woodenghost

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 15 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

If it's about a paper and nothing else works, you could always just email the authors and ask. They gain absolutely nothing from the journal fees, so they lose nothing by helping you and might be happy someone is actually reading their paper.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The article, as well as the article from the Atlantic it quotes, both keep repeating the number of $800,000 for the price of the food. But the first paragraph of the article says $800,000,000. Of by a factor of x 1000? Either way it's crazy, of course.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

I think it's already past that.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Is the point here, that "first world labor" has no or almost no constant capital(i.e. means of production)? If that was true it would actually have the highest rate of exploitation, since it would be made up almost entirely of variable capital, like a sweatshop. That's obviously the opposite of what the creator of the meme wanted to say, so it doesn't make sense.

In reality, labor in the imperial core has a higher than average organic composition of capital with lots of constant capital. Naively, one would think, that this would lead to lower profits, since value only comes from human labor. But if their business was less profitable than average, capitalists would just move their capital. And they do. They move capital out of those sectors. This lowers production and raises prices above values, until profits equalize. In a globalized market, this leads to equalization of the rate of profit on a global scale. But for profits to be (approximately) equal, that additional value for "first world" capitalists has to come from somewhere. It comes from the rest of the world, where prices for exports are lowered in turn below their value. This means, that capitalists from countries with a lower organic composition of capital (like Bangladesh) subsidize capitalists in countries with a high organic composition of capital (like Germany). Some of those profits might be passed on to a labor aristocracy, if labor is organized enough to demand it.

This is why China is shifting to high tech production and this is why the US is raging against that.

Also, when Marx considers average socially necessary labor time, he doesn't mean necessary in a hypothetical ideal communist society, but necessary for the actual, contradictory, capitalist society to reproduce itself. Lots of office labor seems pointless and soul crushing, but don't think you can get rid of it within capitalism. Idealists might think so, but we know better. You can't. It's necessary for this sick system to go on. Capitalists who invest in seemingly "pointless" labor react to pressure from contradictions they have no way of resolving within capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

But physicists actually do that? They often write it like this: ∫ dx f(x) or this: ∫∫∫ dxdydz f(x,y,z)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Ultraviolet induced visible fluorescence photography

Sounds complicated, but it's just shining UV light on an object in a dark room and taking a normal photo with long exposure. If you want to be pure about only picturing visible light, you might need a UV filter, since many cameras can already see a bit of UV despite inbuilt filters.

How to DIY.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago

Thanks for the great overview.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Also it's very much actively going on and the current generation is totally involved.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

But what happens is that the men and women separate and have their own conversations.

Maybe your girlfriend would appreciate it, if you didn't just let this separation along traditional gender lines happen as if it was an unstoppable force of nature. Keep it balanced or just keep the boring friend talking to yourself the whole evening. Should be easy, since you said it dosn't bother you. Then your gf can have intellectually stimulating conversations with your mutual interesting friend while you do that.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Okay, here you go and another one, just did a very quick search, but I'm sure you can find plenty more from every political affiliation.

40
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

As some feel too hopeless to get out and organized, I was reminded of this quote:

The first lesson a revolutionary must learn is that he is a doomed man. Unless he understands this, he does not grasp the essential meaning of his life. [...] I have no doubt that the revolution will triumph. The people of the world will prevail, seize power, seize the means of production, wipe out racism, capitalism. [...] The people will win a new world. Yet when I think of individuals in the revolution, I cannot predict their survival. Revolutionaries must accept this fact.

  • Huey P. Newton

I like this sense of letting go. Letting go of the necessity to personally catch a glimpse of the new world with my own eyes. Maybe I will. I almost surely won't. And yet, I want to help us get there. Even if things have to get worse before they get better, I want to help keep that spark alive.

Activism burnout is real and valid. If you're effected, take all the time you need to heal. But recognize it's similar to depression in that it lies to you. It lets you see reality through a distorted, non-materialist lense where everything is hopeless. (Might even lead to actual depression.) Don't confuse it for wisdom. Material contradictions will move history forward.

To avoid that burnout in the first place, if we organize around a moment that arises outside of our control, we should anticipate the ebb and flow of social forces, of action and reaction. Use any arising moment to agitate, grow our forces, raise class conciseness, strengthen our orgs. And don't be surprised or disappointed when inevitably the moment passes and forces of reaction take the stage. The moment will only not pass once. Until then we have to endure. And only personally commit what we can sustain long term.

Also we should be understanding towards people who feel burned out from activism. Don't call them weak or pressure them, but invite them to come back in their own time (but don't let people spread nihilism either).

 

I recently leaned about how the dogma of divine simplicity shaped the history of philosophy, especially metaphysics and the problem of universals in the Islamic world as well as in Christianity. Basically it's the idea, that God is identical to each of his (her/their/just) attributes. By extension, each of the attributes is identical to every other one. So this obviously touches on the problem of universals. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) added the conclusion, that for God, essence is existence. Ibn Sina is key for this in Islam, as well as Christianity (because people like Thomas Aquinas learned his teachings and shaped scholastics for centuries).

Divine simplicity is central in the different schools of Islam and a dogma in Catholicism. Protestants kind of stopped talking about it, but never officially gave it up and Calvinists revived it. Only cool new streams like process theology distance themselves from it.

About the stupid joke in the title: Divine simplicity means, God has literally no parts you can point to (no pun intended), to determine their gender (no material parts, no temporal parts, no metaphysical or ontological constituents). If God has a gender, it must therefore be identical to all their other attributes, as well as themselves.

Question: If you got any religious education, was divine simplicity ever mentioned? Cause I never heard of it until recently, even though it's so central, that other attributes are typically derived based on it (for example immutability, infinity, omniscience) in official doctrine. Or, in Ibn Sina's case, even existence as well as every other attribute.

Do religious people still care about this? What would be cool pronouns for justice, freedom, truth, omniscience, etc.?

Edit: Also, do you know people who reject this dogma or accept it, but make mistakes around it? Like saying:"God might get angry or have wrath, but God IS love", which mistakenly elevates one attribute above the others.

I have no stake in this, as an atheist, just interested and willing to learn. And like I said it's historically relevant for the history of philosophy, no matter what you believe.

186
Left Unity (hexbear.net)
 
view more: next ›