/edu/ - Education

First choice for Russian philosophers would be Lenin and Plekhanov, but if you meant after them I'd recommend Adoratsky, Spirkin and Ilyenkov. If you want a basic thing, Vladimir Adoratsky wrote a really cool brief introduction to materialism.
https://redstarpublishers.org/adoratsky.pdf
Spirkin wrote a bigger textbook on philosophy but it was also intended for beginners.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/index.html
Ilyenkov's summary on the history of dialectics
https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/index.htm

Also don't forget Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism was a philosophy must-read in the USSR

Legal philosophy
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pashukanis/1924/law/index.htm

>>11719
Or possibly they're looking for autonomism

>>11715
i are many smarts

>>11722
thats ok, anon, you don't need to contribute to be worthy of love
/b/ is where you'll find the discourse you want
>>11717
idk if this is sarcastic or not, but it's not at all an easy answer. One thing that's really annoying with socialist revolutionaries (like lenin e.g.) is how much they talked as if revolution was itself the goal and highest value to be achieved. It's one thing to laugh off philosophical charlatans pretending to be all objective, and assert your goals which align with your class, but when you need to rest on absolutely solid ground it's not good enough to leave open room for nihilist and pragmatist critiques, and force skepticism out of its safe spot before the crossroads of idealism or materialism.
>>11716
Why?
>>11719
it's not about technical professionals having final political say (out of the scope of their work - though obviously i'm not discounting the socialist tradition of critiquing professional cretinism and the need for people under socialism to be more broadly educated and all disciplines of science to be brought into communication and agreement) or AI rule or anything. Idk maybe ur right tho i don't know much about technocracy
>>11721
i think that's smth totally unrelated

>>11724 (me)
*and you gotta force skepticism out of its safe spot

>>11715
Read "The Democratic Principle"

>Targeted Individuals (1/4)

Science/history

>The Mind Has No Firewall
https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol28/iss1/12/

>The Forgotten Era of Brain
https://fightgangstalking.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/scientific-american-oct-2005.pdf

>Bio-Effects of Selected Non-Lethal Weapons
https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/files/Bioeffects_of_Selected_Non-Lethal_Weapons.pdf

>MKULTRA subproject 119
http://slavery.org.uk/mkultra119.pdf
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>Targeted Individuals (2/?)

Videos

>Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, "Brain Invaders"
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5alq1s

>Bigger Than Snowden. Neuro Weapons. Directed Energy Weapons. Mind Control. Targeted Individuals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAPI6mv2O-U

>Raytheon Whistleblower ERIC J. HECKER about DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS #targetedindividiuals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjtRTtFNSwo&t=27s

>Roger Tolces, PI, on US Government Electronic Harassment & Torture
https://youtu.be/7j3IJROy1To
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>Targeted Individuals (3/4)

Coast to Coast

>Energy Weapons & Testing
>Independent investigator Robert Duncan discussed directed energy and neurological weapons and his contention that they've been tested on the public at large.
https://archive.org/details/coast-to-coast-am-2006-12-05

>Electronic Harassment
>Practicing physician Dr. John Hall discussed his work with thousands of victims of electronic harassment, stalking, and mind control and how CIA/NSA technology is being used to track, intimidate, and even read the thoughts of people.
https://archive.org/details/coast-to-coast-am-2010-02-08/2010-02-08

>Electronic Harassment/Paranormal Techniques
>In the first half of the show, Dr. John Hall talked about his work with victims of electronic harassment, stalking, and mind control and how this CIA/NSA technology is being used to track and intimidate people.
https://archive.org/details/coast-to-coast-am-2011-03-02
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>Targeted Individuals (4/4)

Orgs

>People Against Covert Torture & Surveillance, International
http://www.pactsntl.org/

>International Center Against Abuse of Covert Technologies
https://www.icaact.org/

>International Coalition Against Electronic Torture and Robotisation of Living Beings
https://icator.be/

>European Coalition Against Covert Harassment
https://eucach.wordpress.com/
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

General glowie fuckery:
United States Objectives and Policies with Respect to the Arab states and Israel
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB78/propaganda%20059.pdf
'Anti-Communist Brain Washing Program to be Instituted at Summer ROTC Camps for Students,' Declassified State Dep. memo, 1953
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB78/propaganda%20095.pdf
Justification for US Military Intervetention in Cuba
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_citizenship_law

Male spouses under the age of 35 and female spouses under 25 originating from the Palestinian territories are prohibited from obtaining citizenship and residency.[71] The 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law effectively discouraged further marriages between Israeli citizens and Palestinians by preventing couples in these circumstances from cohabitation.[72] Although challenged as unconstitutional, this restriction was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2006[73] and 2012 and continued to be effective until the law’s expiration in July 2021.[74][75] These restrictions were reimplemented in law with no expiration time in March 2022.[76]




Jewish residents of former Mandatory Palestine at the time of Israel’s establishment were granted Israeli citizenship on the basis of return, but non-Jewish Palestinians were subject to strict residency requirements for claiming that status. Non-Jewish residents in Israel could acquire citizenship on the basis of their residence in 1952 if they were nationals of the British mandate before 1948, had registered as Israeli residents since February 1949 and remained registered, and had not left the country before claiming citizenship.[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_citizenship_law

These requirements were intended to systemically exclude Arabs from participation in the new state. The UNRWA estimated that 720,000 Palestinian Arabs were displaced during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War,[27] with only 170,000 remaining in Israel following its establishment. Until the Citizenship Law was enacted in 1952, all of these individuals were stateless. About 90 percent of the remaining Arab population were barred from Israeli citizenship under the residence requirements and held no nationality.[28]

This thread has some lulzy stuff from the 1950s-60s.

https://leftypol.org/siberia/res/308343.html

>>3662
sauce?

>>3656
Extinct species likely… if they domesticated the species their use likely lead to the subspecies being extinct if it was relegated to that given area

>>3656
>Did the ancient/medieval Ethiopians domesticate the African elephant?
No, elephants are to long lived for that to be possible, it takes 20-25 years for an elephant to grow up.

>2 years no response
>bump
>immediate answer
Explain

>>11691
Dialetiks or smthg

I'd like to get into epistemology. Which thinkers and what literature do you recommend for that?

>>11673
Start with this https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/classic.htm

>>11677
Cool, I‘m reading it. What I noticed first is how confused I was at what exactly the confusion or contradiction was about. Sure rationalism as opposed to empiricism but where is the issue? Until I read

>Meanwhile, in Revolutionary England, the Royalist Thomas Hobbes continues the evolution of empiricism by a consideration of how the action of matter on the sense organs generates thought in the mind

So that was an epiphany at that time. It would be nice to have a complete understanding of what exactly people at a time believed/knew or didn‘t know. I didn‘t get the confusion or dispute at first.

>>11507
Manuel DeLanda
You can watch a lot of his lectures on youtube.

>>11677
Great read. Anything else?

>with a step by step
of this type of equation I mean

>This makes me feel mentally disabled
You're a namefag, of course you feel that way. Drop that junk.

That's set theory, with a couple of complex numbers. I'm assuming you know what those are. If not, look it up.
I'm not great with (nor generally interested in) mathematics, but if I'm reading it right (Q = the set of rational numbers, which is normal for the blackboard-bold symbol Q, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_number , and the final question being what is the intersection between the set S and Q) then it's just asking which of the 6 elements of the set S are rational.
So for example, 1/3 and 22/7 are obviously rational, [pi]/3 is obviously not, and so you need to figure out if the other 3 are rational. I forget all my trig and odd/even powers of those complex fractions so someone else needs to sub in.

Try transforming the complex numbers into trigonometric form, they look like they will have a modulus of 1 which will make the exponentiation easy.

>>11646
/math/ general >>338

> a step by step

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_arithmetic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots_of_unity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_coordinate_system#Complex_numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Moivre%27s_formula

You are asked to count the rational numbers in S. Two of them are evidently rational. π/3 is irrational, but in most contexts this will be accepted as known since the proof is non-trivial. If you can't remember the sine of π/3 take a right-angled triangle with an angle of 60 degrees and take the ratio of the opposite leg and the hypotenuse. Complete your right-angled triangle by reflection to an equilateral triangle and you will easily find the ratio to be sqrt(3)/2. For the irrationality of sqrt(3) take a^2==3*b^2 with a and b coprime, take the unique prime factorization of both sides and simply count the parity of the number of times 3 appears on each side.

For the first two values, identify them as roots of unity, a cube root and an eighth root. Recall that when raising roots of unity to natural powers you may discard multiples of the root order. Reduce 2019 modulo 3 and 8. This resolves the first value, while for the second you are left with the cube of an eighth root. Since you only need the rationality of the imaginary part you can avoid doing any computation by recalling that exponentiation by natural powers on the unit circle amounts to rotation by multiples of the base angle. Since the base angle is π/4, first quadrant, cubing takes you to 3π/4, second quadrant. This has the effect of flipping the real part sign and leaving everything else untouched, whichPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Is this for organizing an NLRB recognized union in the us? I'm in the process and can answer questions.
Or is it for class struggle / IWW style unions?

>>10775
Look at Jane McAlevey's work.

>pro-union palm cards
I guess I've heard this word in a different context, are you talking about small cards you can hand to people? Show us an example or the amount of space you have to work with. It may just be better to link to an adequate guide, depending on your target audience.

>>10651
he wasn't an atheist
that's what i mean

>>10648
I mean the guy asked for non-reddit tier atheism so I just gave him the closest thing, Spinoza's concept of God is so far removed from typical monotheism that he might as well have been an atheist. Ethics is just too good of a read to pass

>>10654
what do you think is the typical monotheistic idea of god

>>10672
usually it is the kind of personal god that is discussed when talking about things like the problem of evil etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god

>A personal god, or personal goddess, is a deity who can be related to as a person,[1] instead of as an impersonal force, such as the Absolute, "the All", or the "Ground of Being".

>In the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions, God is described as being a personal creator, speaking in the first person and showing emotion such as anger and pride, and sometimes appearing in anthropomorphic shape.[2] In the Pentateuch, for example, God talks with and instructs his prophets and is conceived as possessing volition, emotions (such as anger, grief and happiness), intention, and other attributes characteristic of a human person. Personal relationships with God may be described in the same ways as human relationships, such as a Father, as in Christianity, or a Friend as in Sufism.[3]

>A 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center reported that, of U.S. adults, 70% view that "God is a person with whom people can have a relationship," while 15% believe that "God is an impersonal force."[4]

>>10570
Now that i think about it intellegent materialism is a great response to the question