[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)
Required: 3 + 1 =

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

| Catalog | Home

 [Reply][Last 50 Posts]

After three months of labor, I present you the current state of the translation project of the french Black Book of Capitalism from 1998.

The raw traduction is completed, the work is in the process of being proofread to enhance the general english level. So far two benevolent English speakers manifested their interest in this endeavour, one of them already corrected the Foreword and Introduction.

Gitea of the Black Book of Communism: https://git.leftypol.org/latexanon/bboc
If you download the whole deposit and run it trough a Tex editor, a whole book appears! Credits to LaTex Anon for this magic

This thread will be used as a hub to update the progressively the book with the proofreader's input, but also to sketch the specification of an enhanced edition of the BBOC, as well as gathering material in this regard, because after a few more decades of neoliberalism, some updates would be welcome. Furthermore as some people remarked, the book is far from exhaustive.
140 posts and 64 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


<BBOC is kill


there's a bajillion ways of doing cover pages in LaTeX itself. you can also do it with some external program then use pdfjam to join it with other pdfs
I've had in mind to create a thread on the main board about this to try and drum up some proofreading interest again


>I've had in mind to create a thread on the main board about this to try and drum up some proofreading interest again
Good plan imo, an update with initial version, plus notes oin what is to be done, would be cool :D


yeah. having proofreaders adopt a tripcode would be useful too I think



File: 1701976089306-0.jpg (378.91 KB, 1440x943, G E Moore IRL.jpg)

File: 1701976089306-1.png (119.46 KB, 657x510, g e moore.PNG)

File: 1701976089306-3.png (2.02 MB, 1000x1500, GEMooresNightmare.png)


I hate G.E. Moore so much. His entire career was built off of declaring unfounded assumptions as true because, just, like, come on man. Trust me.

Look at his argument against hedonism. Henry Sidgwick says that "good" only exists as an objective property in one context: within conscious experience. He argues that beautiful objects cannot have any value in the external world, and that only the images of beautiful things within a mind are beautiful. In other words, he argues that things are only beautiful when they are perceived. G.E. Moore says this isn't true, because he imagines a world that he thinks looks nice, and then another world that he thinks doesn't, and says it's just intuitively obvious that the first is objectively better than the second! But you're still just comparing things in your mind, not things in the real world! The only thing you've demonstrated is that it's better for you to think about the first world than the second, not that the first world contains any objective quality that makes it better than the second! Someone else with opposite aesthetic tastes to your own could think about both worlds, and come to the opposite "intuitive" conclusion! You haven't provided any evidence for your assertions at all! It's madness! And they let this guy into Cambridge?

G. E. Moore's dogmatic adherence to intuition will forever live in infamy in one of the worst arguments in philosophical history, dwarfing his already quite stupid argument in favor of objective beauty. He claims to prove that we can be certain about the existence of the external world and that all skeptical hypotheses are false, because… the external world exists and all skeptical hypotheses are false. He just declares it, and so therefore it must be true. No epistemology needed. Damn. Why didn't Descartes think of that? Just think really hard that something is true, and then it must be true.

Ray Monk called him "the most revered philosopher of his era." Kill yourself Ray Monk. Fuck G. E. Moore and fuck intuitionism.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


Have you never considered that skepticism about the external world is pointless idealist navel gazing that doesn’t warrant a serious response? The point against hedonism does sound lazy but it is not as though ethicists never appeal to moral intuition. It is a major reason why these thought experiments are so valuable


Dualism is occidental autism that seems to never end
"But what if this is all a dream?"
Then its a dream, faggot, whats the difference?
I cant stand it. It just reeks of teenagers coming out of a philosophy 101 class.
What i at least like about the argument from intuition is that it gets past this false screen of "epistemology"
>"but how can we know?"
<"because we know. Next."
Its like how mao appealed to common sense in his own perspective. Things that work, work.
Give me a blue pill. Give me a steak. Plug me into the matrix. Thats the only reasonable conclusion in my mind.
>"but this isnt the REAL world…"
<"oh, it isnt? Oh well. It feels real enough to me."
Cope OP. And what is your "philosophy" anyway? Scepticism forever? You choose to live in doubt?


File: 1703885966945.png (30.52 KB, 170x170, ClipboardImage.png)

<hits pipe
>so like, you say that things that look good aren't necessarily good bro?
>but what if i imagine, say, a soyjak and a gigachad
<blows smoke in your face
>the soyjak is bad so gigachad is good right?
>gigachad is a big handsome boy with muscles, and soyjak is a lanky bald loser with soy and no muscles
>furthermore, soyjak is crying and pissing his pants, while gigachad is unperturbed and smiling
>he's fucking smiling dude, and the soyjak is admitting his defeat
<falls asleep


To be honest, philosophy is more or less word games for adults. .

Philosophy is intellectual laziness.
Because most people cannot get into actual science. So philosophy is the closest thing that can get.


I agree
But without games what would life be?
Most scientists also read philosophy for a bit of perspective too


I read this article and it claimed that leaders of the anti-gov protesters were acting entirely in self interest and that majority of casualties were soldiers of the PLA who were murdered by the protesters when they tried to solve things peacefully.

Is this true? I don't trust western propaganda one bit but this is the tiananmen square massacre!? I don't want to jump to conclusions right away. What are your thoughts on this?

I also tried to check the sources and I got a 403/404.


76 posts and 31 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Capitalist readers be like: hmmm today we will do bourgeois liberalization and we will crack down on people self organizations
The student protesters at tinyman square were western backed color revolutionaries who thought Deng didn't go far enough with liberalization and also were butthurt racists who wanted African exchange students kicked out of Chinese universities


File: 1696869425436.png (450.09 KB, 888x2070, ClipboardImage.png)

And old bunkerchan debunk that is missing from this thread, it is in leftybooru


The CIA is a raeely g00d epxplanatoin



I see slurs in a lot of threads so we think this place is still pretty edgy


What are the best historical examples of ousting concillatory/bourgeois leaders from the trade unions? A few specific events and detailed context would be incredibly helpful as compared to the profound but broad insight that Lenin's works have. I don't expect people to write essays here, just topic to look into since just searching up "change" or "resign" along with unions comes up dry on material to study.


>What are the best historical examples of ousting concillatory/bourgeois leaders from the trade unions?


I don't have much to say about union history, but this thread deserves more than the shitpost that is >>21209 so have a recent anecdotal account.
Two (potentially three) of my country's education/teachers' unions have just outed pro-Zionist leadership this month, socialists and pro-Palestine voters constitutionally forced a vote for a statement of solidarity with Palestine, had a democratic supermajority and the leaders resigned in protest. Apparently one was a radfem too.

File: 1632507970941-0.jpg (506.67 KB, 1280x1840, 04lnjOTIL1qdfjhdo1_1280.jpg)

File: 1632507970941-1.png (2.09 MB, 1086x764, 4567890.png)

File: 1632507970941-3.webm (60.16 MB, 1920x1080, 3456789.webm)

File: 1632507970941-4.jpg (205.27 KB, 1200x801, Esoup8NW8AElonC.jpg)


It was a dress rehearsal, without which the final victory of the proletariat in October 1917 would have been impossible. (Lenin)

The revolution of 1905 came as a surprise to everyone, although Russia had been going to it for a long time. For example, the American historian Richard Pipes considers it a prologue to the student unrest of 1899. The Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Izvolsky believed that the tsarist regime began to collapse even under Alexander III, and the publicist Mark Vishnyak counted the end of the autocracy from the mid-1870s, when Alexander II stopped the Great Reforms and decided to" freeze " the country. Russia and the ruling dynasty could only be saved from revolution by the introduction of a constitutional monarchy. But the last Romanovs, in an effort to preserve the unshakable autocratic foundations of their power, eventually lost everything and led the country to the catastrophe of 1917.

Interactive map of the 1905 revolution
76 posts and 105 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1644708001316-0.jpg (2.5 MB, 2962x2156, HandsOffRussia5.jpg)

File: 1644708001316-1.jpg (2.64 MB, 2953x2156, HandsOffRussia6.jpg)

File: 1644708001316-2.jpg (2.58 MB, 2977x2148, HandsOffRussia7.jpg)

File: 1644708001316-3.jpg (2.67 MB, 2961x2164, HandsOffRussia8.jpg)

File: 1644708001316-4.jpg (2.69 MB, 2977x2132, HandsOffRussia9.jpg)


"Jambourg" is apparently a francization of Yamburg, now named Kingisepp, after Viktor Kingissepp, founder of the Estonian Communist Party in 1920 and a Chekist before then, executed by the Estonian secret police in '22.


File: 1703165649332.jpg (238.69 KB, 1027x1500, Red Army 1918-1921.jpg)

I read this book lately; it's extremely good. Shows how the Red Army organised and defeated the white guards and Entente.


The 1st Cavalry Army
Frunze with RKKA troops
Captured white tank in Crimea, 1920
Red Army troops on an armoured train


File: 1703253876192-0.jpg (357.54 KB, 1920x1080, First Cavalry Army.jpg)

File: 1703253876192-1.jpg (296.75 KB, 1200x638, 1654289495332.jpg)

File: 1703253876192-2.jpg (112.18 KB, 1000x600, 1672518336145.jpg)

File: 1703253876192-3.jpg (199.24 KB, 1195x830, 1688164383833.jpg)

File: 1703016208090.png (202.27 KB, 417x600, hirohito.png)


So as it turns out, I actually know very little about imperial Japan, aside from very surface level things such as attempting to become a new colonial power. The only thing I know is that it didn't have a concrete racial science like Germany had developed under the nazis, although I could be completely wrong about that since I learned about that from a reddit post. I'm actually still unsure if it had a concrete ideology or rather a mishmash of idealogies but I have no idea if that's correct either.

If I got any of the above wrong feel free to correct me, and I'm also wondering if there are any good sources for learning something about this.


The book "War Without Mercy" by John Dower is a good source for Imperial Japan's views on race. It's been a while since I read it but IIRC they had their own racial classification system but it was different from the ideology of the Nazis


This has annoyed me for a while and I would like to have addressed this for people who are also interested in this subject. I am not studied in physics and specifically quantum physics. I just take a general interest in this subject on the periphery of all the other things I am occupied with. When learning about physics through popsci videos and occasionally reading articles on the matter it has always bothered how nonsensical ideas and contrived theories are spread on this subject, and that shit needs to die.

You‘ve probably heard claims before such as
<„Consciousness collapses the wave function“
<„The collapse of the wave function produces a parallel universe for each possible outcome“
<„A particle could be anywhere until it is observed“

Much of this is straight up bullshit and some claims are an aberration of technically correct statements turned fantastical and far fetched.

First of all, „observe“ is misleadingly phrased. This gives credence to a consciousness-centered explanation of the wave function‘s collapse as people think of a person looking at something when they hear the word „observe“. By „observe“ physicists actually mean that a device physically interacts with something to measure a physical property. We aren‘t simply looking at something when we „observe“, instead we are physically interacting with it.

Additionally, the wave function isn‘t real. The way this term is used it makes it sound like it‘s a physically existing entity in the world. It isn‘t. The wave function is a mathematical abstraction that describes that we approximately know where, for example, an electron is probably going to be, whilst lacking precise knowledge where exactly it is UNTIL we have „observed“ it, i.e. physically interacted with it through a device that pinpoints this incredibly small object that we could otherwise not locate. The „collapse“ of the wave function is having moved from probabilistic knowledge to discrete knowledge. „Collapse“ yet again makes it sound like as if we are dealing with a materially real thing when in fact the term is just a mere abstractions describing the amount of knowledge we have about something on the quantum scale.

The wave function is not collapsed by consciousness. Your consciousness is the emergent product of neurochemical processes inside of your brain that are stiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


> By „observe“ physicists actually mean that a device physically interacts with something to measure a physical property. We aren‘t simply looking at something when we „observe“, instead we are physically interacting with it.

If you stop privileging the forward arrow of time (which we hallucinate because of our biology) you'd realize that all the light we see actually originates in our minds as electrochemical signals, exits our eyes, and terminates in the nearest sun. I have resolved philosophy. Everything is nothing and idealism/materialism are simply a matter of whether you privilege forward or backward time.

haha just kidding, you make good points


File: 1698330743867-0.pdf (202.03 KB, 197x255, ratmech.pdf)

File: 1698330743867-1.pdf (323.58 KB, 180x255, bud.pdf)

>idealism/materialism are simply a matter of whether you privilege forward or backward time
reminds me of these two articles


Everything you complain about is literally just a problem in the popular reception of QM since in the field everyone uses the Born rule because it just works, but
>I am not studied in physics and specifically quantum physics
>Finally, once you understand all the nonsense regarding this field
speaks for itself. Idk man learn some linear algebra and find out what a Hilbert space is, then you may apply again


>doesn‘t add value to the thread just wants to jerk off his ego


><„The collapse of the wave function produces a parallel universe for each possible outcome“
is bs

><„Consciousness collapses the wave function“

><„A particle could be anywhere until it is observed“
Misrepresentation. Its not conciousness that collapses it. Its the particle needing to interact with other solid matter.
Think of quantum mechanics as two states of being. You have regular being, it is, its in a single place at a single time.
Then you have quantum being, where a particle is not yet solidified.

If you know anything like programming, it works like lazy evaluation. If you only know math, its like not calculating a value and instead keeping fractions and sin(x) things.
A particle of light starts with a place, then it quantum interacts with other objects, that do not force it to change its fundamental state (it does not turn from light to heat, it does not intersect with atoms), which adds extra calculations to the possible location of the particle. This keeps going until it is forced to turn from one fundamental particle or thing into another (turn from photon to heat by interacting with atoms) at which point a full real value of the particle is calculated. This causes things like the two slit experiment.

Behind the screens of what we can observe there is some more fundamental substrate of reality that lazily calculated the positions of particles. Whether this is because our reality is a simulation and this would be more computationally effective, or because the underlying forces of reality happen to just work this way, i dont know.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1696767956942.png (848.14 KB, 2192x1856, 1622232565770-2.png)


New chart thread where you can dump your charts about books, drop everything you have off charts, old chart new charts, let's try to concentrate all things here, for future use.
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



yo what, thanks but im looking for the chart that has books in it, the only book that i know is in there is an introductory philosophy book made by althusser


Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy
Theses on Feuerbach
Socialism, Utopian and Scientific


I believe this might be the chart you're looking for. Imo you can safely skip Logic, Truth and Reason, and this definitely omits some of the seminal philosophical works by Marx & Engels. Most of the pre-Marxist pointers (Kant & Hegel in particular but Descartes too) are still good.



File: 1702000693076.jfif (7.45 KB, 326x183, lain.jfif)

 [Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Postmodernity is not an "ideology" but an advancement of material conditions for the age of digital technologies, which increasingly simulate Reality and thus cause an ontological shift which reverses the order of production, which now begins in the superstructure (mass culture, mass media, the "spectacle" of late capitalism and so on) and then flows into the affective instruments of (post)industrial nodes of distribution. This is a direct reversal of the Marxist dialectic, where now the unrepresentable base of production is the web of public interest, democratised along lines of free markets, which then flow into machines of production to give abstraction to the "real movement".
Today, the qualitative virtuality of culture leads in productive capacity, which gives false pretence to the necessity of industrial labour. The truth is that a youtuber and their data are more useful today than any warehouse slave. This is the postmodern turn, where all things real have become unreal, so that the very term has been overcome. We can no longer speak of Reality with authority - like Zizek says, ideology is imagining we have escaped the matrix, when the truth is that every red pill is actually a double-dosage of blue pills, since it gives the illusion of escape. There is no escape from The Wired of the Deleuzean "new earth", which has ensnared the earth within the capacities of its magnetic mantle, giving life to the artificial and artificializing life.
This is sustained by Keynesian mediation, which maintains crises of overproduction and overemployment, such as FDR said after the new deal, "I have saved capitalism", but of course, capital is the agent, which has saved itself by wrapping itself into the state structure, amplifying its reach over the world. As Keynes says in his prophetic tone: "in the long run, we are all dead".
So its good to accept the attitude of postmodernity, which embraces play over purpose, as nihilism broadens by the extraction from the well of abstraction that it builds itself upon. Today we have the multiverse of multimedia involutions, reflected in quantum mechanics and cinematic representation. Reality is expanding like the dark energy ripping the universe apart faster than the speed of light.
You imagine communism, but what does it look like in contradiction to today's progress? the worst among you idolise poverty as a sign of "authenticity", but isn't this already wrapped in the cloak of self-deception, like the PMC who Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
99 posts and 32 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


The proletariat and bourgeoisie are being erased every day, unless you are a revisionist and think every service worker receiving a wage is the same as what marx was talking about
The bourgeoisie are being erased by the proliferation of publicly-owned companies which produce the postcapitalist conditions of the "managerial revolution" like what james burnham talks about.
Thats why reactionaries love "small business owners" and hate "woke capital" because corporations are overriding the political syndication of the middle class. Some would rightly argue that this just creates deeper stratification with the ultra rich and very poor, and i agree - but this is not "class struggle" in the old sense.


>unless you are a revisionist and think every service worker receiving a wage is the same as what marx was talking about

how the fuck is that 'revisionist', there were non manufacturing workers in marx's day too

>Some would rightly argue that this just creates deeper stratification with the ultra rich and very poor, and i agree - but this is not "class struggle" in the old sense.

How is it not??? There were also 'publicly owned' (a euphemism of course for 'owned by wealthy people and investment funds') companies in Marx's day too. 'Managerialism' is just another word for capitalism, there were plenty of factory owners in 1800 that weren't involved with managing their own businesses


Yes theres always been a wide variety of jobs in capitalist society, but marxism has always been specific to analysing the industrial working class, like in england during the 19th century. Today these sorts of premilennial speculations about everyone being shafted into this domain is antiquated, since markets have evolved and technology has appropriated much of the role of this designation. Thats why revisions such as any number of neo-marxisms take its place, since it remains relevant.
Going into a supermarket and railing about "proletarians" to checkout workers like lenin on a soapbox is already a parodic thought. Labour has shifted its concerns.
>Managerialism' is just another word for capitalism
Its a different type of capitalism which creates different sorts of workers. Ofc today we have the scourge of the PMC and so on. The white collar office worker fulfils a different mode of production to the warehouse picker and packer. It all serves profit, but not to individual capitalists, but a growing managerial elite.


>Thats why revisions such as any number of neo-marxisms take its place, since it remains relevant
Revisionism is based actually, orthodoxy is unscientific, ACCELERATE REVISIONISM.



Can you recommend any material so I can better understand his work? I have a hard time wrapping my head around Sein und Zeit. Do you know good lectures, introductions or guides that you can recommend for that?
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1701620552505.jpg (30.81 KB, 333x500, 26878575.jpg)

dugin is a Heidegger fan


Thank you. I'm preoccupied with other things atm but when I have a question maybe you will be around.


Of course. Btw, Elpidorou and Freeman make a claim about the mood-emotion distinction which is literally not found in the text, and they admit it. It's just a vibe. But the rest is decent; I most highly recommend Moran, and then Frahm.
And I found the Moran pdf online, here are two versions just in case
Marx's main inspirations were Hegal, a monarchist German Idealist, and French Utopians. Shit, we gotta drop Marx by association then


How the fuck did I type that.


I've only read the first chapter of this book called Heidegger's Confrontation with Modernity: Technology, Politics, and Art years ago and I still have a very vague understanding of this nazi cry-baby, but at least I think I understand Heidegger better than Haz and it's true that techne is a wicked thing.

Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 / 35 / 36 ]
| Catalog | Home