“The right to be lazy” by Paul Lafargue: a marxist criticism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a critique of the pamphlet “The Right to Laziness”, written by Paul Lafargue in 1880. Therefore, the same theoretical and political referential aspects of Lafargue, that is, the historical material and revolutionary socialism. However, extras, on central themes addressed by him, different conclusions and, at the limit, identified antagonisms expressed in his Pamphlet. An analysis of the work in question was carried out in its history, history and politics and, for consideration, considering the social contradictions of the historical quarter in which it is located. The importance of the Lafargue text goes far beyond the period in which it was published, becoming one of the most read pamphlets and movements of the socialist movement to this day. It turns out that this booklet has transcended socialist media and has become a reference for authors of various theoretical and political texts, who discuss issues of work progress and work progress. In the research we have undertaken so far on this text, no critical mentions have been found that are similar to using this article. For these and other fundamental reasons, justify a critical approach to classical text in contemporary times.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".