[ 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: 1687016538930.jpg (45.87 KB, 720x757, Cucks.jpg)


Was reading Camatte and came across this quote by Kautsky. The point being that workers unionizing is no real threat to capitalism as it can always reduce any negating power of the movement by incorporating it and reducing it to reformist cuckoldry.

So is it true? Are workers unions easily incorporated by capitalism and reduced to mild reformism which just keeps capitalism alive? Why then is there such a large support from radlibs here for unions when they do not have any real revolutionary potential by themselves? What's a better alternative, or actual revolutionary unions?


>Are workers unions easily incorporated by capitalism and reduced to mild reformism which just keeps capitalism alive?
Only up to a point. There are limits to this, which are becoming apparent in the more developed capitalist countries.
Once you are unable to meet labor's demands or to pervert unions for capital's interests, things start to get spicy.
>Why then is there such a large support from radlibs here for unions when they do not have any real revolutionary potential by themselves?
Why is there such support for reading books or arming the workers when neither of those have reveolutionary potential by themselves?
Because revolutionary potential is a confluence of multiple factors, among them being the level of organization of the working class(es) to which unions are a major contributor.
>What's a better alternative, or actual revolutionary unions?
Don't think in terms of "alternatives" here. Life is not a video game where you pick the based option and things work out.
What should happen is that the tools that currently exist are put to their best use (and building up unions is an important step in most of the world at this time), and reconfiguring existing tools into more suitable ones (radicalizing and militarizing unions) and/or building necessary tools that don't yet exist (various types of communist and workers' organizations that are nonexistent, gutted, meaningless, or phony diversions).


>Because revolutionary potential is a confluence of multiple factors, among them being the level of organization of the working class(es) to which unions are a major contributor

Well Camatte was covering how the proletarian identity is reflexively given a privileged position by communists automatically. The problem with workers unions under capitalism they are very easy to subvert the real negating power they have. You toss a few disgruntled workers a few extra dollars per hour and they are satisfied with the current state of society as is. They are in a domesticated to accept scraps rather than continuing to use the discontent to undermine capitalism. Namely that their end goals are to just earn more and better working conditions under capitalism and not really to overthrow it in any way


>reconfiguring existing tools into more suitable ones (radicalizing and militarizing unions)
How would this happen? And how would you get to a point where normie unions are accepting of this shift?


This kind of thing only works if the proles lack the class consciousness to understand that they can get a lot more for themselves and others if they don't just accept those small bribes. That's why it's a confluence of multiple factors. In this case the combination of organized workers and theoretical understanding acts as a defense against this kind of subversion. Which is why part of the task is to make the unions more radical and more literate. It's not enough to have greater organization (which means greater command of workers' already-existing power) – you also need sufficient understanding to wield that power effectively.
>They are in a domesticated to accept scraps rather than continuing to use the discontent to undermine capitalism.
Only so long as the scraps are sufficient to sustain a reasonable quality of life, which is quickly no longer the case in the imperial core thanks to neoliberalism, which is a consequence of both a progressing "corruption" of the bourgeois state away from more rational economics toward narrow, short term profitability and a natural tendency of the system as the rate of profit falls.

Depends on the scenario. Ideally you'd have union leadership pushing for that since that would be most efficient and effective. Alternatively you could form a revolutionary faction within a union that starts with something as simple as hosting reading groups focused on labor organizing history and tactics, because that's of very direct interest to the union as a whole and would be a lot more likely to spread within it. The more the union membership understands of theory the more effective it will be, and the greater the incentive to read more. If a union is operating in that mode it is already "doing Marxism" in the philosophical sense of applying materialist theory and praxis. From there it's not as hard as you might think to introduce communism.


Reformatted it so that it was easier to read and it looks more clean. Expanded on a few sections. Added some new sections, though some pages of them are yellow, to indicate its on the chopping block whether they will continue to be left. Created new cover. While cool looking, its kinda hard to see where the name is, so thats probably changing, but I thought a temp cover wouldn't hurt. I will say that those who are complaining it isn't funny, I didn't really focus on that, so it might again be eh. Give your insights on what you read. Give suggestions for any other topics that could be addressed.
Thank you
25 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I have no idea what's going on but I plan to read it eventually


the style definitely resembled a self help book by an amateur writer. It's filled with irrelevant fluff that in this style is probably just there to give a little ethos boost to the author. I don't think it really adds anything but it fits the style so as a satire it works.

You have many grammatical errors, and i'd urge you to give this pdf to a literate friend of yours to proof-read, so they can point out all the passages with weird phrasing or messed up punctuation. Try to put a noun and a verb in each sentence. When you ramble (presumably for a hook?) keep your point in mind and don't seem like you're rambling.

I agree with the first anon who said to either make this a poster (for the purpose of actually spreading good info some people need on food, exercise, hygiene, sleep, and i'd add in skincare and mental health self-care tbh cause u know ppl are out there not having enough mental health lol) or an actual book where u go into more depth. But tbh i take it as it is, it's a funny little project. Idk, it is what it is but you should polish it up some so it doesnt come off like its written by an illiterate or an elementary school student.

we had strength and conditioning class… as well as preparation for the presidential fitness tests and things like that

literally my public HS had a class where people would work on their cars and do dumb mods like 8 foot tall exhaust pipes on their dinky car


I wish knitting amd baking would be promoted more into male culture


He certainly lost weight on the face at least. Could be the haircut though


>literate friend of yours to proof-read
>written by an illiterate or an elementary school student
You can just call me retarded anon, its fine

File: 1686958525061-0.png (361.85 KB, 501x701, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1686958525061-1.png (143.03 KB, 454x702, ClipboardImage.png)


I was reading a double print of Communism & Terrorism (by Kautsky and Trotsky) and got to this part
>"The bourgeoisie…appears in the Soviet Republic as a special human species, whose characteristics are ineradicable. Just as a uyghur remains a uyghur, a Mongolian a Mongolian, whatever his appearance and however he may dress; so a bourgeois remains a bourgeois, even if he becomes a beggar, or lives by his work….
Just WHAT the fuck did he mean with this?
10 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>What he's saying is that people misunderstand class and think it's like an in-born quality instead of your economic situation that can change

Nobody is saying that or said that in Soviet Russia.

That being said, the bourgeoisie will not just give up their position. You have to beat them without mercy.


The bourgeoisie weren't disenfranchised
Maybe some individuals were, but not the whole class


And even this meager policy was repealed in the 30s anyways


Yes they were lol, anyone using hired labour was banned from voting and other privileges.


Nope, also they were still able to press for concessions like the NEP, and they were still able to manage their capital with a few stipulations, something that gave them realer power than the state
The Bolsheviks' criteria for disenfranchisement was stupid. It mainly targeted "idlers", so if a bourgeois worked directly for their company, or better yet became an administrator in the Soviet state, they were exempt
Only some financial and rentier bourgeois were affected because they were "idle parasites", not because they were bourgeois

File: 1686861870560.png (3.81 KB, 500x250, Oekaki.png)


I am searching the dw for onions that have information/knowledge you wouldn't find on clearnet. For example sites with tutorials about practical hacking, carding or database onions. Anything that could be classified as "information" or "knowledge"

File: 1686687785375.png (140.84 KB, 693x647, caste.png)


This feels like a thread that needs to be made because the left in general has a lot of difficulty wrapping their heads around what a caste is and why it isn't the same as class. Caste oftentimes looks like it's the same as class but it is not.
Caste follows these criteria;
>it is assigned at birth, and oftentimes impossible to change unless certain circumstances like biracialism or inter-caste marriage occur
>marriages and relationships are often not seen as valid unless certain criteria are met, such as the marriage being between people of the same caste, or the lower caste is the marriage-property of a higher-caste person, such as being a member of a harem or being a woman in a patriarchical caste system where only heterosexual marriages are recognized as valid
>upper caste people usually get their legitimacy from the social perception that their rule is ordained by god and that they are destined to rule over the lower castes because they are naturally superior beings
>lower castes are said to be spiritually unclean, and this unclean nature is difficult to describe besides that they are subhumans who live in filth. this reflects in their social roles, which usually involves working in industries and professions considered too disgusting or spiritually destructive for the higher caste to perform, or in the case of gender, these roles manifest as strict gender roles (e.g. "barefoot and pregnant")
>caste is socially constructed whereas class is economically constructed and usually more fluid
There is a lot to be said about castes, but the main thing is that the left often conflates race and gender minorities as being "lower class". We increasingly are seeing that this is not always true, yet the stigmas surrounding race and gender remain. Why? Liberalism insists that racism and gender discrimination are determined only by individual attitudes, and that attitude adjustments and language policing are the highest priority in eliminating racial or gender discrimination. However what we have seen is that the bourgeoisie has a tendency that counteracts these efforts by utilizing caste discrimination to keep people divided, even when the upper echelons of businesses now put a lot of effort into DEI, ESG and HR to counterbalance previous forms of discrimination, usually by just reversing tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


The role of Indian communists in both analysis and struggle against caste-ism is not studied enough in the west IMO. It's different but there is something to learn from it. Race in the U.S. is like a caste system.

>Caste really became rigid and fossilised in the medieval era. The colonial system under the British rule both further rigidised the caste-system as well as opened up ways for its weakening. The contradictory processes of limited and colonial industrialisation and semi-capitalist development loosened the caste-bonds, and at the same time created new castes, bondings and rigidities. Factories and mills objectively weakened caste as a structure. The growth of the market including the labour-market, money-commodity exchange and the far greater movement of men and material (roads, railways, etc.) violated caste-barriers. As S.A. Dange was fond of saying, one never knew in whose plate one was eating in an eating-place or which castes and hands in a factory handled the threads in a factory.

>The British colonial system needed the caste-system, at the same time, as a source of cheap, even bonded labour. The disintegrating caste hierarchy was sought to be kept alive as forms of movement of labour. New caste practices came up eulogising the ideology of casteism and ‘glorious’ histories of each one of the castes were written. It has to be realised that casteism is basically a product of colonialism.

>The recruitment of urban labourers, factory hands and even educated personnel took the form of the transfer and migration of people of the same caste, village, district, and language groups to towns, mills and businesses. These castes were basically the most depressed ones. In the rural areas the oppression of the lowermost ‘castes’ (by birth) was most virulent; their members were thus ‘liberated’ by industrialisation and urbanisation, often resulting in the preservation even increase in caste-consciousness.

>Caste began to break up but casteism gained strength.



I'm not sure that i agree that caste systems are exclusive to the indian subcontinent. I cant think of anything that describes, for example, the american jim crow era policies of segregation and banned miscegenation, as anything but a caste system. I think caste is more pervasive than just india, which actually might be why socialism has so much difficulty describing social issues outside of class analysis.

File: 1686629760926-0.png (13.21 MB, 3100x2246, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1686629760926-1.png (1.78 MB, 1920x1080, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1686629760926-2.png (1.46 MB, 796x900, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1686629760926-3.png (1.21 MB, 1024x719, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1686629760926-4.png (1.48 MB, 1080x810, ClipboardImage.png)


Is the confusion and delay brought about by competing languages, competing definitions, and the overuse of metaphor an insurmountable obstacle? Or will there in time be a universal way of speaking? Gramsci didn't seem to think so:

From Antonio Gramsci - The Modern Prince and Other Writings
>In the Study it is noted that the terms “immanence” and “immanent” are certainly used in Marxism, but that “evidently” this use is only “metaphorical.” Very good. But has he in any way explained what immanence and immanent mean “metaphorically?” Why have these terms continued to be used and not replaced? Purely out of a horror of creating new words? Usually when one new conception of the world succeeds another, the earlier language continues to be used but is used metaphorically. All language is a continuous process of metaphors, and the history of semantics is an aspect of the history of culture: language is at the same time a living thing and a museum of the fossils of life and civilization. When I use the word disaster no one can accuse me of astrological beliefs, and when I say “By Jove,” no one can believe that I am a worshiper of the pagan divinity; nevertheless, these expressions are a proof that modern civilization is a development of both paganism and astrology. The term “immanence” in Marxism has its precise meaning which is hidden in the metaphor and this must be defined exactly; in reality this definition would truly have been “theory.” Marxism continues the philosophy of immanence, but rids it of all its metaphysical trimmings and leads it on to the concrete basis of history. The use is metaphorical only in the sense that the former immanence is superseded, has been superseded, although it is still presupposed as a link in the process of thought from which the new link has been born. On the other hand, is the new concept of immanence completely new? It appears that in Giordano Bruno, for example, there are many examples of such a new conception; Marx and Engels knew about Bruno. They knew about him and there remain traces of Bruno’s works in their notes. Conversely, Bruno was not without influence on classical German philosophy, etc. Here are many problems in the history of philosophy which could be usefully examined.

>The question of the relationship between language and metaphor is not simple, far from it. Language, however, is always metaphorical. If it is perhaps no
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


For if existent things, as objects of vision and of hearing and of the senses in general, are by definition externally existent, and if these visible things are apprehensible by sight and audible by hearing, and not vice versa, how, in this case, can these things be indicated to another person? For the means by which we indicate is speech, and speech is not identical with the really subsistent things; therefore we do not indicate to our neighbor the existent things but speech, which is other than what subsists. Thus, just as the visible things will not become audible, and vice versa, so too, since the existent subsists externally, it will not become identical with our speech; and not being speech, it cannot be revealed to another person.
Speech, moreover, is formed from the impressions caused by external objects, that is to say, objects of sense; for from the occurrence of flavor there is produced in us the speech uttered concerning this quality, and by the incidence of color speech respecting color. And if this be so, it is not speech that serves to reveal the external object, but the external object that proves to be explanatory of speech. Moreover, it is not possible to assert that speech subsists in the same fashion as things visible and audible, so that the subsisting and existent things can be indicated by it as by a thing subsisting and existent. For, he says, even if speech subsists, yet it differs from the rest of subsisting things, and visible bodies differ very greatly from spoken words; for the visible object is perceptible by one sense-organ and speech by another. Therefore speech does not serve to indicate the great majority of subsisting things, even as they themselves do not reveal each other’s nature.
But even if they are known, how could anyone reveal them to someone else? For how could anyone express what they have seen in speech or, how could it become clear to the hearer, if he has not seen it? For just as sight does not recognize sounds, so, likewise, hearing does not recognize colors, but only sounds; moreover, the speaker speaks, but he does not speak a color or a thing. So, when someone has no conception, how could he conceive it through someone else’s words, or through some sign which is other than that thing, unless he sees it, if it is a color, or he hears it, if it is a sound? For, firstly, nobody speaks a sound or a color, but only a word; so that it is not possible to think a color but only to see it; nor to think a sPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1686617774582.jpg (43.77 KB, 736x950, david ricardo.jpg)


1) What is the opportunity cost of using money for exchange?
2) What is the opportunity cost of NOT using money for exchange?
3) What does it look like when the opportunity cost of NOT using money for exchange exceeds the opportunity cost of using money for exchange, and vice versa?
4) What are instances in world economic history when using or NOT using money for exchange would've been more useful than the alternative.

File: 1686588879388.png (195.19 KB, 474x248, ClipboardImage.png)


why does Marxism keep having separate definitions for words from how they're commonly used? isn't this confusing?

>In Marxism "science" doesn't mean the empirical method and the accompanying peer review process of testable explanations and predictions. No. It just means anti-utopian.

>In Marxism "revising" doesn't mean coming back to an earlier work and updating it based on new information. It means betraying the "immortal" anti-utopian "science" by doing a deviation.
>In Marxism "productive" labor doesn't refer to whether labor is useful, but whether it makes a profit.

Is this just a result of poor translation from German to English or did Marx decide to come up with his own vocabulary that overwrote existing words with new contexts? Shouldn't he have coined neologisms instead, to avoid overwriting existing words with new confusing definitions?
31 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Because its a science, physics has much more complicated definitions for things like charge, gravity and acceleration than commonly used.


File: 1686604169835.png (1.43 MB, 960x1280, ClipboardImage.png)

tank you anon


Theres also this one by the same author about Historical Materialism, they are both great reads.


>It appears that in Giordano Bruno, for example, there are many examples of such a new conception; Marx and Engels knew about Bruno. They knew about him and there remain traces of Bruno’s works in their notes.
bruno was based


the source of this text btw seems to be Antonio Gramsci - The Modern Prince and Other Writings

File: 1608528098316.png (10.79 KB, 512x512, uni-painted-red.png)


This is a thread for communists who are (or are planning to) study at [b]unnamed[/b] universities the world over.

The thread is to serve as a mutual intellectual support system and meta-discussion for communist students to
· share resources for picking and learning your object of study
· discuss strategies for studies
· weekly rhythms and scheduling outside of the classroom
· organizing the student-body and/or spreading artistic agitation
· all while ultimately staying safe and completing your studies

51 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


just drop out en masse. fuck school


I'm from flag related and want to study pedagogy in Estonia


neoliberal hellhole where everything is privatised, surviving on capital injections from the West because Estonia is the "pilot program" and "exemplary post-Soviet country".


what's the best way to study?
i mean, i need to get really good grades and i'm working part time

so i don't have much time, so i need to find out the most efficient way to win

there's reading, there's writing and solving tests
anything else? i want to know what your strats are


File: 1686587964315.png (577.2 KB, 1280x720, Learning to Learn Pill.png)

There are a few good threads around that address this topic, but because you posted here instead of lurking I'll link them here >>6832 >>4166 >>12790 >>6382
Regarding the attached image you can find Make it stick in this post >>34236 in /hobby/ that thread is also generally good.

I'm sure you already do half of this but I'm going to type it out again anyway.
>Your schedule
Find a calendar app for your phone, if you use google, get google calendar, or whatever software you use for email etc. Just get one. In that calendar, make repeating events for your classes and work schedule. Put in the dates of all your assignments due from the syllabus. Set 20 minute reminders before each of them so you don't have to think about it. From there you will be able to visualize what time you have left. Out of that remaining time you are going to need to sleep, eat, and travel. The remaining time then is going to be your study/family & friends/leisure time. That's all you got. When I used to do this math I based it on 3 hours a week for every 1 hour of classes and the end result was around 30 hours left over for fun, but the problem here is that you are working at the same time so it means you will need to be more careful with your time. Once you find time to actually study (i.e. big chunks of time (the little chunks can be for emails, scheduling, getting assignments together, planning)) then we move on to the next step.
Every class will have a textbook. The dead author trying to get information from their brain into yours. The professor is the shepherd of this. While the immediate goal is to get good grades, the only way to internally motivate yourself is by seeking knowledge. This can be knowledge for future conversation, for solving the worlds problems, for organizing, or just because you think it is neat. But any type of studying without the fundamental internal motivation will be painful and you will want to go jerk off or plPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1686276791205.png (79.39 KB, 286x278, Petko Miletic.png)


*1930s Yugoslav communist factional disputes*
>Be some random Montenegrin communist.
>Get thrown in Mitrovica prison by the royal government.
>Share your seething hatred of the Yugoslav peasantry with other communists in that prison.
>Sperg out at Andrija Hebrang for opposing your peasant-melting goals.
>Legit just be the worst, but somehow you become the leader of a large faction.
>MFW it includes Milovan Đilas and Aleksandr Ranković.
>Tito sends you off to Moscow to get shot, but integrates your closest followers into the KPJ Politburo and gets influenced by them.
>You may have been killed, but your ideas will outlive you for generations.

>It's ww2 now.

>Your former followers continue your legacy, already in 1941 they are not only supporting confescation of upper, middle and lower peasantry's land and grain, but are actively burning down whole villages, turning them from neutrality to anti-communism.
>MFW it's literally a repetition of war communism idiocy but applied in Yugoslavia.
>Eventually the policy backfires so hard they are forced to dial it back a little bit and are punished by Tito.
>MFW the punishment is just a stern talking down and your former followers (Ranković, Đilas, Kidrič, Milutinović) remain on their posts.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>y in 1941 they are not only supporting confescation of upper, middle and lower peasantry's land and grain, but are actively burning down whole villages, turning them from neutrality to anti-communism.
i mean isn't the peasantry usually anti-communist because
1) they're not proles
2) they have different class interests
3) they are often beholden to traditionalist ideas like monarchy and loyalty to one's betters?

The question of the peasantry versus the proletariat goes back to the first international .


there's no peasantry left in Europe so this question has resolved itself there

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