[–] 16 points 2 months ago (1 child)

My god these people have lost the plot completely! Thinking this could be anything beyond fancy, stochastic document retrieval is ridiculous.

I was going to write a much longer comment going through the enormous amount of absurdities in this little article, but really this whole charade of techno-babble falls apart here:

"The graph, a carefully constructed analytical map rather than a dictionary, is built and maintained by GSI’s domain experts to reflect the actual structure of the tradition. This is where expert labour is most concentrated[.] [...] The impact of this expert curation was evident when GSI tried to extract concepts from a given source document. When guided by a generic, default ontology, the extraction pipeline drew only a handful of concepts while the purpose-built Marxist ontology[?] helped draw several hundred concepts from the very same text."

The siren song of anti-intellectual dilettantes: Marxists don't have to know Marxism! Don't worry your silly little head about such difficult questions, let us, the mighty all-knowing sages at the Global South Institute (WHO???), divine the truth from our sacred knowledge graph & 'purpose-built ontology' magik for you. We command & you follow.

I ended up writing a longer comment anyway

If, during the lead up to the October revolution the proletariat taught itself to read to gain its intellectual autonomy and traverse to the heights of what was the vanguard theory at the time, today we face an altogether different situation: the vanguard itself must be educated, it must become capable of constructing strategists of the revolution, solving the novel tasks of our time from a perspective of the whole. Today, this is the reconstitution of the Communist Party in general, and the ideological reconstitution of Marxism-Leninism in particular.

To know Marxism is really two things:

  1. The textual corpus of Marxism
  2. Its application as a science

To just know the words of Marx, et. al. is not Marxism, but 'Marxology'--an academic exercise in conceptual provenance at best. But to exercise Marxism as a science requires you to know what it is in the first place, in conjunction with knowledge of the world as a condition for its transformation. Marxism-Leninism, as vanguard theory, must be capable of answering the demands, both theoretically and practically, of the movement without losing sight of the end goal of Communism. The permanent movement of reality demands from us a constant learning and a permanent individual intellectual effort. To say that education, or the self-formation in the proletarian worldview is fundamental for the vanguard militant is an understatement. There are no short-cuts here. When we say 'the self-emancipation of the proletariat' we really mean it, and what they are doing here by cordoning off the ideology away from the proletariat can only reproduce the division of intellectual and manual labor inherent in class society. If anyone is satisfied by the cliche answers given by the black-box of Marxism-GSIism might I suggest a magic 8-ball instead? The Bourgeoisie truly could not ask for better cadre!

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Not a law, that's just how index funds work. It's meant to be an un-managed investment fund that tracks some aspect of the market via predefined rules. The S&P500 for instance tracks the top 500 companies by market capitalization (among a bunch of other weird rules), and it does so by purchasing shares in these companies proportionately. So new company appears that meets the criteria -> purchase. The big part of the story here is the fact that all of these index funds changed their rules to include spacex, especially when spacex's finances look terrible.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago

    Are you reading the Science of Logic? It's not a good introduction to Hegel, let alone philosophy. Start here instead: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ol/encycind.htm Also (cliche I know) browse around https://plato.stanford.edu/ for broad overviews on certain topics.

    Contrary to everyone here I would encourage you to go further. Understanding dialectics is a necessity for any Marxist--here you will perhaps be interested in Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks. To really understand dialectics, and be able to make the transformation to its material ground would put you in a position to understand Marxism better than 99% of today's "Marxists"

  • source
  •  

    "The truth is we live in a “dictatorship of the capitalist class”—that is, ultimately the things they absolutely insist on (such as their ability to continue to rule society) will be enforced through violence whenever necessary, regardless of legality.

    Elections cannot be used to end their rule. The undeniable proof of this is the 40+ governments the US military and intelligence have worked to overthrow in the past 100 years, which happens like clockwork whenever some government in the Third World creates too much trouble for US global rule and imperialist profits. An equally clear proof is in the massive, disproportionate, and often illegal repression and murder wielded against domestic movements demanding deep reform whenever they get big enough, even if they are committed to nonviolence.

    But since the ruling class are willing to use violence to get their way in some situations, why do they mess around with the electoral system—why don’t they simply always use violence to get everything they want? They don’t always use violence because it is far cheaper, easier, and more stable to use the electoral system to suppress the emergence of revolutionary movements in the population, and even to suppress independent non-revolutionary movements that might cost them profits or weaken their rule."

     

    The logic of monopoly capital and imperialism as it operates in the global semiconductor business.
    Some key takeaways:

    "The great contradiction that they face is the fact that for every major chip firm, the Chinese semiconductor industry also constitutes a huge market, often a bigger customer than any other. Hence, Washington and the U.S. chip industry are caught between trying to limit the Chinese industry and maintaining trade relations."

    And not surprisingly roc-cool astronaut-1 amerikkka

    "U.S. strategists have been earnestly arguing for a scorched earth policy in Taiwan, meaning that the United States should seriously consider destroying TSMC plants in case of a credible threat from China, in order to prevent the Chinese from wresting control over production"

    view more: next ›