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

/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: 2 + 2 =

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

| Catalog | Home

File: 1694717310429.png (147.73 KB, 594x680, oppie kitty.png)


I've wasted my life. I don't like who I am. I struggle to connect with the overwhelming majority of other people, and do not desire their companionship but the lifestyle is starting to fuck me over. I have a crippling internet addiction. I'm in a deep, deep hole in more ways than you can imagine and I don't know if I have the strength to get myself out. I can't even tell you how bad it really is. I know, I'm a very special boi. On the plus side, I don't harbor any bigotries and I'm not a porn addict.

Since I can't get mental healthcare and I don't really have a support network, I'm looking for books—fiction or non-fiction, any genre—that fit any of the follow criteria:
>emotionally and/or intellectually edifying
>something that can give me some hope, comfort, inspiration, or show me a way up
>nothing too positive or wholesome because it'll bounce off of me
>no gimmicky, panacea bullshit either
>something I can relate to for the catharsis that comes from reveling in your shitty feelings in a controlled outlet, or maybe not, I could see this becoming a bad idea; use your judgement
>something I can feel a little better about myself for having read
So what should I read? I'm putting my faith in you.
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


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




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


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


Oblomov is a beautiful novel I wouldn't be opposed to reading again. I recommend it any anons reading this.
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.


>In Rainer Zitelmann’s book, "Hitler’s National Socialism", Zitelmann explains that Hitler's economic concepts regarding the relationship between markets and planned economies are controversial.
>Before 1933, Hitler's true position was kept secret. >He emphasized the need for secrecy in his economic plans for the pragmatic purpose of maximizing the possibility of gaining political power. >Thus, he presented himself as a supporter of private ownership in some speeches, while attacking capitalism in others, depending on his audience.
>His main aim was to reconcile the principles of competition and selection with a state-controlled economy.
>Hitler believed that the common good should determine individual benefit, rather than the other way around.
>Once he came to power, he diligently studied Stalin's government.
>His view of the Soviet economic system shifted from skepticism to admiration.
>He defended the Soviet system and even praised Stalin's economic planning.
>Hitler's admiration for the Soviet system is confirmed by Wilhelm Scheidt's notes, where Hitler recognized the inner relationship between his own system and Bolshevism, considering it more developed and straightforward.
>By 1939, Hitler's intention was to expand state control of the economy, not reduce it, even after the war.
>Hitler believed that capitalism had run its course and predicted the survival of Fascism, National Socialism, and possibly Bolshevism in the East.
>In his last radio address, he stated that unrestricted economic liberalism had become obsolete.

6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


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.


File: 1694640564561.jpg (78.1 KB, 792x768, 7nvy7ozt0o161.jpg)

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.

File: 1687172271033-1.pdf (723.55 KB, 197x255, origin_family.pdf)


Every friday
The original thread slid off /leftypol/ after I and I assume everybody else missed that week

Currently we are reading Engel's on The Origin of the Family

Anybody remember what chapter we were up to?
67 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>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




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



>And a wonderful constitution it is, this gentile constitution, in all its childlike simplicity! No soldiers, no gendarmes or police, no nobles, kings, regents, prefects, or judges, no prisons, no lawsuits - and everything takes its orderly course. All quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole of the community affected, by the gens or the tribe, or by the gentes among themselves; only as an extreme and exceptional measure is blood revenge threatened-and our capital punishment is nothing but blood revenge in a civilized form, with all the advantages and drawbacks of civilization. Although there were many more matters to be settled in common than today - the household is maintained by a number of families in common, and is communistic, the land belongs to the tribe, only the small gardens are allotted provisionally to the households - yet there is no need for even a trace of our complicated administrative apparatus with all its ramifications. The decisions are taken by those concerned, and in most cases everything has been already settled by the custom of centuries. There cannot be any poor or needy - the communal household and the gens know their responsibilities towards the old, the sick, and those disabled in war. All are equal and free - the women included. There is no place yet for slaves, nor, as a rule, for the subjugation of other tribes. When, about the year 1651, the Iroquois had conquered the Eries and the “Neutral Nation,” they offered to accept them into the confederacy on equal terms; it was only after the defeated tribes had refused that they were driven from their territory. And what men and women such a society breeds is proved by the admiration inspired in all white people who have come into contact with unspoiled Indians, by the personal dignity, uprightness, strength of character, and courage of these barbarians.

>We have seen examples of this courage quite recently in Africa. The Zulus a few years ago and the Nubians a few months ago – both of them tribes in which gentile institutions have not yet died out – did what no European army can do. Armed only with lances and spears, without firearms, under a hail of bullets from the breech-loaders of the English infantry - acknowledged the best in the world at fighting in close order – they advanced right up to the bayonets and more than once threw the lines in
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1687898076924.png (40.8 KB, 600x700, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.19083[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

How can Marxism be considered anything other than a moralist aka altruistic philosophy?

What is the self-interest in helping the needy?

How is it in anyone's self-interest to try to overthrow the system and create an egalitarian society vs spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today?
148 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>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.


>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.


>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.

File: 1693497549400.jpeg (102.29 KB, 649x365, vegggan.jpeg)


Is VEGANISM a good thing?

>A vegan diet is based on plants (such as vegetables, grains, nuts and fruits) and foods made from plants. Vegans do not eat foods that come from animals, including dairy products and eggs.

There is veganism for health reasons, for environmental reasons (meat production causes more carbon emissions than plants), and for ethical reasons (animal cruelty). IMO from a marxist perspective the environmental reasons are the most compelling since decarbonization will need to be planned and this probably will include a reduction in the production of animal products.

However veganism is also widely mocked and associated with liberal hipsters.

what is the proper materialist take on VEGANISM??
14 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


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.


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


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


An excellent documentary on the murder of a hero from comrade Roo
Hopefully he does a documentary on Gaddhafi next



A cryptic new language Tutnese has been the talk of the town among the FBA community. Unfortunately there aren't many books about Tutnese that are not long out of print, and borderline grifter Nasheed has promoted Tutnese strongly but refuses to release the goods. Dump PDFs of relevant information here so that more folks can have the opportunity to pick up Tutnese freely.


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


bump because why not


I feel like one of the biggest obstacles to understanding Marx's most crucial works is that he writes for an audience that he assumes already knows a ton of context, which makes sense considering his own context as a journalist for revolutionary workers on the streets themselves. It still makes those writings confusing to anyone that isn't an academic that has the privilege of having absorbed context. So, what are some good history books that can fill in that gap?

Some specific topics:
—English political economy from Adam Smith to the repeal of the Corn Laws
—Early communist party (Cabet, Blanqui, League of the Just, Communist Correspondence Committee, etc.)
—1848 Revolutions and aftermath
—Napoleon III's coup
—Paris Commune
—First International activities and drama
—General 19th century European history

I found this on the Paris Commune a while ago, pretty decent: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mitchell-abidor-voices-of-the-paris-commune
32 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.




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


>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


File: 1693193897484.png (70.55 KB, 488x160, ClipboardImage.png)

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.


Are you a comrade working on something for school or uni that utilizes math or physics?
Need help on a problem?
Developing a new mathematical theory of marxism?

Post here and ill try to help.

Love & Solidarity
16 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


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?


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


Exercise 2.4.103

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

File: 1693104889056-0.png (279.87 KB, 512x336, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1693104889056-1.png (224.88 KB, 600x396, ClipboardImage.png)


Bourgeois economists embraced labor theory of value (which originated from Adam Smith of all people) until Marx. Marx got bourgeois economists to abandon the labor theory of value because he took it to its logical conclusion of the proletarian revolution against the bourgeois class dictatorship. As a result of bourgeois economists abandoning the labor theory of value in order to distance mainstream economics from Marx's conclusions, they began to embrace quackery like marginal utility theory and the subjective theory of value.

Enough background. Let me get to the point. I was wondering, are there any books that outline the differences in vocabulary used by bourgeois economists before and after Marx? They did a lot of linguistic obfuscation after Marx, and it might be helpful to get a breakdown of that, because it's hard to even tell what bourgeois economists are talking about sometimes if your vocabulary is already marxist, or vice-versa, if you learned "mainstream" economics first and then pick up Marx 2nd. Sometimes it can feel like you're speaking two different languages, because the technical glossaries of each approach to viewing the world differ so much.

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