/edu/ - Education

Education, Literature, History, Science

catalog
Mode: Thread
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(239.04 KB 1536x2048 uib.jpeg)
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Comrade 05/19/2020 (Tue) 22:07:16 No. 1706 [Reply] [Last]
define needs. is it the bare minimum to survive?
(49.87 KB 960x784 cmon man.jpg)
>according to HIS needs >define needs. is it the bare minimum to survive? bruh
it’s subjective. not in that anything goes. in that it depends on the person. only you know what you need.

(166.04 KB 1200x960 Graphene.jpg)
Graphene General Comrade 07/04/2020 (Sat) 03:41:01 No. 2188 [Reply] [Last]
I guess lots of people are somewhat skeptical it'll be anything, since a bunch of media outlets hyped it up a decade ago and nothing came of it, but they were hyping up its discovery then, when it was still a whole world away from the production process. From what I understand, silicon was much this way at first as well; groundbreaking discovery but a long time before they could figure out mass-production and implementation. Now it seems at last the stuff is ready to be mass-produced and the actual production line is ramping up, and consumer products with marginal amounts of the stuff are already available. So this thread will be for general discussion about what graphene is capable of and its implementations, as well as for advancements in the production process and availability of graphene. Some articles: https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/what-is-graphene/ http://news.mit.edu/2018/manufacturing-graphene-rolls-ultrathin-membranes-0418 https://phys.org/news/2020-07-solar-cells-graphene-armor.html https://www.zmescience.com/science/graphene-clothes-thermal-regulation-18062020/ https://newatlas.com/bicycles/graphenlube-graphene-bicycle-lubricant/ https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/technology/2019/graphene-2d-materials It's coming.
(6.30 KB 180x180 kuma_slurp.png)
I've been reading some of this and this just feels too unreal. Like it can do so much things better and faster and its like "press x to doubt". Nonetheless, it sounds exciting, especially with the solar panels, and how it will affect renewable energy. Also if you don't mind, do you have anything about the history of Silicon. I kinda want to see how opinions changed as it was being rolled out, like you described.
>>2189 In all honesty I might've just gotten confused and am overexaggerating Silicon somewhat. It's really hard to find articles so I've genuinely no idea where I got my history of it to begin with. Regardless, Silicon was invented in the 1820s and it wasn't figured out that they make computers good until like the 1950s/60s/70s. The issue I'm thinking of might not have been the mass production of silicon itself, but rather the mass production of the integrated circuit, which silicon was of course quintessential in enabling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_the_integrated_circuit http://www.mobileranger.com/blog/a-very-small-big-deal-the-history-of-the-integrated-circuit/ Now ignoring the fact that it was discovered in the 1820s, if we just take the timeline from when they figured out how it could be used in an integrated circuit to when it actually became commercially available en masse, it amounts to about 15 years. Though even then it still took far more time for it to be cheaply available.
>>2188 A graphene battery (phone charger) released awhile ago, but it was a little underwhelming. It had clear advantages, yes, however perhaps not enough to warrant aping the market. https://youtu.be/dnE1nO6o-do I am going to give the benefit of the doubt that it's being underutilised in this product.
>>2195 Yeah this is just the beginning of what's capable; they just added like a sheet of it to already existing battery architecture, and that alone has improved charge time from 1.5 hours to 20 minutes, as well as slightly improving capacity. Actually designing electronics architectures around graphene and incorporating the material in every facet of the device is what will offer the truly immense improvements.

Capitalist here Comrade 07/01/2020 (Wed) 18:04:31 No. 2146 [Reply] [Last]
By marxist standards, I do not provide labor, I own capital. From what I understand, the commie concept of wage labor is "exploitation" in the sense that we take the surplus value you produce. Since this board allows non-leftists to ask questions, mine is, why do you think you have the right to the full product/end result of your labor and not just a small compensation? If I were to pay my wagecucks the full amount, or give them control over my company instead of paying them a pittance, I won't be able to stay competitive and maximize profits. 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. I just wanna know your point of view, and why you think you are entitled to your surplus labor.
9 posts omitted.
>>2151 If you agree with first premise then it is easily to see how capitalism is exploitation by force. In fact every economic system require force, whether capitalism, socialism, or etc. At the most basic level, you need force over nature. Let talk about an example. In your company, if many workers only want to work 8 hours a day, but you want them to work 12 hours a day. Do you accept their demand? Of course not, you will force them into submission by firing all workers who refuse to work 12 hours a day. Or for example, the workers voice their opinions that you should allow them more times in order to polish the end products, but you don't want to do that because it will cut into the profit. What to do? Of course forcing them to work faster by cutting corners either by profit bonus or other ways. Anyway, it is force, because you can control other people to do what they don't want to do, by which means, it's not important. You should discard the notion that force is something inherently bad. No, there is nothing bad with force, but only wasteful or harmful way of using force. 2. and 3. You should read my points carefully again. I don't talk about whether capitalists deserve their riches or not. We are not Gods who have right to judge other people. I just want to talk that it is nearly impossible for normal people nowadays to live their independent lives from the capitalists, because either they don't possess capital, or cannot risk borrowing from the bank, as the average rate of profit of our days is near zero already, if not negative. There is very high chance to lose everything rather than succeed. Anyway, are you really a capitalist? If you are a true porkie, I think you should quickly understand what I said. 4. In the main ideas, you're right, the system will return to capitalism. But you should focus more on the lower nature of economic system. You only see business as the smallest division of the system, and economy is nothing but rearrangement of those businesses (atom). However, it's necessary to see that in reality, a single business is not a self isolated thing, but a mobilisation of many labour force from everywhere in the world. Without seeing that fact, the picture is very mystified. 5. In socialist society, the profit indicator should be abolished. The economy should be control by a public plan, which everyone could check and voice their opinions. In fact this is what happened in Soviet Union during Five Years Plan. The GOSPLAN only decide the input and output of each company, but don't care about its profit. The mission of every company is to fulfil its plan, nothing more, nothing less. The downside of this system is that it's very hard to optimise the quantity of output products, as there is no powerful tools to force the workers to work hard. The profit indicator of capitalist is actually more powerful the force of the state. Therefore, by switching to this economic model, we must sacrifice the ideal of maximising total GDP growth. So how could a system like Soviet Union possible? It's only possible when GDP don't correlate to actual power in reality anymore, in other words, when a high GDP country, such as the USA, cannot defeat a small country with much lower GDP, such as Iran or North Korea. The condition during early 20th century was exactly as such. As the capitalist nations were busy fighting each other, the USSR could develop in a rather stress-less environment. But in the latter half of 20th century, when all capitalist countries united to fight against USSR, the planned economy wasn't viable anymore, so they switched into a hybrid between socialism and state capitalism (Kosygin reform), where the state controlled the economy by profit indicators. However during 80s, when the crisis hit, the profit of USSR was too low compare to the rest of the world (due to their socialist policies), so there were only two ways out for USSR. Either return to planned economy (as the environment then was quite peaceful, and they just won the war in Vietnam), or restructuring by discard the low profitable parts of the economy. Sadly, they chosen the second choice due to inactivity of workers and state managers (they're too lazy to do planned economy, control the economy by profit indicators were much easier) and other capitalist roaders elements in USSR. The rest of story is history.
>>2147 >>2151 https://bunkerchan.xyz/leftypol/res/638070.html ctrl-f for 648507 648557 649246 vol edit: fix the post links above: >>>/leftypol/648507 >>>/leftypol/648557 >>>/leftypol/649246 >>2153 >if business assets could be acquired trivially or did not allow for passive income (if all profit was simply the result, as is sometimes breezily suggested, of the genius or hard work of entrepreneurs) then the market would not value these assets. THIS.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Edited last time by antious666 on 07/01/2020 (Wed) 20:41:43.
>>2158 (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 ~
>>2155 >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.)

(776.84 KB 1521x2337 tt.jpg)
Claude Levi-Strauss Comrade 07/01/2020 (Wed) 11:39:21 No. 2139 [Reply] [Last]
Where does one go after reading Tristes Tropiques? I have heard The Savage Mind is the way to go, but the English translation is supposed to be erroneous For those unfamillar: CLS was a Marxist/structuralist anthropologist and ethnologist
Haven't read much of CLS yet, but I suppose Structural Anthropology is the next important work after Tristes Tropiques. Also check out Maurice Godelier, he was a student of CLS but developed Marxist Anthropology. CLS was a structuralist first and foremost, him being a Marxist is not that relevant.

(211.61 KB 1400x788 685795.jpg)
Comrade 04/15/2020 (Wed) 14:25:23 No. 1087 [Reply] [Last]
Et tu, brute?
8 posts and 4 images omitted.
Fortune pisses on me once again!
Titus Androdicus is the better Shakespeare play about Rome tbqh

(332.53 KB 2048x1280 sleeping-man-cropped[1].jpg)
General problem with reading 06/27/2020 (Sat) 18:24:20 No. 2095 [Reply] [Last]
I am constantly feeling sleepy. I cant say wheter this is normal or not. Like, I dont know in which moment it becomes pathological. I rather dont have serious issues if any at all when talking. I rarely go into internal monologues but when I do explain something I dont have significant problems. Thinking seems to work well in theory but I am somewhat unsecure wheter I dont think too slow too. In my life I rather had at least average intellectual abilities but when I deal with abstracts it doesnt work too well. Whenever I do read something, no matter wheter it is philosophical, political or fictional work, I am getting tired very quickly which makes productive reading very hard for me. The fact that focusing and remembering stuff also seems to be generally hard for me doesnt help. I can recall various things when I try but still its quite hard to go on with the reading for prolonged time. I can also comperhend the material quite well if I really slooowly study it, but it seems like I am getting way to slow than I should go with it. Whenever I try to read regularly I fail. I also have impression that reading on the pc is easier for me than reading real books, although when I read the digital books I get distracted easier. I really think that I could read something with the interest if I wouldnt feel so fuuucking tired all the time, I dont do anything interesting anyway and I like theory. I also lack motivation, but I think that I could overcome this if not the tiredness (Or perhaps I somewhat rationalize my lack of motivation with the tiredness problem). So basically Id have few questions for you guys: Did or do you have simillar situation to me? What could cause it? Is there any way to get rid of it or to cope with it? If you read regularly, how long did it take you to get used to it? Did you have problems with focus and memory and did they have gone after some time? How did you managed to form a habit of reading in the first place?

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

People are creatures of habit. Stick as much as possible to a fixed sleep schedule. Fix a time and spot for reading (not the bed). Don't set a goal in terms of reading X pages. Don't allow yourself to do anything else than reading during the special slot. It's either reading or doing nothing. Spacing out and staring at the wall counts as not doing anything so don't be mad at yourself for doing just that. Over time you will become more used to reading without interrupting yourself.
Things you might want to try: 1) standing desk 2) varying the time of day in which you read 3) stimulants (from coffee to adhd meds) 4) find discussion groups of something intellectually interesting in person (or uh places like here i guess) 5) change your diet, in particular try cutting out/reducing sugars 6) cut out other superstimuli like social media (or at least any with likes), vidya, porn 7) less ambitious works, scaffold up with wikipedia, etc 8) meditation 9) look into sleep hygeine if your sleep is off (bed only for sleep and sex, get up/go to bed at consistent times) IMO if you throw these against the wall one or two is likely to be helpful, even if it doesn't solve your problem entirely.
>>2095 I used to imagine I was reading so I could sleep faster. It was such a sleeping pill that just the thought of reading made me drowsy. It takes some time until your distracted mind can focus on the subject matter. The harder the reading is, the more time it takes. You also need to form a habit of reading in general. You should also sit somewhere and not lay down. I've also tried just giving in and taking a nap, then when waking up, do my reading. I've gotten much better at it. >>2135 This is golden advice. 10/10

(120.92 KB 1200x630 Mao_Zedong_last_photo.jpg)
Comrade 06/28/2020 (Sun) 20:02:10 No. 2106 [Reply] [Last]
I'm having a very difficult time reading even Marx's "easier" works. I find the language he uses is far too dense and it seems to fly right over my head. Is there anything I can do to fix this? Am I just retarded?
4 posts omitted.
Read this fam, it was written for illiterate proles and was approved by Marx himself: https://www.marxists.org/archive/cafiero/1879/summary-of-capital.htm
>>2115 This is so much easier to read and understand than Capital, thanks a lot anon.
>>2116 I recommend Critique of the Gotha Program as a kinda easy read. It's a point by point take down so is more friendly for our twitter/10-minute-youtube-video brains. You're not retarded if you've got this far friend
>>2120 Where's the text it is taking down point-by-point? There's not much sense in reading something like this without being familiar with the thing it attacks.
(28.59 KB 263x251 09876.png)
>>2125 It's the first few pages of the PDF in the "Letter to Bracke". The Gotha Programme is that short Another source https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111gotha.html

Did Marx support a strongly centralized state or no? Comrade 06/29/2020 (Mon) 18:13:17 No. 2117 [Reply] [Last]
I am open to non-marxist points of view. Evidence for: >Whilst it forces on more and more of the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, into State property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/04/nationalisation-land.htm >The nationalisation of land will work a complete change in the relations between labour and capital, and finally, do away with the capitalist form of production, whether industrial or rural. Then class distinctions and privileges will disappear together with the economical basis upon which they rest. To live on other people's labour will become a thing of the past. There will be no longer any government or state power, distinct from society itself! Agriculture, mining, manufacture, in one word, all branches of production, will gradually be organised in the most adequate manner. National centralisation of the means of production will become the national basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan. Such is the humanitarian goal to which the great economic movement of the 19th century is tending. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm >If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel. Let us take another example — the railway. Here too the co-operation of an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persona interested. In either case there is a very pronounced authority. Moreover, what would happen to the first train dispatched if the authority of the railway employees over the Hon. passengers were abolished? But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one. When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that's true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world. We have thus seen that, on the one hand, a certain authority, no matter how delegated, and, on the other hand, a certain subordination, are things which, independently of all social organisation, are imposed upon us together with the material conditions under which we produce and make products circulate. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm >But no more than local and provincial self-government is in contradiction to political, national centralisation, is it necessarily bound up with that narrow-minded cantonal or communal self-seeking which strikes us as so repulsive in Switzerland, and which all the South German federal republicans wanted to make the rule in Germany in 1849. – Note by Engels to the 1885 edition.] Evidence against: >With all the great towns organized into Communes after the model of Paris, no government could repress the movement by the surprise of sudden reaction. Even by this preparatory step the time of incubation, the guarantee of the movement, came. All France [would be] organized into self-working and self-governing Communes, the standing army replaced by the popular militias, the army of State parasites removed, the clerical hierarchy displaced by the schoolmaster, the State judge transformed into Communal organs, the suffrage for the national representation not a matter of sleight of hand for an all-powerful government but the deliberate expression of organized Communes, the State functions reduced to a few functions for general national purposes. Such is the Commune – the political form of the social emancipation, of the liberation of labour from the usurpations (slaveholding) of the monopolists of the means of labour, created by the labourers themselves or forming the gift of nature. As the State machinery and parliamentarism are not the real life of the ruling classes, but only the organized general organs of their dominion, the political guarantees and forms and expressions of the old order of things, so the Commune is not the social movement of the working class and therefore of a general regeneration of mankind, but the organized means of action. The Commune does not [do] away with the class struggles, through which the working classes strive to [read for] the abolition of all classes and, therefore, of all classes [class rule] (because it does not represent a peculiar interest, it represents the liberation of “labour,” that is the fundamental and natural condition of individual and social life which only by usurpation, fraud, and artificial contrivances can be shifted from the few upon the many), but it affords the rational medium in which that class struggle can run through its different phases in the most rational and humane way. It could start violent reactions and as violent revolutions. It begins the emancipation of labour – its great goal – by doing away with the unproductive and mischievous work of the State parasites, by cutting away the springs which sacrifice an immense portion of the national produce to the feeding of the State monster on the one side, by doing, on the other, the real work of administration, local and national, for working men’s wages. It begins therefore with an immense saving, with economical reform as well as political transformation. The Communal organization once firmly established on a national scale, the catastrophes it might still have to undergo, would be sporadic slaveholders’ insurrections, which, while for a moment interrupting the work of peaceful progress, would only accelerate the movement, by putting the sword into the hands of the Social Revolution.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.


(132.84 KB 656x820 BestKorea.jpg)
Comrade 04/24/2020 (Fri) 01:59:37 No. 1311 [Reply] [Last]
https://maozhuyigongchandang.wordpress.com/2020/04/23/%E5%85%9A%E5%91%98%E6%9C%88%E6%8A%A5-party-members-monthly-13/ >Soon after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, Chairman Mao’s policies of improving sanitation and medical access led to a population boom that was previously inconceivable due to wars, famine and disease. Some people were worried that such a large population would be difficult for China to handle, in response to them, Chairman Mao declared: >> “It is a very good thing that China has a big population. Even if China’s population multiplies many times, she is fully capable of finding a solution; the solution is production. Of all things in the world, people are the most precious. Under the leadership of the Communist Party, as long as there are people, every kind of miracle can be performed. We believe that revolution can change everything and that before long there will arise a new China with a big population and a great wealth of products, where life will be abundant and culture will flourish.” >Mao taught us that China’s expanding population was a good thing, and that population control was a tool used by imperialist powers to weaken the rising states. Subsequently, import of contraceptives was banned, birth control was increasingly condemned. A few years into this campaign, China saw a large hike in population growth, in 1955, some areas briefly re-allowed birth control, but fortunately this was curbed by the Great Leap Forward, in 1958. According to the secretary of Communist Youth League Hu Yaobang: >> “A larger population means greater manpower, the force of 600 million liberated people is tens of thousands of times stronger than a nuclear explosion. Such a force is capable of creating wonders which our enemies cannot even imagine. Facts since the Great Leap Forwards movement have sufficiently proved this point.” Thoughts? Does quantity truly have a quality all of it's own?
There’s a great advantage in quantity, but at the end of the day, don’t you think it really comes down to the value of life? It seems that the more important thing Mao said was “Of all things in the world, people are the most precious.” Sure, the high population is great for production, soldiers etc, but what Mao really wants is life to be abundant and culture to flourish
It's weird, this guy outright says it's natural and a violation of the natural order for men to not be ejaculating for the sake of reproduction, but nowhere do I see him attacking homosexuals outright. He instead goes after Porn, Prostitution, and contraception. But here's the thing, animals masturbate too, they just don't do it with pornography. You would think he'd call out gays or bisexual people for wasting seed but he doesn't.

How does the stock market work? Am I wrong in assuming that it has no direct link with the earnings of companies? Earnings go down, people expect other people to sell so stocks go down? Is that literally it? Because that sounds insane even for capitalist standards.
>>2080 It’s the same thing as a share except you don’t get any power over capital from it, but it still gets its exchange-value from the company through regular stock buybacks that basically “back” the stock (similar to how you back a currency, except the stock itself is being backed by a currency)

Delete
Report

no cookies?