isn't a bad thing, per se, but, this seems like it was written by AI. Does using AI to draft your paragraphs make it harder for the glow uyghurs to track you?

>>7891
Yes, using AI in some cases can help protect your privacy. As to if this was writen by AI, no it was edited by AI.

>>7887
I want to do my best to help. I am qualified to help so their for I must to help better society.

>>7209
Which ones in particular?

>>7214
What's it to you? mind your own business.

>>7215
No need to be upset anon, I was just curious. After all, this thread is about what books we're reading.

>>7204
The three body problem is amazing! Best scifi series I've read. I just finished the second book in the series, The Dark Forest and it was great. I can highly recommend this, I couldn't put it down.

>>7888
Yeah such a wild ride.
I want to second this epic book recommendation.

>>7871
I see what looks like a vocabulary translation table in the pictures. It has what appears to be simplified Chinese characters with English translations. And some other stuff that appears to lack context.

When you ask
>What does it say?
it?
I find my self confused.

>>7877
The characters have pronunciations its a dictionary entry so even if it's AI slop it still can be read out loud.

It's an interesting puzzle.

Answer The first character is obviously huang or hong depending on the accent.

>>7819
What do you want to know ?
Are you the OCD guy that asked for archiving ? I didn't know what to reply because i didn't really understand the request.

I'm here but I'm very tired.
I'll see if I can help tomorrow.

>>7820
>Are you the OCD guy that asked for archiving ?
yes

guys, I overcome my OCD symptoms for today!

>>7829
Congrats

As to your request
https://archive.org/details/FalsificatorsOfHistoryAnHistoricalNoteTextOfCommuniqueIssued
Straight from Stalin's pen The Falsificators of History

>>7811
>The real problem is that college is over-promoted as the golden ticket to the good life.
This is inherently a left-wing problem. The leftist myth that all humans are born as blank slates with equal potential means there is no reason why everyone should not go to college and become brain surgeons. If they fail it must be some environmental cause like systemic-racism or not enough socialism.

>Most people think college is gonna save them from doing elbow grease hence why college expenses are so high.
College fees are high in western countries because the government guarantees the loans and the government has infinite money. Do you really think that greedy capitalist investors would give out $200,000 loans to 18 year olds to study gender theory otherwise? If you're smart you'll ask the real question which is what is the government getting from the universities in exchange for propping up their insanely high tuition fees.

>>7812
First off, it's liberals who over promoted college not leftists.
Second, most young people who get loans for college are not going into gender studies. That's a conservative myth.

The real purpose of promoting college is to reinforce the institution of adolescence.

>>7814
>First off, it's liberals who over promoted college not leftists.
It doesn't matter how much you hate them liberals are not right-wing.

>most young people who get loans for college are not going into gender studies.
It doesn't change the point which is that as long as there are kids who are somehow getting massive loans to study economically nonviable degree subjects then there is no business justification for a private profit maximizing entity to expect that loan to be repaid unless the government was intervening.

>That's a conservative myth.
Breathing oxygen is a conservative myth. Better start holding your breath you fucking white supremacist.

>>7815
lots of strawmen here.
How many college kids do you encounter that actually do gender studies?
Again thats an outlier.
Most are going into STEM.

Again schools need to preach about trades but wont do so.

>>7816
>How many college kids do you encounter that actually do gender studies?
The post you are responding to does not mention gender studies.

>strawmen
Do you know what projection is.

So, there is a huge thing about black Britons and Canadians being the superior intellects of their race, which given the eugenism of the English, suited them just find.

>>7738
>Empires always rejig and restructure their "system", as do most functional states.
No they don't adapt, when their systems begin to fail, they close their eyes to reality and double down on the old formula ignoring that it no longuer works. The British empire collapsed rather suddenly because they charged into the Suez crisis like oblivious morons, following the imperial recipe. The ruling class in the UK still tries to larp as great imperial power, even-though they haven't been, for 80 years. They send an imperial delegation to India , to lecture them about not toeing the line on sanctions against Russia, and the Indian government just ignored it. Look at the neocons, how they're running the US empire in the ground. They're continuing a strategy that doesn't work anymore.

>Empires ARE NOT ECONOMIC PROPOSITIONS
That's just ridiculous, do you think they run on volunteer work ?

>After the fact, the imperial religion declares that the imperial authorities command nature at all levels, or in the current rendition, ARE "Nature" and the ruling aristocracy is identified with Nature itself
I have notice that too. The ideology is a bit weird considering what we do to nature. Trees a nature and those get cut with chainsaws.

>>7746
This is retarded thinking. Empires are not autistic. The ruled are treated as if they are autistic, cajoled infinitely at the lowest cost possible. The present empire explicitly does this and has a scientific approach to alienating its subjects absolutely - declaring them "IQ 0". Past empires did this imperfectly, but never once did empires exist to offer the subjects nice things.

Do you not see your error? Everything you believe is premised on the belief that the empire gives its subjects nice things, and has been corrupted somehow by malevolent, impure actors, and that this can be corrected technocratically. Numerous assumptions about nature, human beings, information, history, reality, intelligence, thought, consciousness, and so on, must be inserted. The people who think autistically are not the rulers, who are perfectly aware of what they are doing and the distinction between them and those who will only be lied to. Ideology is for the slaves, who are taught to believe that the projection of power is power itself, and that "there is no spoon", to quote that stupid and infantile movie.

It is flabbergasting to me that I have to say these things, but I have to, because this stupid idea has been promulgated ad nauseum. Every time you repeat it, the masters smirk, knowing they have yet another rube. I try to dissect this, only to have to repeat myself. It truly is a mental illness. Basic concepts of what this is are rendered inadmissible, and they are replaced with this "total and unknowable system" that builds new contradictions to cover itself. The worst thing anyone can do is lie to themselves. Lie to others if you like - you should consider the consequences of this habitual lying, especially since ordinary subjects never believed in this - but if you lie to yourself, you are the only fool.

You see here that every concept of reality you hold is based on assumptijons on top of assumptions, which all much line up "just so", presenting a total system which is immutable and unknowable except as "contradictions". It's a pure magic trick, and you're an idiot for believing in it, when basic sense would tell you the folly and how this hasn't worked once for the slaves. Again, this was worked out as a science long before we were born. The Southern slave system was premised on such a science, the precursor to such habitual lying given a religPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Who believes in this ideology? It is a religion for the courtiers who are kept out of the know and away from any lever - knowing just enough to push the buttons in the death camps. They're the slaves of the slaves, ad infinitum. Such habitual lying is the basis of every hitherto known slavery - that is, slave systems are always premised on a known lie, and glorify explicitly injustice in every deed and every institution supporting a particular slavery. The power of Lie is the point. This only works so far as knowledge translates into any material agency, and so it is always supplemented with a vast preponderance of violence. Therefore, slave patrols and the chief function of militias being to put down slave revolts, which they very effective at doing. It was the first such system, which if you understood American history and you clearly do not, is something the political class in America were perfectly aware of. No slave master is ignorant of how slaveries operate. To an extent, the slaves must be aware of the modus operandi of slavery, lest they forget their place in the order, and this knowledge is never limited purely to what the master pedagogically allows. The made-up history where masters immaculately controlled all information Negro slaves received never actually happened at the level of the subject. The slaves were perfectly aware that they were slaves, and would always be slaves - they would always be uyghurs, and the repetition of "uyghur" was deliberate and habitual. They wrote books on how to utilize language to this effect, and encouraged it among the slaves themselves. The full operating details of a slavery do not need to be known, but no one in a slave society believes slavery operates by unknowable laws. All operations of a slave system are knowable, even more than the knowability of anything we regard as nature or in the domain of science. Where science began with doubt and neutrality - humans are, by nature, alien to the world beyond the fact of their material constitution, and nothing about us is "dialectically tethered" to anything else by immutable laws - slavery begins with "perfect information in perfect systems", and seeks to remake reality in a given ecology in accord with the general plan of the slave system. This plan is always made by some rational agency in order to exist. Nature did not provide any slavery ready-made for us, for they are always institutions made by men, and enforced by men. If the slaves themselves enforce thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Just as the slaves are quite aware that slavery is a bunch of bullshit, those that the slaves are induced to kick down have always known that their suffering - the truest suffering and the true purpose of the human race in total, with no possibility of redemption ever - is wholly unnecessary, not even desirable as a quality in of itself. But, every slavery in history has been democidal and vicious. It is the core conceit of the commons - the technological interest - that slavery can be made automatic, efficient, and natural. By doing so, the common producers are convinced they possess a perpetual motion machine that feeds their social superiors whatever tribute is necessary, and eventually would allow the technocrats to usurp the proprietors and aristocrats - to become the new aristocracy. New nobles. New gods. This is the central imperial myth, if you know British and American history and the counterparts of such in most of the world. It is a particularly Satanic myth, and the rise of Babylonian Satanism and its priors was a unique event in human history. Every other such recurrence was long ago subsumed into the original, since an abiding quality of Satanists is that they always seek the greatest and universal Satan for any niche they inhabit. Where there were for example Chinese subjects amenable to the Satan, they were the first to abase themselves to the white conquerors, who were in that time the earthly representatives of Babylonian Satanism.

>>7666
>>communist nazion
A splendid joke fiftoid, now face the swinhole.
>industry ist corporati-
BLAM

>>7666
>See Communist China for the supreme example of Communism.
China considers it self to be lower-stage socialism building towards communism. They have different words for it and they use more stages. So currently they are in the primary stage of socialism and by 2035 they want to be in the stage of moderately prosperous society they have more stages for 2050 and then 2080 and so on.


>>7676
>China is only communist in name.
No they call them selves socialist. which means not yet communist.

>>7677
>That can't really be true when every major industry is nationalized.
The communist party in china hasn't really nationalized that much, only the heights of the economy, and often it's only partially nationalized.

Anyway they kinda moved past the system of asserting direct governmental authority with the big official hammer in order to influence the direction of their economy. Companies above a certain size are required to have a Chinese communist party carder and they can influence investment decisions to a considerable degree. It's a novel approach where they went for political influence over surplus allocation.

These carders them selves are subject to what the Chinese call deliberative democracy, which means they have to seek out the approval from the people who are affected by the decisions they make. It's a little bit like the mass-line in Maoism, but a much more localized version, with considerable autonomy from the party hierarchy.

The Chinese have been decentralizing power, delegating more decision-powers downwards in the hierarchy. I think that was part of rejuvenation of society or something like that, i don't recall the actual name.

It's peculiar that it's official policy from Beijing. In all of history there has been a tendency of power-centralization, and when i say tendency i really mean an iron-rule. All systems centralized into bigger structures and socialist projects were no exception. Up until recently decentralization has never come from the center, so far it came because of pressure from below or because power-structures fail (like the fall of the roman empire)

The Chinese have obsessively analyzed the dissolution of the Soviet system and the collapse of the Soviet block that followed. My speculation is that they're hedging against that.

A philosophy does not make directly claims about history or truth. It asks how the answer would be found, and almost never is philosophy dogma or totalizing in the way you presume. "Dialectical materialism" wasn't even used in Marx's lifetime, nor was it identical with Marxism or unique to Marxism. Marx for his part described it as "my method" and mentioned his tutelage under Hegel. The explanation in Capital is not one requiring as esoteric philosophy. It is an explanation intelligible to any student of classical political economy. The point of contention wasn't whether Marx had the correct philosophy, but whether his claims described reality or anything the critics considered relevant. Marx in Capital is not suggesting any necessary cosmology where you only could use his super special cipher to know reality. You could make the same claims without "diamat" or any Hegelian baggage, or claims similar enough to come to the same conclusions about capital. But, to deal with the subject matter requires clarity of what classical political economy was really about, and that's where the confusion sets in. There are those who claim Marx's argument is that political economy was a pseudoscience, but I saw the argument not as that - because economics was never a "science" in the first place and was never presented as such except by bad economists that Marx among others ripped into. Science in the genuine sense had already established that economics is not a science, and the subject matter was entirely alien to science. I saw the real claim of Marx being that capital was not what it purported to be - that it was amoral and could not be made moral, and money itself could not be made moral. Value was not a moral consideration at all for Marx, while it was for classical political economy - that is, none of political economy makes sense unless there is some moral purpose or reason why anyone would agree to this exchange, rather than just taking stuff or extracting wealth "in kind". Adam Smith's arguments didn't pertain to the workers - in Smith's estimation, the workers were slaves and had no say whatsoever in their circumstances, and weren't "really human" in the fullest sense. If the workers were "manumitted" and made something of themselves, that's super, but workers as workers had no rights. They were chattel under the dominion of the King and the Poor Laws, and the American rebels were little better and engaged in some foolishness - foolishness which his faction and bPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Okay so with that out of the way, nearly everything you describe has nothing to do with socialism or commmunism as any proposition. You're describing a hyper specific unicorn as if it were a product in the supermarket of ideology, and yet this unicorn is never described as if it were something humans would actually use. This is intended and its a meme that was advanced because no one really believed in communism for a long time.

Even if you were seeking to describe this unicorn, or you were proposing those descriptors as a real situation which has nothing to do with historical communism/socialism, none of that requires a philosophical explanation of why it is natural and inevitable. For one, Marx never said "the perfect unicorn version of communism is inevitable and history will produce it with no volition whatsoever, yet the revolution will be bloody and I am the Evil Overlord Xenu". Communist parties were, like any political organ, active participants in history, and they always had programs written by the Party rather than an esoteric interpretation of unchanging dogma. So right there, philosophy and the theory don't make prophecies of that sort. Marxism was never predictive in that sense, and that's a common charge made against them. It didn't stop the stupider of them from hectoring others as if they did believe that, but most of that was the Marxist contempt for anyone they considered stupid or worthless, which is basically everyone who didn't get what this really was.

In the formation of their actual programs, and the platforms presented for the public - because this had to be handed off to actual people who had to make something functional - philosophy was far removed from the explanation. The Party theoreticians had to maintain fidelity to reality. Only when the wheels came off the bus - the 1950s and late 40s were the indicators that we were on the Evil Timeline - did the theoreticians retreat into kookville and turbocharged fads and pseudoscience, with the Secret Speech being so awful that good Soviet citizens had heart attacks after listening to such an abomination against history. It was that galling and insane.

The particular mental illness you're struggling with is anarchism, particularly Fabian-built philosophical anarchism. Let's deconstruct what you're writing. What does it mean to "democratically own the means of production?" If you think the answer is abasement to an abstract demos that will think for you, youPost too long. Click here to view the full text.