/edu/ Education

>>7905
Hahaha

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

Campaign volume. 9 pages missing from PDF scan. 2 out of 31 case incomplete

120 case complete. Analysis of classic battles. One in op is missing 4 or 5 cases

Fixed toc and paragraph breaks

>>8238
>If you want to know why there are millions of they/thems out there, that is why. The women are approached and told this is what the future will be,

Ypure talking about the transgender thing?

Thats not eugenics.

>If you had this done on the up and up there would not be grand calls to exterminate the vast majority of humanity and replace them with pod people who are tortured from cradle to grave.

We already do that with religion and racism.

>>8239
Irony is, alot of Biden voters/sympathisers are holding this newfound conspiratorial complex.

Also, Biden has expressed racist (maybe sexist) sentiments in the past. Along with shady dealings and sex scandals.

>>8240
Why do you think voting is about finding a cult leader, you retarded fag? I voted for "not Trump" because that is a basic thing you would do. When it became clear that the country was truly lost, I stopped the last bit of pretending. It was always a farce, but you're seeing now what happens when you lose the farce and the rulers have unlimited permission to rape you in front of your face and say "this is what you are". Voting against Trump is voting against being raped like a catamite, because that is what anyone making excuses like this did; they voted and enthusiastically supported the rape of Americans and insisted this is what would be normal.

If any of this shit were real, Trump would be gone for a long list of reasons and it would not be a question of "if". He would have been removed immediately for gross incompetence and the clear criminal intent of his whole disgusting cabinet, and there would be a cleansing of the American government to make sure this doesn't happen again.

>>8185
>The industrial revolution itself was hardly the story of untrammeled "progress", because for decades it didn't actually exist and life was still largely agrarian or merely bourgeois. The "true industrial revolution" happened not because of capitalism but because science grew to a degree where electricification and biopolitics became inevitable,


This. General education likes to show the Industrial Revolution as some hot new fad that took the world by storm in a few weeks.

>>8244
>This
is bollocks.  Read Capital Vol. 1.  The coal-powered cyclopian machines that spun cotton into cloth came into being by the dictates of capital.  Yeah, it took a couple hundred years for them to dominate the Atlantic economy, but the way had already been paved for them by the yarn-spinning industry and consequently by the sudden creation of a destitute proletariat during the Inclosures.  Historically speaking, it was pretty goddamned sudden, and, lest we forget, the Inclosures happened well before Newtonian physics was created.

>>8245
Your brain on ideology. They act like women weren't doing the same thing since ancient times. The only change is that their looms were taken away. They were crammed into sweatshops, regularly taken by the bourgeois for sadistic sex games, and told how good they have it and how "liberated" they are. Back then, the women did not agree.

In any event, the "revolution" didn't happen in this productivist manner that Fabians invented when rewriting history. The real change wasn't the quantity of product but what was produced. 19th century capitalism produced new machines, different types of machines. Its chief aim was a total war to dispossess the workers, to strip them of the few things they had left. The result of the factories was slavery, and if you actually read Capital vol. 1 Marx describes (in artfully dodgy language) what happened, to paper over what Sismondi described as Modern Slavery, which is what the contracts of wage workers were when they are forced to sign these with a knife at their throat and pimps ready to take their wife and children if they didn't agree to this. That is capitalism, you fucktard. That is your "revolution".

Even then, you didn't see mechanization until you had working steam engines, oil, and electricity. The American Civil War and its aftermath was the actual "industrial revolution" but that is something Marx was tasked with editing out of history, in defense of the slave power. When the post-Civil War industrialization happened, it was done by monopolists who had a very clear idea of what they wanted the future to be, and they built all of this industry and technology to pursue that aim. They weren't "mindless producers" and certainly were not your friends.

Also remind you that in monetary wealth and claims, the masses were always destitute. There is this funny game ideologues play where the peasant was a "noble savage" corrupted by civilization. It's straight out of Hitlerism and this thinking has wide adoption among the Left. What the masses lost with captialism were the few scraps the old institutions gave them. They were allowed to pray still, and their intelligence was not actively attacked by mass propaganda and "revolution". The peasant owned nothing particularly valuable and expected nothing in his lot to change. He was already "dead" in the mind of the petty-manager. Capitalism merely made that official.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>5748
check out The Ignorant Schoolmaster

>>6157
It's funny how adults will complain about lack of work-life balance but are less willing to talk about school-life imbalance where schools overburden kids.

Be prepared to get tons of chinese poon if you are white. Also, be prepared to piss a lot of chinese incels off.

>>5748
I almost thought OP pic was Mordecai and Rigby from Regular Show due to the animation style of character design

Anyway to go back to the OP to better answer his question:

Surplus value by its nature is never "compensated for". It cannot be done, and part of the insidious slop version of "New Marxism" promoted by leftypol is the idea that surplus value is a substance you could "earn". It's not earned by anyone, not even the manager or the capitalist. Surplus value is essentially the waste inherent in all of the things that exploit the worker, who wouldn't have agreed to this contract. As a thing the worker could possess, the worker doesn't want it. If the worker worked for himself, which is what he did in home manufacture, he receives no surplus in a material sense and no necessary satisfaction. Literally the only thing the worker gains from working for himself is that he is not under a contract where he has a knife at his throat.

Surplus value is observed not by the worker or the capitalist, but by the interested parties beteen them; which is to say managers, social engineers, and importantly a big thing called "the State" that is the only reason there are laws establishing a free market condition. If not for liberal laws permitting it, there is no natural reason for markets to be honored or regarded, and the state can step in and extract or outright confiscate whatever it likes and interdict the process. Nothing obligates the participants in the market to believe that the market has any natural laws whatsoever. You won't find people who hate capitalism more than capitalists themselves, because those capitalists are doomed to lose to a monopolist. In the 19th century the monopoly was the East India Company. In the 20th century, the Trusts dominate and build a highly invasive state. In the present time, the monopoly is Eugenics and the interested parties who joined a cult that steadily grew during the 20th century and is now manifested in the world for the first time. There is no historical precedent for what you live under now and the exhortation, an essentially Satanic exhorttation, is that you are not permitted to acknowledge that there is a condition. You are only permitted a parodic, bastardized version of the past. That is the Germanic idea of the state, a pervese and essentially Satanic idea that created entirely predictable ruin. The same idea is why you are quick to believe in the essential act of interdiction and transgression that is at the heart of the German idea. The German philosophy and thus Marxism is a paean to slavery itself.

To make this easier to understand and refute the stupid version you're going to get from a lot of people, it helps to look at it purely from the manager's point of view. The manager has nothing to do with the contract between worker and capitalist, and in practical reality the manager does not sign any contract of the same sort whatsoever. False egalitarianism is a calling card of the charlatan. Managers are never, ever treated like workers; nor are they treated like corporate officers who are by their nature detached from workers altogether and work directly with stock.

Remember that labor is judged here in the abstract. The labor of the manager is not morally equal to the labor of corporate officers, which is not equal to that of workers under bondage. These things will never be equal in the important matter of the contract. For the corporate officer, their loyalty to the boss has more to do with the obligations of vassal to a lord. Whatever a contract stipulates, the corporate officer is never a purely abstract agent and would not be tolerated as such. The chief interest of the capitalist when hiring officers, much like the interest of a lord hiring a general or lieutenant, is loyalty. A corporate officer swears an oath of fealty or what effectively amounts to such when transferred to a new lord. That has always been the essential nature of the corporate officer. The corporate officer is not given over to any notion of ideology that suggests this is "good" or "natural" or a privilege worth crying over. The corporate officer understands the relationship because he is part of a chain of command necessarily to be an officer. That's what a large firm does. The distinction of corporate officers from the noble is that the corporate officer is adopted without any particular pedigree or historical reason why he "ought" to be there. You could hire a corporate officer from the dregs of society if you really wanted, so long as the behaved in line with the corporate world's value system and the bottom line of the firm. When you get down to it, this was the essential function of the warrior nobility in the past. They didn't believe they possessed magic that allowed them to rule with seriousness, though their degeneracy requires them to advance publicly this idea and never let go. If the noble couldn't fight in battle, if he was useless and proven so, his title was forsaken. There is no brotherhood among officers of any type. You have to understand this abouPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

To make the surplus value more comprehensible, the central argument is that the worker is a type of machine and so his behavior can be predicted and cajoled, and that this particular machine of human labor is the manager's interest. The manager can't directly do anything with the technology because that is held by the officers and utilized by common labor that actually does things.

What happens for the manager is that they see opportunity in the petty distinctions of men, and that is the "profit" they want to lionize and valorize. Any reasonable person can see this ahead of time, but the German philosophy was designed specifically to advance slavery, forced ignorance, and the glorification of the essential act. If you see that system for what it is, you dismiss it and you see what remains.

The problem with this is that the realistic value of human labor is something that can be gauged after all of the torture and cajoling. A human can only do so much before it becomes physically impossible for the human to do more without ceasing to be human, at which point the manager oversees a very different type of operation. In theory the worker can be replaced with a machine or some other entity and the same drama would play out between manager and capitalist. The worker saw this entire enterprise as ruinous. His motivation to work at all was always what little of the world he could keep. Whether the firm was profitable or failed did not give the worker any more or less prosperity. In all likelihood the common worker's livelihood was supplemented by charity or his associations such as they were. For the lowest class, any material prosperity could be arbitrarily confiscated, a ritual I have experienced multiple times to remind me "this never changes" as something I obviously "earned" was taken away from me with a sadistic grin. There is nothing that can be done about this. The same is not true of workers on a regular basis. For the lowest class, arbitrary confiscation is a public and glorified matter that has always been upheld not just as the Law but an Absolute law.

The idea of surplus value imagines there is an "inifinite and unknowable" wellspring of potential, when the reality has always been understood that any human is limited and nothing you do to push it is going to make it something other than what it is; nor does any of that pushing constitute a moral force in of itself. The Germanic does not comprehend genuine moral thought, and frankly does not possess proper language as English civlization understood it.

Has there ever been an actual Nazbol book?
Like, did Dugin write any books that are specifically Nazbol ideology?

>>8167
only the Elders of Lysenkograd are allowed to access the sacred NAZBOL texts

>>8166
>Scientific Remote Viewing
kek

>>8166
Ahmen brother.

>>7943
Political autism.

>>7942
What's the best political compass test you guys have seen?

>>8030
DozenValues maybe?
https://quark88.github.io/dozenvalues
There's also LeftValues:
https://leftvalues.github.io/
And DiscriminatoryValues:
https://afunhumaninter.github.io/discriminatoryvalues/

>>8030
IDEOSORTER
https://quark88.github.io/ideosorter/

>>8162
I took the test. It came back with cringe.

>>5522
/edu/ isn't restricted to marxism only…

>>5524
It is now. Try and stop us.

the debate between marx and stirner is actually kindof important historically, as a formative debate for Marx ( who wrote a massive Tome The German Ideology Part II just to 'debunk' stirner ) and Stirner's egoism anticipates many developements both from the anarchist-individualist tendency and

the dismissive attitude of 'ew stirner is bad' is kinda dissapointing honestly, like Marx felt it was necssary to confront Stirners arguments at great length…

for me, an intellectual, I think they both have strengths and weaknesses, Stirner's concept of the 'phantasm' or 'spook' that basically all social institutions are constructions, a kind of game or collective halucination that only exists because people believe in it and act 'as if' it's real ( property, the state etc. ) this is a fundamental insight that is necessary for any theory of revolution.

marx and marxists always emphasize the material conditions, and this is important, but the psychic/psycological dimension is a *material*

>>8151
>Marx felt it was necssary to confront Stirners arguments at great length
is this because he took stirner seriously or because he was trying to meme on him
because if its the former then this is worthy of a deeper investigation i think

>>8151
>the psychic/psycological dimension is a *material*
zizek's materialism emphasizes the material effect of belief without a single reference to stirner
even cockshott described something similar when he explained how the socialist mode of production could function in the ussr without democracy (thus relying on stalin's cult of personality)

my take is that in socialism, if you don't work you get like your basic subsistence met, like you don't starve, but that's it, you don't get to enjoy the good things in life without doing some work

"He who does not work, does not eat" - Lenin

Really it depends on the level of productive forces/abundance in the society. Compare "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution" with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I think, for example, in a socialist (lower-phase communism) Germany, you would be provided with a house and food, but probably not much more than that. In a sufficiently abundant higher-phase communism, I'm sure you could be afforded some luxury goods, depending on the level of abundance. People who don't wish to work (where what counts as work is much broader than modern-day capitalism) would be rare. The reason why "forced labour" existed in the USSR was simply because the society was poor and needed to develop quickly, etc.

>>2063
So it should be ok then for a small percentage of people to not go to school