[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Tor Only

Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord

| Catalog | Home

File: 1681201146411.pdf ( 896.27 KB , 232x300 , Towards a New Socialism.pdf )


The purpose of this thread is discuss notes I've written for Towards a New Socialism. I intend to post one chapter's worth of notes per week.
I haven't studied much Marxist or socialist literature, so I hope this thread invites constructive dialogue that provides insight and criticizes any mistakes I've made or key points I've missed.
Please avoid citing the OP as I'll be using mentions to track the notes I've posted.
31 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


2. Eliminating Inequalities

cybersoc gang drops the N-bomb on page 38 of the PDF #CancelCockshott

C&C wish to present an economic model that they claim can effectively eliminate most inequalities generated by capitalism, of which the relevant principles can be traced back to the origins of classical political economy. They argue for an economic system where prices and compensation are based on time.
Such labour certificates differ from money as they are only obtained through labour and exchanged against the products of labour. Labour certificates don't circulate, are non-transferable, are consumed upon use, and can only be redeemed for a limited time. Deductions are made for communal needs, and production is organized on a directly social basis with intermediate products never assuming the form of commodities.
Labour certificates are generally incompatible with markets as fixed labour-time pricing would conflict with fluctuations in supply and demand.

"Trickle-down economics" does very little to improve the living standard of underpaid citizens. The average value created per hour of labour by British employees in 1987 is £7.50 (not adjusted for inflation) [see table 2.1], and the only group earning more than £300 weekly (total value per week) was the top 25% of male white-collar workers. Therefore, the abolition of exploitation benefits the vast majority of employees over shareholders and property owners. The total value produced would still have to be taxed, and likely at relatively high rates, but such tax rates can be given legitimacy by subjecting them to direct democratic control. Such a system stands in contrast to how private enterprises and oligarchies provide little legitimacy for their own distribution of wealth.

In economics, rent is a metaphor for a monopoly price that can be charged by the owner of a scarce resource. A temporary rise in the market price of scarce labour is a sort of "rent", one which naturally draws more recruits when barriers to entry are low and thus tends to eliminate itself over time. A socialized system of education, training and labour allocation can more easily communicate and resolve labour shortages. Otherwise, barring solutions that deal with a general lack of labour, specific labour shortages in capitalism are oftenPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


Is it possible for leftists to have reasonable positions such as
>We should have less inequality but still accept and maintain some inequality
Asking for a friend?


>In capitalism, differential rewards for degrees of worker ability and performance manifests as unemployment, poverty, bonuses, promotions and tokens of appreciation. Although a socialist economy ought to avoid the former two, it will still require differential rewards. Such should take the form of grading individual labour output in relation to average productivity and adjusting payment accordingly, ideally without attaching any stigma to workers of a lower grade. Overall rates of pay would still be fixed, in order to keep the total issue of labour tokens equal to total hours worked.


>Is it possible for leftists to have a position such as
>We should have less inequality but still accept and maintain some inequality

Yes certain types of labor will get extra bonus-payments, either because they require a rare talent or because they come with unusual risks and stress factors. But you only get the pay-incentives not the social status. You'll have more purchasing power to buy stuff but you're not going to be allowed to pretend you're better than the janitor, the street-sweeper, the trash-collector, the construction-worker, the assembly-line-worker, the receptionist, the window-cleaner, the restaurant-server, and so on. The culture will be that of proletarian solidarity, we're going to have none of that pseudo-aristocratic master and servant bullshit.


Yes, working women are oppressed, not bourgeois women.

File: 1682345166713.jpg ( 94.75 KB , 842x900 , trotsky11.jpg )


I keep reading that Trotskyism is about opposition to Stalinist bureaucracy. Trots don't want the means of production to be run by a 'red bourgeoisie' or 'new class' or statist bureaucracy.

Ok, that's all well and good, but if not a statist bureaucracy then who?

Who would Trotsky say should plan the economy?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


Trotsky argued for the 'militarization' (i.e., conscription) of labor. He literally wanted to march citizens into factories at bayonet point. Recasting him as some democratic alternative to Stalin was probably the biggest leftoid fantasy of all.


File: 1684256381440.jpg ( 92.13 KB , 800x1000 , it's you or them.jpg )

>Le jewkike judas Trotzky wanted to throw le roozkie peepull into the boiler of militarization!11
>All in all he was basically Stalin but an ultra and mad!
>Daddy Stalin and his mafioso bratva in the state propaganda told me so!

You asstarded miserably inbred bitchbrainfuck. The Really Existing Trotsky was the first bolshevik partyboyo who, as any so-called marxist, knowing what a toll any militarization of labor lands onto the ones who has to endure it, & as a motherfucking commander of the WPRA, who was seeing with his own eyes the extent of this toll, started to propose a change of the politique of the so-called "War Communism" into a "War Tax". But his fellow jewkike judas Blank rejected that proposal, supposedly to throw le innocent roozke peepull into the boiler of the World Revolution! Ah, if only the good friend of Mister Henry Ford, our dear Mister Stalin have shot him before this!

There truly aren't more reckless antichrists than the "Christians".
& there truly aren't more reckless antisocialists, anticommunists & antimarxists, than the retards who call themselves "marxists", and who to this day are parrotting chauvinistic propaganda of some fucking bueraucratic/managerial state that was notorious for crushing any proletarian dissent under its yoke. It degenerated in its' thermidore so hard that the proletarians (le true "'marxists'-'leninists'", of course, won't see any contradiction here) have started to support even fucking neocons over these bastards! Except that these neocons were the same bueraucrats who have finally got a chance at tearing apart the state property into their private one, playing on the people's alienation from the property they have always worked on under the supposed "socialism", & their subsequent interest in free market capitalism for its' innate means for acquiring @ least SOME kind of own property: having a 0,2% chance @ getting definetily your own means of production are still better than being a hopeless wageslave to your managers' state which owns everything & won't ever part anything witPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


stalin's collectivization plan was the one initially proposed by trotsky (that stalin pretended to oppose in order to kneecap trotsky's political power). stalin then pretended he came up with the idea after trotsky's fall from power.

and lenin's program of dragging a feudal country straight to socialism was aped from trotsky's permanent revolution theory.

the ussr effectively WAS trotsky's vision, just implemented by other people.

it's not out of character for him to hypocritically complain about it though, he defended the Party's crackdowns on civil liberties and political disenfranchisements right up until the moment he fell victim to them.


>stalin's collectivization plan was the one initially proposed by trotsky
Keep in mind the material reality that early 20th century Russia was in dire need to mechanize it's agriculture. The Kulak big landlord class wasn't going to do it because they were still in the feudal game, they wanted to lord over hordes of peasants not administer machine capital like tractors and fertilizer chemical plants, they didn't have any industrial production and probably didn't know how to use it even if they had. The feudal elites were often barely literate. So the state taking over big parts of agriculture for industrializing the agrarian sector probably wasn't a very unique idea at that time.

With hindsight it would probably have been better to make a giant state run tractor factory and diesel fuel refinery as the public sector, and then give worker owned farm cooperatives access to those resources in a bartering exchange for grain. The coops would basically have gotten a massive industrial subsidy, enabling them to take over all the Kulak farms by out-competing them economically. They also should have send out communist cadres to subsistence farmers (ie famly farms ) to teach them how to combine into a cooperative to get access to industrial farming tools they could share.

Eventually the coops would have reproduced the same monopolization dynamics as exist in capitalist markets and once big coops starts doing monopoly-capital tricks or rent-seaking, they can be fully collectivized into a public industry. This would have produced no chaotic political drama because the only opposition would have been a narrow slice of coop managers that were seeking to convert coops into private capital. That's much easier to deal with than a legacy ruling class with a deeply entrenched political network.


Why is Trotsky and Trostkites hates agian?

File: 1669011420678.jpg ( 15.11 KB , 353x500 , 41VCBqRMNML._AC_SY780_.jpg )

 No.7043[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

A while back, I wrote a summary of every chapter from Robert Greene's '48 Laws of Power.'

If you haven't read it, I'd highly recommend. These summaries don't do the book justice, since I've stripped away the historical anecdotes and quotes which really make the work come to life. However, I think there are still some interesting tidbits and lessons in these summaries, so I thought I'd share.
97 posts and 15 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



From Robert Greene:
"People weighed down by a system and inflexible ways of doing things cannot move fast, cannot sense or adapt to change… Learn to move fast and adapt or you will be eaten."

"…Assume formlessness. No predator alive can attack what it cannot see."

"With mobility you can isolate the opponent in small areas and then encircle them."

"Your speed and mobility make it impossible to predict your moves; unable to understand you, your enemy can form no strategy to defeat you. Instead of fixing on particular spots, this indirect form of warfare spreads out, just as you can use the large and disconnected nature of the real world to your advantage. Be like a vapor. Do not give your opponent's anything solid to attack; watch as they exhaust themselves pursuing you, trying to cope with your elusiveness."

"Power can only thrive if it is flexible in its forms. To be formless is not to be amorphous; everything has a form - it is impossible to avoid. The formlessness of power is more like that of water, or mercury, taking the form of whatever is around it. Changing constantly, it is never predictable."

"This is the ultimate form of strategy. The war of engagement has become far too dangerous and costly; indirection and elusiveness yield far better results at a much lower cost. The main cost, in fact, is mental - the thinking it takes to align your forces and scattered patterns, and to undermine the minds and psychology of your opponents. And nothing will infuriate and disorient them more than formlessness. In a world where wars of detachment are the order of the day, formlessness is crucial."

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1682916792449.jpg ( 1.07 MB , 2250x1170 , IMG_20230501_114943.jpg )

I'm reading 'Laws of Human Nature' now.

It's pretty good, but he's not very hot on totalizing political philosophies or grand causes. I'm half way through, but I may post more excerpts itt later


at first I thought you were trolling, but you actually read this garbage. lmao


>Be leftychan faggot
>Dirty, bad hygiene
>Populate a dead board
>Have a outlook so divorced from reality that maintaining an online space where you're not ruthlessly mocked requires heavy censorship
>Get sick of censorship because, muh 'they censor too much'
>Create a new board
>[Oh shit. I don't actually have anything original to say. I know, I'll talk about anime] (totally and 100% a fully developed adult btw)
>Thankfully someone posts something outside of the braindead leftist parameters
>Continue to be dirty
>Continue life of faggotry



File: 1619962959269.jpg ( 25.35 KB , 333x499 , 41PsmEgQu7L._SX331_BO1,204….jpg )


Most of the books I see about Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge and Kamdoji from those years portray these things as badly as possible, and compare Pol Pot himself to a mini Hitler, or worse. I would like to know if there is a book that justifies Pol Pot and speaks positively about him and the Khmer Rouge. Thank you in advance!
9 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>I would like to know if there is a book that
You don't need any book. History has already vindicated him.


You realize that Cambodians don't even believe this, right?


Good take. I've been to Cambodia and seen the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum in Phnom Penh (converted from a high school to a prison for political prisoners). It's pretty chilling.

But we do need to see these things as a chain of events rather than isolated actions. Indeed, the meddling US ruling class has a lot of responsibility. I'd say that China and the USSR also have some blame, using other nations as pawns, and perhaps precipitating such a brutal regime when it would not have been necessary. They rushed through it and as usually happens when you do that, they fucked up.

Despite best efforts to prevent the red menace from spreading, now nominally "Communist" Vietnam is a rising economic power. Visit sometime … Houses going up everywhere, and many people finally have enough money to leave if that's what they choose to do. I didn't get a sense from the people that the government was anything but something done to them rather than something they were part of, though, so I would guess it's another sham socialism, with maybe some elements to control the worst of capitalism…


>It's only real socialism when people stay poor


Not sure how that's what you drew from it.

It's not socialism if it's undemocratic. That's all. You can't force anyone to "do" socialism.

File: 1680432091752.jpg ( 1.5 MB , 1538x2213 , A1yRHFiFImL.jpg )


>have you taken the Hermetic Pill?

The Hermetic Principles provide a deep understanding of the workings of the universe and how we can align ourselves with the natural laws that govern it. Each principle offers practical advice that can be applied in our daily lives to improve our wellbeing, relationships, and spiritual growth.

>Principle of Mentalism.

This principle highlights the power of our thoughts and beliefs. Our minds are powerful tools that can be used to create our reality. By focusing on positive, constructive ideas, we can attract abundance and happiness into our lives. Conversely, negative and self-limiting thoughts can hold us back and limit our potential. To use this principle effectively, we must learn to cultivate a positive mindset, practice gratitude, and visualize our goals.

>Principle of Correspondence.

This principle emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things in the universe. Everything is connected, and what we do to others, we do to ourselves. Understanding this principle helps us cultivate empathy and compassion for others, as well as for the natural world. By recognizing the impact of our actions on others, we can make more conscious choices and act in ways that benefit everyone.

>Principle of Vibration.

This principle recognizes that everything in the universe is in a state of vibration. Our thoughts, emotions, and physical bodies are all vibrating at different frequencies. When we are in a state of harmony, we vibrate at a higher frequency, attracting positive experiences into our lives. Conversely, when we are out of balance, we vibrate at a lower frequency, attracting negative experiences. To use this principle effectively, we can use tools like sound therapy, meditation, and energy healing to raise our vibration and align ourselves with the natural rhythms of the universe.

>Principle of Polarity.

This principle acknowledges that everything has an opposite. There is light and dark, hot and cold, and positive and negative. By embracing both sides of a polarity, we can achieve greater balance and harmony in our lives. Every challenge presents an opportunity for growth, and every setback is an opportunity to learn. To use this principle effectively, we must learn to embrace both our light and dark sides and find balanPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1679645702810.jpg ( 3.69 MB , 2250x4000 , IMG_20230323_231647.jpg )


Hey Leftychads
Whatcha readin?
Pic related is the import shipment I just received. Probably going to read the Greene book first since I'm in a springtime lull before I start summer projects. What about u.
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


pretentious faggot
modern screens are better for your eyes than you fag paper books
you can even zoom in


>Hormone disrupted consoomer has logged in


Which ones in particular?


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


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

File: 1608528416302.jpg ( 66.95 KB , 441x441 , HODŽA_druhá_míza.jpg )


I have been never exposed to philosophy out of religion, but I beated the religion with thinking,
I want to learn from zero to all the way into marx, make a reading road for me
>pic unrelated
8 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Also it's just western philosophy.


>all these recommendations for ML crap
If you want to get into marxism, read Capital. Yeah, it's fucking difficult to grasp, but, to be honest, the primers and such really do not help with that anyway. Besides, it's a blast when you have read one paragraph three times in a row to try to grasp what is being said in it and all the pieces suddenly just fit into place inside your head. It's almost like reading a really good mystery novel. The only bad thing about reading Capital is that, once you see it, you will never stop seeing it.

Oh, and don't skip Volumns 2 and 3. That's where you get an idea of how capitalism is fleshed out by the concepts described in Volumn 1.


Basically read Das Capital.


>Radicalise me from zero
lel, no

read a book



File: 1671510270671.jpg ( 81.76 KB , 360x572 , default.jpg )


>Noob question

What in dialectical materialism is the explanation for how communism, defined as a classless society in which workers democratically own/control the means of production, is likely or even possible. What real evidence has affirmed this position over the past 170 old years, since Marx was writing about this subject? Like, I can understand that contradictions are inherent in capitalism, but I don't really understand how the resolve themselves in communism. What's the correct position/logic here, or is it something of an article of faith?
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>What in dialectical materialism is the explanation for how communism, defined as a classless society in which workers democratically own/control the means of production, is likely or even possible.
They would not technically be "workers" at that point, just the people who do the work.
>Like, I can understand that contradictions are inherent in capitalism, but I don't really understand how the resolve themselves in communism.
Oh, that is a complicated subject. Understanding the nature of those contradictions is key. For example, the cycle of overproduction → speculation → crisis → new efficiency → back around again can only result in systemic degradation as it creates more waste and fewer avenues for high-profit rate investments. The trick is that this cycle is borne out of the very nature of commodity production, thus the only way to break it is to establish a system of production that does not engage in commodity production. To wit, production cannot be done with profits driving it.

There are other examples, of course. The falling rate of profit ensures the inevitable collapse of capitalist production, and the need to make up that production in other ways provides an impartive toward a new economic model. Old models like slavery-based production and feudalism are too inefficient and unproductive to function on a global scale, which is why capitalism was able to supplant them in the first place. The thing is, every sea change in the mode of production must be from a less productive mode to a more productive mode. Otherwise, it would simply be unable to take root against the reaction of the current ruling class. The only way to achieve a mode of production that is more productive that capitalism is is to do something new, something that is not limited by the profit motive; make no mistake–the profit motive is a limiting factor to production.

The difficulty with marxian economics is that there can be no "Basic Economics" curriculum to learn that makes ready sense of it all. It, like economics itself, is esoteric and not always intuitive. Crisis theory, which is essentially what we are discussing, can only be understood by understanding the underlying concepts–what commodities are, how they meet in the real world, how they are acted Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1671569871470.jpg ( 297.01 KB , 1007x1200 , titansgoblet.jpg )

If you mean on a massive glboal social scale then no, but, that is true of any society that is envisioned beyond capitalism. The world now is never the world we wish to see that world become. However, arguably, these small examples can lend us some insight into the world we wish to see the current world become and can be used as a type of standard candle for the path forward. Not to mention historically increases in human freedom have lead to high standards of living.


File: 1671578512644.png ( 40.98 KB , 2026x808 , falling rate of profit in ….png )

What you are asking for is more historical materialism.

Marx observed that once the technical material conditions were ready, class struggle tends to move societies from one mode of production to the next one. For example feudal agrarian society moved to capitalist industrial society when industrial tech came online and the bourgeoisie fought a class struggle against the aristocratic feudal rulers.

The reason for thinking that the working class inherits civilization is because the falling rate of profit will render the capitalist class an impediment to the development of the productive forces.

That means the ruling classes get overthrown when they no longer can advance the productive forces. That's a physics thing and it happens because newer and more advanced productive forces can generate more entropy. And our universe has a rule that configurations of matter that are better at generating entropy are more likely to exist, then those that generate less entropy. Life it self exists because living organisms are better at increasing entropy than dead rocks and mud. It's a statistical effect, that says once the technical basis for industrial society exists most of agrarian society gets replaced sooner than later.

Societies can also fail to move to a new mode of production and then the contradictions of the old system destroys it.
But not all societies fail and the ones that accomplish leveling up to the new mode of production will fill in the void left behind by the ones that failed.


There was a lot more reason to be optimistic when Marx was alive and during the early 20th century. At this current point in time I would say that we are on the path to just ending in societal collapse rather than moving towards a communist society.


Good answer, and I agree with how you spelled out the contradictions of capitalism. My question, however, stems from this:

>The thing is, every sea change in the mode of production must be from a less productive mode to a more productive mode. Otherwise, it would simply be unable to take root against the reaction of the current ruling class. The only way to achieve a mode of production that is more productive that capitalism is is to do something new, something that is not limited by the profit motive; make no mistake–the profit motive is a limiting factor to production.

I guess my question is: there seems to be two somewhat contradictory statements regarding a potential socialist/communist future. First, the next phase in the mode of production must be able to technologically/productively outcompete capitalism. Secondly, presumably an economic system not centered around profit would have to be centered around some other end. What would that end be, which when implemented is still able to outmode capitalism on a technical/physical basis, and doesn't form the basis of some hellscape in its own rite.

This is what my question specifically pertains to. What about dialectical materialism and world history since Marx's lifetime suggests the likelihood or even possiblity of the development of a a classless mode of production simply defined by empowered workers acting in free association?

File: 1624104941977.jpg ( 53.53 KB , 372x527 , 25c152f05db607899e97d2b75b….jpg )


Post video recordings of lectures and announcements for online lectures.

>inb4 schitzos like peterson or other rightwingers

this is /leftypol/ faggot
>inb4 Richard D. Wolff
all his lectures i have seen so far are just very basic stuff if you find some more advanced stuff post it

I want to focus this thread on philosophy, history and political economy on an academic level.
19 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Michael Heinrich: The bourgeois state: class domination on the basis of freedom and equality


The Imperial Paradox: Ideologies of Empire by Professor Ellen Meiksins Wood


Visualizing Capital by Professor David Harvey


Ba'athism: Ideology, History, Revolution


File: 1666636055093.jpeg ( 197.67 KB , 747x1200 , virginand4angles.jpeg )


i absolutely, love, classical art. I mostly blame this on my love for the resident evil series which introduced me to tons of classic oil canvas art.

anyways, can we have an art dump? I'll start with virgin and 4 angles.
2 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1666636817472.jpg ( 117.74 KB , 512x900 , saint-michael-overthrowing….jpg )



What's the name?


File: 1666642385558.png ( 2.45 MB , 1914x804 , index.png )

A still life with fruit, dead game, and a parrot.



Holofernes had been dispatched by Nebuchadnezzar to take vengeance on Israel, which had withheld assistance in his most recent war. Having occupied every country along the coastline, Holofernes destroyed all worship of gods other than Nebuchadnezzar. Holofernes was warned against attacking the Jewish people by Achior, the leader of the Ammonites; however, he laid siege regardless to the city of Bethulia, commonly believed to be Meselieh. The city almost fell to the invading army; Holofernes' advance stopped the water supply to Bethulia, leading to its people encouraging their rulers to give in to Holofernes' demands. The leaders vowed to surrender if no help arrived within five days.[1] Bethulia was saved by Judith, a Hebrew widow, who entered the camp of Holofernes, seduced him, and got him drunk before beheading him. Judith returned to Bethulia with the severed head of Holofernes, having defeated the army.

Hebrew versions of the tale in the Megillat Antiochus and the Chronicles of Jerahmeel identify "Holofernes" as Nicanor; the Greek version used "Holofernes" as deliberately cryptic substitute, similarly using "Nebuchadnezzar" for Antiochus.

Holofernes is depicted in Geoffrey Chaucer's The Monk's Tale in The Canterbury Tales, and in Dante's Purgatorio (where Holofernes is to be found on the Terrace of Pride as an example of "pride cast down", XII.58–60). As a painter's subject he offers the chance to contrast the flesh and jewels of a beautiful, festively attired woman with the grisly head of the victim, a deuterocanonical parallel to the Yael sequence in the Hebrew Bible, as well as the New Testament vignette of Salome with the head of John the Baptist.


St. Michael by Raphael

Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 / 35 / 36 ]
| Catalog | Home