/edu/ - Education

>>1723
(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 ~

>>1720
>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.)

>>1723
>>1724
>>1725
>>1726
dilate

>>1711
>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.
Man, you have got to read Marx.

>>1711
>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.
Good job outing yourself as a high schooler. Literally no adult with a mature brain believes in that myth.

anyone know sites with good history boards?

>>629
How can anyone rationally believe that when the easier answer is that you only learn European history in school?

>>706
Bunkerchan.xyz/edu
It’d be good if we had more people.

>>717
>>706
I sexond this one

>>1
I like how in his latest video he was clearly butthurt about clever political maneuvering by Tito at the expense of the british LMAO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D87vVWjtp_U

>>1611
sometimes right-wing idiots can still make good content. See TiK vidoes before he came out as a libertardian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc-rFzC63hU

>>1
He's fun to listen to but a British nationalist so I don't take him seriously on anything related to the UK.

>>2076
"Denying Hitler was a socialist means denying the holocaust happened"

>>306
If you are into medieval weapons and martial arts scholagladiatoria blows them all out of the water and is not a retarded right winger:
https://www.youtube.com/user/scholagladiatoria

>>2446
Marxists acknowledge that contradictions are inherent to all things in themselves across all times. There is no such thing as an absolute harmony which can be disturbed or reach. Hence dialectics are anti-determinist at a fundamental zero-level.

Historical determinism is often used to mean the belief that history is outside the control of humanity and instead happens to them like the weather.

Meanwhile Marx claimed that humans are capable of consciously changing their material conditions (by "revolutionary activity").

Pynchon is very fun to read

>>630
My personal favorite is 77

>>2460
It’s not a book about ideology per se, however it’s an incredible book. It’s a story about childhood’s end, fear, anger, nostalgia, with some midlife crisis stuff thrown in. It’s great

>>2478
lol
She just thinks Nabakov was the century's finest prose stylist.

>>2427
Well put comrade, have you read Hinterland, by Phil Neel?

>>2428
>I also am unclear why you find urban environments to be hostile. I agree with your opinion but my reasons are more mundane: vehicle traffic, noise pollution, actual pollution, lack of space for gatherings.

None of these are inherent to the city-form. An advanced socialist city of the future could avoid or minimize these issues. I do not share the contempt for cities, but I admit that there is a large untapped potential to them. We could create clean, green, efficient, humane and beautiful cities - capitalism stands in the way.

>>2430
>None of these are inherent to the city-form
Not that anon, but the entire history of cities is that of people being forced into them out of brute desperation in search of opportunities for sustenance, falling to ruin both as individuals and generationally all their time there, and fleeing as far from the city center as they can manage the moment they claw together enough resources to afford it.

It's pretty obvious that people just really, really hate living in cities.

>>2426
Honestly, I'm against trying to predict the future, but I think it's hard not to let some of the "kill me now" nihilistic millennial humor creep into my thought process. Not least because I've been guilty of perpetuating that nonsense myself.

>>2431
>It's pretty obvious that people just really, really hate living in cities
I disagree. People hate living in shitty cities.

No because it was based on Adorno’s misunderstanding of dialectics in the first place. If you actually pay attention to Hegel you’ll see that Dialectics and Negative Dialectics are pretty much the same.

>>2392
You're saying the only difference is that Adorno evaluates it negatively? There seems to be more to it from what I heard.

>>2433
From what I’ve read, Adorno tries to argue against the idea that, in substation, contradictions are abstracted rather than sustained, but it’s based on his own misinterpretation of how Hegel describes sublation rather than Hegel’s failure to understand it.

>>2434
>substation
*sublation

You want something cringe and fucking.
See this documentary about the chief defender of child molestors visiting Nicaragua
https://invidio.us/watch?v=RAFSwv_5Uc8

Don't quite know what you mean by 'literary historian', but Jehu's got some interesting thoughts on the topic:
https://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/the-great-unsolved-mystery-of-the-20th-century-why-did-the-soviet-union-collapse/
and a later, more in depth series, with more sources:
https://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/according-to-the-central-intelligence-agency-we-almost-reached-communism-by-1980/
https://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2017/11/17/how-the-argument-of-one-economist-helped-kill-the-soviet-union/
https://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2017/11/21/how-labor-hours-reduction-brought-about-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union/

I guess Cockshott in "How the World Works". I described this take before quite a few times on /leftypol/ over the last month, so I am a bit tired of re-writing it here. The gist is this:
>Falling rate of growth kicks in once the economy matures and all the labor available is mobilized from rural jobs into industrial ones
>This causes a stagnation in economic growth
>This causes real wage growth to slow down to a crawl
>This pisses of the middle class, which is becoming envious of their western counterparts that have yet to experience the start of the death of the capitalist middle class
>This, over the course of Brezhnev's premiership, ferments a political crisis of sorts
>Different factions arise to solve the problem, mainly neo-Stalinist hardliners, Centrists and Reformists.
>Statistical chance lands the power in the hand of reformers in 1985
>Their policies, while having some good points, accidentally also wreck the command economy, only deepening the crisis, while the decision to make the country more "democratic" lets reactionaries like Yeltsin, as well as nationalists, get more influence
>This sets of the first few secession, causing more instability, which reactionary forces, specifically having influence in the army, use to seize power
>USSR is undemocratically dissolved

>>2283
In this scenario what should have been done to solve the crisis? Was stagnation inevitable and just apart of socialism or was the solution just computerization like Cockshott proposes?

>>2223
repost from my posts at /his/

The problem of socialist economy was not output distribution, but input allocation.
During 1930s, while the victory in economic front was significant, there was a sign of problem. With the appearance of new production sectors (due to completion of industrialisation), came the problem of fighting for input (funding and manpower).
For example, the fight between Stalin and Trotsky was the precursor of that kind. Behind the ideological struggle was actually an economic problem. Trotsky wanted to turn USSR into an full military-industrialised country (similar to Nazi) in order to carry out world revolution (expansionist), while Stalin wanted to focus on building a robust autarkic economy that could survive the onslaught of enemies (isolationist). But why didn't they combine both approaches, wouldn't it be better than adopting only one approach? The answer was because of limited resources. If we thought of Stalin faction and Trotsky faction as two socialist enterprises, then it's actual a fight for funding.
Another example was the fight between Lysenko school and Western genetics school in biology. Actually, nothing prevented both directions of research to cooperate with each other, but why they didn't? Because in a condition of limited of resources and manpower, if the Lysenko school gained a new researcher, it meant the genetics school lost a researcher (researchers as rare resources). The winning of one faction meant the losing of another one, in the condition of limited resources. As Lenin had said, we need to see the real economic struggle behind every ideological struggle, without doing so, history is still a picture shroud in mysteries.

In the late 1950s, the problem was even more grave. With the advent of many new important economic sectors (nuclear, plasma, advanced agriculture, computing, rocket, space, etc.) the fighting for funding and input came to new level. Every sectors were important, but who would receive the most funding? After the disastrous failure of Khrushchev in his agriculture experiment, everyone was aware painfully that much resources thrown into a project didn't automatically mean success. The question of how to allocate resources raged fiercely.
Eventually, the Kosygin's reform returned a mechanism of capitalism, that is, funding would be allocated accordingly to the PROFIT inPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2341
he's unironically a great mathematician and programmer. I just find it annoying when people shill him on anything philosophy related.

>>2328

Can a mod or someone reach out to him and have him do an AMA here on a pinned thread? That would be cool

>>2351
Zizek is a fucking joke and the fact that you cite him favorably in a thread like this speaks volumes.

>>2358
Oh really? Compared to a non-theorist blogger? Zizek has serious work other than cultural takes.

>>2365
You're a silly person and I'm ending this here.