/edu/ - Education

Aleksander Dugin delivered his "Special Operation" effort today… smile, the world is better.

I really like the picture in OP. More like it plz.

>>7207
Don't feed thetroll.

Not everyone can stair at a computer screen for 24+ hours.

>>7211
pretentious faggot
modern screens are better for your eyes than you fag paper books
you can even zoom in

>>7209
Which ones in particular?

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

<40 - DESPISE THE FREE LUNCH

From Robert Greene:

>"What is offered for free or at a bargain rate often comes with a psychological price tag - complicated feelings of obligation, compromises with quality, the insecurity those compromises bring, on and on. The powerful learn early to protect their most valuable resources: independence and room to maneuver."

>"Generosity softens people up - to be deceived. By gaining a reputation for liberality, you win people's admiration while distracting them from your power plays."

>“For everyone able to play with money, thousands more are locked in a self-destructive refusal to use money creatively and strategically. These types represent the opposite pole to the powerful, and you must learn to recognize them - either to avoid there poisonous natures or just turn their inflexibility to your advantage."

>"Powerful people judge everything by what it costs, not just in money but in time, dignity, and peace of mind. And this is exactly what bargain demons cannot do. Wasting valuable time digging for bargains, they worry endlessly about what they could have gotten elsewhere for a little less."

>"Generosity has a definite function in power: it attracts people, softens them up, makes allies out of them. But it has to be used strategically, with a definite end in mind. Indiscriminate givers, on the other hand, are dangerous because they want to be loved and admired by all. And their generosity is so indiscriminate and needy and it may not have the desired effect: If they give to one and all, why should the recipient feel special?"

>"Make power your goal and money will find its way to you."
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

<41 - AVOID STEPPING INTO A GREAT MAN'S SHOES

From Robert Greene:

>"Power depends on appearing larger than other people, and when you are lost in the shadow of the father, the king, the great predecessor, you cannot possibly project such a presence."

>"Alexander [the Great] knew he had to make himself the very opposite of his domineering father: he would force himself to be bold and reckless, he would control his tongue and be a man of few words, and he would not lose precious time in pursuit of pleasure that brought no glory… But Alexander had the same relationship to his own deeds as he had to his father: his conquest of Persia represented the past, and he was never to rest on past triumphs, or to allow the past to outshine the present."

>"Only the weak rest on their laurels and dote on past triumphs; in the game of power there is never time to rest."

>"The distance you establish from your predecessor often demand some symbolism, a way of advertising itself publicly."

>"Never let yourself be seen as following your predecessor’s path. If you do you will never surpass him. You must physically demonstrate your difference, by establishing a style and symbolism that sets you apart."

>"Most people are afraid to break so boldly with tradition, but they secretly admire those who can break up the old forms and reinvigorate the culture."
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

<42 - STRIKE THE SHEPHERD AND THE SHEEP WILL SCATTER

From Robert Greene:

>"Within any group, trouble can most often be traced to a single source, the unhappy, the chronically dissatisfied one who will always stir up dissension and infect the group with his or her ill ease. Before you know what hit you, that the satisfaction spreads. Act before it becomes impossible to disentangle one strand of misery from another, or to see how the whole thing started. First, recognize troublemakers by their overbearing presence, or by their complaining nature. Once you spot them do not try to reform them or appease them - that will only make things worse. Do not attack them, whether directly or indirectly, for they are poisonous in nature and we'll work underground to destroy you… Banish them before it is too late."

>"Do not waste time lashing out in all directions at what seems to be a many-headed enemy. Find the one head that matters - the person with willpower, or smarts, or, most important of all, charisma. Whatever it costs you, lure this person away, for once he is absent his powers will lose their effect."

>"In every group, power is concentrated in the hands of one or two people, for this is one area in which human nature will never change: people will congregate around a single strong personality and like planets orbiting the Sun."

>"Powerful people never waste time. Outwardly they may play along with the game - pretending that power is shared among many - but inwardly they keep their eyes on the inevitable few in the group who hold the cards."

>"It is often better to isolate your enemies than to destroy them - you seem less brutal. The result, though, is the same, for in the game of power isolation spells death."

Power is everywhere. Even among your detractors and rivals, power exists. Rather than attacking in a blunt fashion, it is often better to surgically strike the source of the problem.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

<43 - WORK ON THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF OTHERS

From Robert Greene:

>"Coercion creates a reaction that will eventually work against you. You must seduce others into wanting to move in your direction."

>"At all times you must attend to those around you, gauging their particular psychology, tailoring your words to what you know it will entice and seduce them. This requires energy and art."

>"In all your encounters, take a step back - take time to calculate and a tune yourself to your targets' emotional makeup and psychological weaknesses. Force will only strengthen their resistance. With most people the heart is the key: they are like children, ruled by their emotions. To soften them up, alternate harshness with mercy."

>"The key to persuasion is softening people up and breaking them down, gently. Seduce them with a two-pronged approach: work on their emotions and play on their intellectual weaknesses. Be alert to both what separates them from everyone else (their individual psychology) and what they share with everyone else (their basic emotional responses). Aim at the primary emotions - love, hate, jealousy. Once you moved their emotions you have reduced their control, making them more vulnerable to persuasion."

>"Play on contrast like this: push people to despair, then give them relief. If they expect pain and you give them pleasure, you win their hearts."

>"To find the key that will motivate them, first get them to open up. The more they talk, the more they reveal about their likes and dislikes - the handles and levers to move them with."
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

<44 - DISARM AND INFURIATE WITH THE MIRROR EFFECT

From Robert Green:

>"This is the power of mirroring those around you. First, you give people the feeling that you share their thoughts and goals. Second if they suspect you have ulterior motives, the mirror shields you from them, preventing them from figuring out your strategy. Eventually this will infuriate and unsettle them. By playing the double, you steal their thunder, suck away their initiative, make them feel helpless. You also gain the ability to choose when and how to unsettle them - another avenue to power. The mirror saves you mental energy: simply echoing in the moves of others gives you the space you need to develop a strategy of your own."

>"Everyone is wrapped up in their own narcissistic shell. When you try to impose your own ego on them, a wall goes up, resistance is increased. By mirroring them, however, you seduce them into a kind of narcissistic rapture: they are gazing at a double of their own soul. This double is actually manufactured in its entirety by you. Once you have used the mirror to seduce them, you have great power over them."

>"When you're dealing with the intractable willpower of other people, direct communication often only heightens their resistance… As Christ himself understood, talking in parables is often the best way to teach a lesson, for it allows people to realize the truth on their own."

>"When dealing with people who are lost in the reflections of fantasy worlds never try to push them into reality by shattering their mirrors. Instead enter their world and operate inside of it under their rules, gently guiding them out of the hall of mirrors they have entered."

>"The mirroring of reality offers immense deceptive powers. The right uniform, the right accent, the proper props - the deception cannot be deciphered because it is intermeshed in a simulation of reality."

>"After all, we cannot go around doubting the reality of everything we see - that would be too exhausting. We habitually accept appearances, and this is a credulity you can use."
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

If you are going for best cojtents lije me, simply go tto see ths
web site evveryday as iit gives feature contents, thanks

>>7083
Some one broke the bot

>>7076
no fag, you should post publicly on imageboard, which is superior as a public forum to your fbi.gov circlejerk

give me a use case when fbi.gov and its orbiters (matrix) is preferred to imageboard
protip: you can't

fag

>>7085
Are you having a manic episode? That's what I am saying that imageboards are superior.

Been taking some more notes on various takes on the collectivizing of the late 20's-early 30's, and I' liek what I have so far, miniscule as it is.

Why what is memed so much? The swazzy? You saw that in highschool because kids are retards.

i like this irony btw

>>7024
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

bumpdoodddobumpdoodddobumpdoodddobumpdoodddobumpdoodddobbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

>>7118
>inequality gets eroded otherwise, as can be seen in case of ML states

Inb4: it's a strawman to say that much of muhMarxism is just an orientation towards ghey egalitarianism

<No, faggot. This is actually what self described communists believe.

My sides at thinking that inequality, especially of power, eroded away rather than simply took on new or moderated forms in the PRC, USSR, DPRK, Cuba, etc.

>And yet educated experts seem to be really butthurt at socialism….
1000% chance this clown is vaxxxedmaxxedmaskfag CDC truster, but that's a different topic….
>…for its tendency to levelling, contrary to "the fact of life". this peculiar behavior is reproduced across all ML states that we have data for.
Also doesn't fuck, has never been to any of these countries. Some dork in the west who thinks he's smart because he's read some books that no one cares about.

But let's explore this topic further. It's both true that no socialist country is/was close to an egalitarian paradise, and there is less economic inequality in these countries compared to their politically liberalized counterparts. Furthermore, they all, to different degrees, have flourishing private market economies not much different in daily operation than 'capitalist' countries.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7120
>Where have I heard that before?
in your book of empty platitudes lol?

>>7121
>Tldr 'socialism' is a system designed to cater to mediocrity.
to the people at the very bottom of society, yes nazoid

>Jeez, I can't for the life of me understand why this state bolshevism thing didn't work out
it didn't work out because proletariat lost the class war due to petty bourgs controlling the state machine

it should learn this lesson if it ever wants emancipation, because it was paid with blood
proletariat always pays with blood, and it always will
this is the lesson

>>7126
>My sides at thinking that inequality, especially of power, eroded away rather than simply took on new or moderated forms in the PRC, USSR, DPRK, Cuba, etc.
there was less inequality - fact
and what inequality there was, was mainly due to the black market

and the trend was not to more inequality - fact

and all the labor aristocrats wanted to jump ship and defect to the west for more gibs - fact

ML-type states are inherently unstable constructs, there is no new sustainable "moderate" form of inequality as collapse after collapse of such states has shown

>but that's a different topic…
yes please, leave your antivax spergout to another thread lol

>Also doesn't fuck
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7138
You tell that nazoid, comrade

Which 'nazoids' reintroduced the market economy in Russia, China, Cuba, etc.

If only they had some acheivementless drug addict western midwit who believes they know everything running the show instead of people like Deng or Khrushchev, then I'm sure things would have worked out for the better.

>what "nationalistic" policies? Be concrete nazoid
Tfw you've never set food in any of the countries you claim to know so much about. I guess when then dunning Kruger is strong enough, you have to add a moral component as well.
>I'm smart and you're a bad person, because I say so. Checkmate, nazoid.

>>7112
>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.

>>7125
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.

>>7112
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.

>>7132
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.

>>7127
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?

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