[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / 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.)

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

| Catalog | Home

File: 1650822978120.jpg (42.17 KB, 680x515, EwTgezqWUAM5TUG.jpg)


I've done some smaller things that can help hurt spread of crypto. Some good examples are posting about the falling popularity of crypto and sharing fake stories of ceo deaths. These are all legal and if done correctly cannot be traced back to you.

File: 1650406500435.png (1.34 MB, 680x510, consider.png)


Discuss the following claim:

>An unpopular socialist revolution is not worth attempting. The movement must become popular before seizing rule.

Why do you agree or disagree with this claim?
Pragmatically speaking, how important is popular support?
What are some examples of unpopular revolutions? Do they align with or negate the claim?
6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


You seem to be conflating two distinct things. There is a difference between pandering to the masses and having popular support. Marx and Engels definitely thought there was a need for popularity and used rhetoric to appeal to the masses in their pamphlets, but they just didn't compromise their message to make that appeal. There is a difference between Bonaparte using reactionary populism to appeal to the peasants or Lassalle oversimplifying/changing Marxist concepts to popularize the idea of social democracy and a large segment of workers lead by a party starting a revolution which is joined by the rest of the masses. Otherwise it would just be Blanquism.


/thread basically


File: 1650525564632.png (338.25 KB, 768x514, parenti quote.png)

>mao the bonapartist


everything he mentions in that laundry list is obscurantist bs, not "existing practice"


>What are some examples of unpopular revolutions?
Examples of "revolutions" without majority politcal support would be the Saur Revolution which was a minoritarian palace coup, the PDPA did not build in-roads with the majority peasant population which lead to their ultimate demise. Their ultraleft and shortsighted policies lead to them alienating the population who eventually turned on them. That's what happens when you have a revolution with no popular support.

Contrast this to Lenin and Bolsheviks who prioritised majority support before starting their revolution.
From "The Dual Power" by Lenin (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/09.htm )
>"To become a power the class-conscious workers must win the majority to their side.As long as no violence is used against the people there is no other road to power. We are not Blancists, we do not stand for the seizure of power by a minority. We are Marxists, we stand for proletarian class struggle against petty-bourgeois intoxication, against chauvinism-defencism, phrase-mongering and dependence on the bourgeoisie."
Lenin is saying if you don't want to use violance and coercion against the proletariat (and as demonstrated by Afghanistan will eventually collapse your position of power), you need majority support amongst the proletariat when seizing power.

And from "Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?" by Lenin (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/01.htm )
>"If the revolutionary party has no majority in the advanced contingents of the revolutionary classes and in the country, insurrection is out of the question."
It's the reason why the Bolsheviks launched the revolution in October of 1917, and not April of that year. Had the Bolsheviks attempted to launch the revolution in April when they did not have majority support then it was nearly all but certain the revolution would have been put down.

And maintaing popular support is why the USSR implemented the NEP after the failure of the european revolutions which lead to an isolation of thePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1650481004370.jpg (6.38 KB, 156x156, 7084.jpg)


Someone had made what was possibly a troll thread on how could one believe a certain statement by Marx.

I had written up what I think is a pretty decent reply that got directly to the heart of the matter that I want to post here. Feel free to reuse it.

Here it is:

The interpretation of the statement "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
to mean that recorded human history is nothing but class struggle means the statement is trivially untrue; A single example can disprove it (Take Pythagoras providing a proof of the theorem of the relationship of the catheti to the hypoteneuse in a right angle triangle, this cannot be reduced to class struggle alone since it requires geometry)

To claim that Marx is making such a trivially untrue statement is to violate the principle of charity, to quote mine and to be anti-hermeneutic (ie. to interpret statements in such a way as to make them necessarily contradictory or false).

Here is a more complete quote: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, that each time ended, either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”

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

File: 1617750661395-0.jpg (97.25 KB, 723x899, Kim Il Sung.jpg)

File: 1617750661395-1.jpg (86.09 KB, 699x900, Kim Jong Il.jpg)


"The Juche idea is a man-centered world outlook. It is a revolutionary, scientific, and political theory that accurately illumines the way for realizing the independence of the masses." - Kim Jong Il

Discuss the Juche idea, it's merits, similarities and distinctions from Marxism Leninism, post pdfs, videos, documentaries, and other educational material for coming to a proper understanding of the Juche idea and it's implications. I'll start off the thread with what is often described as the authoritative text for laying out the philosophical and socio-historical principles of the Juche idea, "On The Juche Idea" by Kim Jong Il.

7 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Texts about Songun





>The Juche idea, the guiding ideology of socialism in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, was and is target of much criticism not only by the bourgeois media vehicles, from who we are already used to reading these types of content, but also by many progressives and so-called communists. Among the latter, stand out, in particular, Hoxhaists and Maoists, those who raise Enver Hoxha as a great defender of the purity of Marxism-Leninism against revisionism and those who follow “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism”, summarized by Abimael Guzmán, leader of the Sendero Luminoso, from Peru, as “the third and superior stage of Marxism-Leninism”.
>It is well known that between the followers of both lines there is a lot of friction, as well as between the main leaders of the two sides. However, when it comes to the Juche idea and socialism in Korea in general, they both embark on a common frenzy of criticism, most often frivolous. In an attempt to prove the "purity" and "superiority" of this or that idea, they launch attacks against the country that, at times, even assimilates and adheres to what is broadcast by the media at the service of capital and of imperialism, which is, in fact, something to be scared about, coming from communists.
>Given this situation, this article is intended to bring to light the criticisms raised against this idea and Korean socialism in order to provide a reasonable clarification and conclusion of what is really in them.


There is a lot of confusion on what fascism is and what it means.

So I think It may be useful to clear things out by making a little general so it can be properly defined and pointed out.

I will start by laying some popular questions about it:
-What is Fascism? (or who best defined it)
-What is function of Fascism?
-Is Trump fascist? (if not, why and where he stands instead)
-What (if it exist) is Post-modern Fascism (/leftypol/s sugarboy Prolekult talked about it)
-Are there Fascist still around/what would take them for to rise up again?
-Does QAnon have any Fascist pararels?
-Some post-1945 historical examples of Fascism.
-Economics of Fascism.
-Flavours of Fascism (based on different material conditions, nations etc.).
-Fascist relations to Imperialism, can Fascist country be Imperialist?
12 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I think you have it right that there are two aspects in fascism, but you get some things wrong about historical fascism

I 100% agree with the idea that the material reality of fascism is essentially a completion of liberalism, as carried out by the bourgeoisie. It is the annihilation of the individual in the name of the social body (as represented by the nation, which is represented by the state or singular leader himself). It is also in some ways anti-capitalist in that it formally subjects the economy to political control, but the nature of that control will always tend to be in favor of whatever bourgeois interests are ruling the system. This is not paradoxical, since companies have to exist in the context of a whole economy, and so in order to shape themselves as they see fit, they need the freedom to impose on all others. This is achieved through political control of the economy. In this way it's even materially progressive. The US deepstate is currently upholding these ideas in a socially progressive veneer. Hillary Clinton, by this definition, is a fascist.

But the other side which is equally necessary to fully understand fascism is it's irrationalism. It is an answer to the problem of modernity. It's a failed answer, but tbh as far as things go it's pretty advanced I think. Fascism is for the rejection of this modern period of generalized nihilism and overturning by the installation of an "eternal" state which is to faithfully represent the true national Spirit. It's at it's core Idealist. It's similar to anarchism maybe? In that they can both be idealist and copes with the problem of modernity. But other than that they're pretty unrelated. Though between these ideas there is a sort of voluntarism or libertinism for the leadership, who are to have full artistic freedom over society. This makes sense, since the state needs it's solidity recognized in order to "represent" (or more accurately, displace) the reality of the individual citizen.

And it's not so much necessarily racist, as trying to worship an aesthetic rendering of their understanding of their particular national being. This is why I say it's more advanced. They fail because of their worship of an aesthetic representation and the negation of the individual (imagining an antagonism between real concrete individual, and the society they make), but they are correct to hoPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


i'll take back a total criticism of your idea of them being reactionary anarchists, but I think that there's a lot more nuance there to be had. But then it becomes a job of charting out the different tendencies around there….

The common factor of consistency though is their position as a cope for liberalism, they rest on nihilism, which is dysfunctional, and so they cover that up with idealism. The nihilism is at it's core always an active nihilism, so there's a current of overturning and savagery under their "beautiful idea" which they want to implement against reality.


this book is pretty neat. but it sadly goes on a literally dictionary definition of fascism, instead of investigating how fascism was for people living in it, and what they thought and did and said, etc. I wish we could have seen a parallel of how fascist subjects viewed their society to compare to our view of our society…


This is one of the few posts on here (or anywhere really) that actually understands fascism and isn't just the usual liberal claptrap/reflexive definition-mongering. You actually know its philosophical basis beyond some vague notion of 'racism'. One thing I would add is that, because of the idealism and its relation to the spirit, as well as the totalism of the state, fascism is also something which keenly regards the 'potential' within each member of its national identity. Fascism is a strange ideology in this respect, because on the one hand, it is intensely hierarchical, but on the other, the hierarchy is a sort of 'fluid' one, rather than a fixed or essentialized one (insofar as we are exempt nazism as being apart from the other strains of 'proper' fascism); the 'hero in every man' ambition is an extension of its concept of spirit, and its national totalism, a collective totality of assimilated particulars, wrought with its tendency towards the equalizing potentiation of each person: the power they have in themselves to become something more. But in doing so, they assert their own hierarchical sovereignty under the same state which subsumes and potentiates them all with an equal sense of identity. The economically related stance of corporatism is precisely the attempt to reconcile the seeming contradiction already enmeshed within liberalism, that problem of 'equality yet competition', and it (fascism's evolved 'solution' to the problem) does so through the leveraging force of a national belonging which promises all members of society to be contributive members, contributive in the sense of having some functional purpose regardless of standing, whilst simultaneously encouraging upwards mobility nonetheless. Corporatism was the synthesis of maintaining the 'lower' end of the strata without dehumanizing it, via the promise of unlimited internal possibility and the valuing of all members. In this way, the caricature of communism most people mistakenly preconceive 'communism is about some naive sense of equality' is actually much more at home within fascism's philosophical implications and doctrine than it is within real communism, which has little to do with such an assertion necessarily. Gentile even outright states in 'theory of mind as pure act': "Think of what you wish to be, and you can become it". His seminal work 'on education' is similar. This is the Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


woah cool post

this really fills in the idea that fascism is a more total reckoning of the liberal idea of a singular individual, the difference being that the fascist state is supposed to represent the particular national interests rather than claim some universality.

Also you touched on a point i havent really reconciled yet (due to lack of knowledge), which is the relation of the two faces of fascism, the material and the ideological. At first i assumed there was no necessary tie, but now I think they probably are very intertwined somehow, but i can't say exactly why… my hangup is just that basically we already are getting a fascism materially, but without the ideology. So will we develop a fascist ideology to go along? Or does neoconservatism among the elites constitute this fascist ideology? IMO neoconservatism is less advanced than fascism (because it still keeps liberalism's ideal of universalism, while in its real material character, promoting the interests of one nation… i'll take a guess and say that you face off neocons against welfare "socialist" democrats and you'll basically develop nazism out of it… all the more easily because no one actually gets acquainted with the real philosophy of nazism and just learns "concentration camps bad, racism bad" instead) but it seems to be bringing about a similar material state of things either way.

anyways, this lays the groundwork for dialectical-materialism and a society which is both oriented inwards and with a knowledge of its particular nature, but also which sees the exactly reciprocal relationship it has with its people, particular individuals, who fully embody society in their being. But alas, no one even cares about this shit it seems like….

File: 1628816053504.jpg (13.45 KB, 400x400, tiddly.jpg)


What does /edu/ do for knowledge management? Does it work? How important is it? Experiences?

I am starting a Tiddlywiki and plan on doing the zettelkasten method. The way I understand it, I just take notes and link them to each other with tags or something? Seems straightforward yet quite useful.egoismEgoism
14 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


amazonbasics lined notebook


>I read stuff and my brain remembers it for me
not everyone has extremley good memory
I have to re-read information at least 2 times after a gap in time to remember them


I wanted to use DokuWiki but the instructions confused me too much kek https://www.dokuwiki.org/install:dokuwiki_on_a_stick


That thread is gone, can you post your set up here?




Is there a book I can read on the economy of the Roman Empire and the social classes of the time? Anything that goes into deep analysis or extensive stuff.
11 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


This work is a marxist classic mostly on Ancient Greece but it also talks about Rome.


>Roman Empire
Specifically roman empire or you are refering to rome since 753 BC?


just because the word is generally derived doesn’t mean they’re literally identical classes. also “small scale wage labor” isn’t capitalism. i don’t even know why i’m bothering to correct you when absolutely void-brained takes like yours will continue to be regular on here


File: 1650254579550.pdf (242.09 KB, 197x255, two_pages.pdf)

daniel de leon on the gracchi brothers and the late republic


Did someone already mention
"The assasination of Julias Caesar" by michael parenti its a very interesting and pleasant read


Hey all.

I am looking for recommendations for podcasts on history and or agroecology.

But also this can be a thread about anything educational that you really enjoy
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


alright, now which ones are actually good?


most of them


I personally found proles of the roundtable to be the best, before their collapse. Their new podcast is good too


>before their collapse
What happened?

Also about "from alpha to omega" and "general intellect unit"


Hey! I realize this is kind of off-topic but I needed to ask.

Does operating a well-established website like yours take a large
amount of work? I am completely new to operating a blog however
I do write in my diary daily. I'd like to start a blog so I can share my experience and thoughts online.
Please let me know if you have any kind of suggestions or tips for new aspiring bloggers.
Appreciate it!
ក្រដាសប្រាក់ 100 ដុល្លារក្លែងក្លាយ

File: 1649797717244.png (652.11 KB, 610x864, ClipboardImage.png)


Revolution via an electoral path will never happen, it can be a tool but never the means.

Post infographics, tactics etc about protesting/rioting, tensions are rising and the contradictions are sharper then ever.


File: 1645556468376-0.png (179.76 KB, 580x386, office.png)

File: 1645556468376-1.jpg (412.71 KB, 1042x1600, althusser-colors.jpg)


Hey /edu/! A new reading group has recently formed in the /read/ chat rooms. This time dedicated to the works of Louis Althusser. We should be starting soon, our first meeting is planned for March 6, Sunday. The plan is to work through some of Althusser's books, starting with For Marx, which is his most introductory work. We would like to invite anyone on this board to join us for the reading.

>Why Althusser?

We consider Althusser to have been one of the most important Marxists of the second half of the 20th century. His identification of the 'epistemological break' in Marx was a major innovation, and most modern readings of Marx, centered around the discontinuities and ruptures inherent to his work are all in some way indebted to Althusser. We consider that his attempt at reconstructing Historical Materialism during a time of a major theoretical crisis of Marxism, and his innovations towards Marxist science, are of utmost value. But we also recognize that Althusser's interventions were never isolated from practical politics - his consideration that ‘Philosophy represents the class struggle in theory’ being fundamental here. His theoretical work was always conceived as an intervention into not only the politics of the PCF, but of the international communist movement as a whole. As he would later say:

>I would never have written anything were it not for the Twentieth Congress and Khrushchev’s critique of Stalinism and the subsequent liberalisation. But I would never have written these books if I had not seen this affair as a bungled destalinisation, a right-wing destalinisation which instead of analyses offered us only incantations; which instead of Marxist concepts had available only the poverty of bourgeois ideology. My target was therefore clear: these humanist ravings, these feeble dissertations on liberty, labour or alienation which were the effects of all this among French Party intellectuals. And my aim was equally clear: to make a start on the first left-wing critique of Stalinism, a critique that would make it possible to reflect not only on Khrushchev and Stalin but also on Prague and Lin Piao: that would above all help put some substance back into the revolutionary project here in the West.

So, anyone interested?
16 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Here's Monthly Review's version of Lenin & Philosophy. It comes with some other essays included:
< Philosophy as a Revolutionary Weapon (Feb 1968)
< Lenin and Philosophy (Feb 1968)
< < Appendix
< Preface to Capital Volume One (Mar 1969)
< < The Rudiments of a Critical Bibliography
< Lenin before Hegel (April 1969)
< Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes toward an Investigation) (Jan-Apr 1969)
And in the appendix
< Freud and Lacan (Jan 1964, corrected Feb 1969)
< A Letter on Art in Reply to André Daspre (Apr 1966)
< Cremonini, Painter of the Abstract (Aug 1966)


Next meeting we will discuss the rest of essay #5 in For Marx.


copied from >>10124 (might have thought that was the current thread)
Althusser Corrects Marx by Ernest Mandel: https://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1971/01/althusser.html

I recommend people read this.


Since we discussed this current text as a potential introduction to philosophy and Marxism, here is an even more basic introductory text. It outlines the progression of philosophy from classical philosophy through Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx. It's an accessible primer on the philosophical side of Marxism. It would be good to follow up this text with For Marx I think because the latter helps to correct some of the common misconceptions, including those propagated by Engels in the former.


We finished On Marx and will be starting On The Reproduction of Capital soon! If you'd like to join, now is the time.

Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / 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