/edu/ - Education

>>20530
Checked. I liked No Longer Human when I read it a few years ago. I haven't read anything else by him though.

OBLOMOV

Maybe you're like that because you want to be like that.

>>20528
Well, Goethe's The Sorrow of Young Werther was very influential in it's time. Check out the wiki page on it.

>>20532
Oblomov is a beautiful novel I wouldn't be opposed to reading again. I recommend it any anons reading this.
>>20534
Meme answer. I read that one in high school (of my own choice, not assigned reading). If you can't sympathize with or relate to Werther, it becomes very dull reading, which was the case for me.

If one considers Nazi Germany socialist for using dirigisme during a war, then one must consider the Allied powers just as if not more so; therefore, the word "socialism" loses all practical meaning.

>>20514
I remember hearing once that Hitler supposedly claimed in a dinner that the result of the five year plans Stalin introduced created an industrial goliath "greater than even the Reichswerke Hermann Göring."

Now, presuming this is real it's not entirely out of the ordinary and reflects the frankly bizarre relationship Fascism had with the USSR; it was equal parts realpolitik and also the arbitrary whims of the various Fascist dictators. ᴉuᴉlossnW, for example, claimed that Stalin had essentially created "Russian Fascism" or "National Bolshevism" during their initial years trading with one another. Funny enough I think ᴉuᴉlossnW even claimed that Stalin's own purge of his political enemies was not all that different from his, the difference was that Stalin being the Russian "Leader" was thus influenced by some "Mongol Spirit" and was reflected in him ordering mass executions, whereas Italians used the more "refined" and "civilized" method of forcing individuals to drink castor oil and shit out their innards in order to publicly humiliate them.

It should be noted that Fascists tried to apply at least some kind of bizarre "Fascist Analysis" to Stalin. For example, I believe it was Ribbentrop who excitedly claimed that, in fact, Stalin was a nationalist who was going to build a "Great Russia" of sorts. He elaborated (or maybe it was Hitler himself) that there was in fact a wedge within the Communist movement that on one side had Stalin as some sort of "modern day Genghis Khan" (the context in which it was in implied that was a positive thing) who would expand Russia's power and territory, versus Trotskyist "Internationalists" who sought to ferment global revolution and were part of some international Jewish Conspiracy. Essentially they saw "Socialism in One Country" as not altogether contradictory with what Fascists wanted, and Fascists themselves liked to think they were "pragmatists" who could take bits and pieces from liberalism or socialism to "make it work."

Hitler's own opinion on Stalin, while colored by the fact that he was on meth and would vasscillate wildly between one statement or another, was that himself, ᴉuᴉlossnW, and Stalin were the three most historically significant figures of the 20th century. Which, I mean, given the level of power Stalin was perceived as having within the USSR, makes sense from a Fascist perspectivePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>Stalin and Hitler were the same
We’ve known this

Hitler praised everything from Islam to the British Empire to the America's westward expansion. He was, like many modern fascists, a fanboy for everything perceived to be strong/masculine with no regard for ideological consistency or coherence.

Stalin was BASED. Stalin's "dictatorship" was exaggerated by CIA. Stalin rejected his own cult of personality and viewed it as a relic of Russian peasant backwardness, but the party forced it on him anyways. Stalin wanted to form an anti-fascist alliance with the capitalist states of Europe, but they rejected his olive branch, because they were thirsty for the genocide of slavs, jews, roma, and the death of socialism in general. They allowed hitler to commit the holocaust to own stalin, and then at the last minute, when stalin bought time with the M-R pact, while fighting fascist Finland, those same capitalist states created a myth that Stalin and Hitler were best friends. Nothing is more devious, more reactionary, than the myth that Stalin and Hitler are twin dictators. You might as well be a holocaust denier and a nazi if you suggest this, so blind do you have to be to history.

>All the members of an Iroquois gens were personally free, and they were bound to defend each other's freedom; they were equal in privileges and in personal rights, the sachem and chiefs claiming no superiority; and they were a brotherhood bound together by the ties of kin. Liberty, equality, and fraternity, though never formulated, were cardinal principles of the gens. These
facts are material, because the gens was the unit of a social and governmental system, the foundation upon which Indian society was organized…. It serves to explain that sense of independence and personal dignity universally an attribute of Indian character. xvi
I do have my issues with Graeber, but here a turn to him is apt.

Graeber is well worth reading, I'll find .epubs or .pdf's in a bit hopefully.

If anybody has Graeber .pdfs and would dump them here that would be much appreciated.

As Graeber says the europeans did not invent the enlightenment, you can trace its origins back to Native Americans

Fug

Bit late, but I'm going to keep grovelling through Chapter 3, there's always more depth with this book.

>>19231
>One can give more over a lifetime than they can give in onetime sacrifice of their life usually
Do you just assume that to conscious egoists life has so little value that sacrificing it isn't a loss for them at all? You're thinking of the self-interest in purely market terms. Self-interest is never limited to a mere accumulation of capital, it has no limits.

People are already egoistic.

<But the one who acts from love of filthy profit indeed does it on his own behalf, since in any case there is nothing that one does not do for his own sake, among other things, everything done for the glory of God; but because he seeks profit, he is a slave of profit, not beyond profit; he is one who belongs to profit, to the moneybag, not to himself; he is not his own. Doesn’t a person whom the passion of greed rules follow this master’s orders, and if one time a weak good-naturedness creeps over him, doesn’t this appear as an exceptional case of precisely the same sort as when devout believers are sometimes abandoned by their Lord’s guidance and beguiled by the wiles of the “devil?” So a greedy person is not a self-owned person, but a slave, and he can do nothing for his own sake, without at the same time doing it for his master’s sake—precisely like the God-fearing person.

>>19231
>but the capitalists decide to buy you out for more than you'd ever get under communism, doesn't it logically self-interestedly make sense to sell out?
Again, there are other desires people pursue. And they're not limited to the profit. But you can do whatever you want, there is no "holy book" of egoism. Some people may prioritize things other than profit and that's still a parfectly egoistic behavior.

>>19083
>spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today?
What's the point of that? To be an exploiting cunt?

Because the issue with Capitalism is not a moral failing of individuals(that porkies are inherently bad) but that they must partake in economic exploitation in order to exist; otherwise no profit would be made. Likewise, as constant capital accumulates(i.e machinery and other resources to increase labor productivity), you create more products for the proletariat to consume, but employ less wage-laborers who would be the buyers of such profits, causing decreasing profit rates eventually leading to crisis.

You could have the most compassionate humans in the world running this system(Marx's arguments in Capital already assume that things are being paid for at value and not below it) and it would still end in crisis eventually under its own economic laws. That's why it's not moralist.

Capitalism is inefficient.
The exploitation of the "needy" is inefficient
The abolition of these inefficiencies means more resources for the vast majority of people.
More resources for everyone means more resources for each individual. Including you, the reader.

>>20416
A lot of vegans will lie by claiming broccoli has more protein than beef, even though you have to eat a fuckton of broccoli to get the same amount of protein as you'd get by eating a roast beef sandwich.

>>20419
>>20420
Veganism was extremely popular among proto-fascists and traditionalists in the early 20th century.

>>20422
The simple fact is that if you want to protect civilization, you have to make it as efficient as possible. and the most efficient animals are herbivores. Civilization is already herbivore (agriculture) but we waste a significant ammount of plant matter farmign stupid ass meat which is an energy sink.

Veganism is necessary. More than half of the megafauna left on Earth (animals that weight more than 40 kg) are farm animals. That is insane. It destroys entire ecosystems and make us dependable on a few species of animals that are grown close to each other in horrible conditions that make pandemics more likely. Those pandemics can (AND WILL) decimate farm animal populations and create hunger.
We have been artifically selecting plants for thousands of years to have more proteins, be more energetic, have fat and more. We should seize that opportunity.

political veganism is reactionary
that said, there are many good reasons to move toward vegan industry, primarily climate ones and also shortening the working week

from doing a quick Google search, it looks like a pig-latin-esque language game.

bump because why not

Got this biography of Marx that might be useful. It's going for context around Marx developing his ideas.

>>9444
>I asked for advice once to see if there was some common reading guide and I got called a retard and told the book was the reading guide
yeah these stinky NEET anons think everyone is jobless and childless like them. Like these motherfuckers don't understand that the only chance I have to read Marx is on a treadmill thursday night

>>9444
2 years too late but what do you mean by "common reading guide"? If you mean an order of reading, the Marx/Engels reader is already that. Using this https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Marx-Engels-Reader.pdf as a reference, there also seem to be some annotations giving context.

Any opinions of experimentalists on the supposed high Tc SC? Kinda sounds too good to be true

I've identified a need in my region for a product.
It would be assembled from parts imported from China presumably. Who would know what kind of parts specifically and could foresee obvious pitfalls? A mechanical or process engineer or something, or some kind of consultant?

>>18461
protip: if the question doesn't say to prove something, it's most likely because you can't do so and it wants you to argue against the conclusion

>>18461
Exercise 2.4.103
https://www.jirka.org/diffyqs/html/sec_mv.html#exercise-215

Am I dumb? mx''+kx=0, m=5000, x(0)=0.1, x'(0)=1, the general solution is known to be A*cos(ot)+B*sin(ot) where o=sqrt(k/m).

But if I try to solve this, I get A=0.1, and B=1/o. So k=m/B² but I only know m, both B and k are unknown? What am I missing?

bump >>20179