/edu/ - Education

>>7905
Hahaha

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

This PLA graduate work, not unfinished engels work of same title

"Selected Military Writings of Mao Zedong" was edited by the Research Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the Academy of Military Sciences of the Chinese People's Liberation Army , and published by the Military Science Press and the Central Party Literature Press in December 1993. It consists of 6 volumes and more than 2.6 million words.
This book compiles 1,612 articles, telegrams, orders, instructions, letters, reports, and talks by Mao Zedong from August 1927 to December 1972 on military matters, most of which are published for the first time.

>>8149
Anyway I measured the page length of books 2-4 to be about 600-700 pages which is about normal. It might be longer if they were in small paperback. They would have a sort of dividing mark. If I ever make them into paperbacks I'd probably insert splits to bring each book down to 300-400 pages and add some commentary.

I have to get back to book 5 and the way it's going I might make it shorter and do the split in the first draft since it thematically splits between the origin and description of technocracy as an idea to the particular type that manifested since it came to humanity as a singular event even though in principle the same idea was to be reproduced in miniature everywhere and at all levels of society. The singularity of "the system" or "the technocrats" is a peculiarity that damned the technocratic order from the moment it began. Had it not been for the eugenic creed and the cause of slavery, the "technocratic period" would have been a brief transition before everyone who thought for five minutes declared, as many did in our history, that this thing doesn't work on its own terms and couldn't do much. It would have been quietly abandoned because it was incompatible with the genuine science that allowed it to exist or serve any purpose. The rising technological class would have been suppressed and denied everything they were promised, relegated to a support role as technology and knowledge became general and unfettered by things like ideology or imperious decrees. As technocracy got worse around 1970, that was what many of the technocrats themselves admitted should have happened, because they themselves lost and the forces of elitism and slavery won. They saw before anyone else did what this turns into and that they could not reconcile with it, but it was too late because among the technologies were the technologies of torture that were always demanded by the old aristocracy. If humans were not accursed, what would have happened during the 1970s, and this did sort of happen before it was snuffed out, was a repudiation of "society in the abstract", and the thinkers of the 1980s and 1990s would have started writing on the topics I am writing about. Communism would also be quietly dropped which is basically what happened. If humanity wanted to share the wealth, they wouldn't have made excuses about why it had to be delayed or controlled to meet a dubPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Welcome back, Eugene.
Glad to see you.

Are you interested in writing anything shorter form, maybe article-length?

>>8186
I have some articles on my website. Example:
https://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net/0011.html

I would like to get my feet wet writing articles before resuming Book 5, to move away from "unhinged Twitter rant" to a more formal presentation style. I also made a forum on my site with MyBB.

I would like to establish something away from X that is more sedate. For a time I was able to engage on Bluesky before some libnazis stamped "intolerance" on my account for insulting Donald J. Trump and calling him the retard he is.

Did Eugene really vote Joe Biden?

>>8212
If you didn't vote against Trump you must enjoy creating torture and child rape for their own sake, but you weren't going to get to "vote" for anything, which is why they gave you rapey Joe Biden. I would think voting against Trump is the default thing you would do, and I had a feeling Biden would win anyway with what was set up that season.

I didn't bother in 2024 because I knew this country was over. No one was voting for Kamala Harris and that's the entire reason she was put up, so that the Trumpreich could go ahead.

Even though you don't get a "vote" or anything so strange as that, when you look at what Trump would have done in 2021-2025 you were saved from a nightmare. I can't say how I know these things but from a few sources I have who are familiar with what's "up there" they knew exactly what second Trump would be, and nearly everything that happened was about preventing those people from having their maximal program.

You're seeing now in second Trump the eugenist hellscape Trump would have done earlier. The most anti-agriculture administration in human history, pushing IVF and abolishing the family everywhere… I don't know how any fag makes these snide remarks after seeing what Trump has already done. But, fags never change. Never.

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

same person i just um am looking into jacques camatte right now and i wonder if there's any outside sources and writings about him thats not on marxists.org?? also im sorry i hate this book i just need to get it out for context on my next writing and umm please dont hate on it all my former opinions are shit and honestly i hate myself for knowing i used to believe this,,, especially the first half and the start of the second, its absolutely horrible.