[ 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: 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.

File: 1641513051857.png (128.17 KB, 960x748, NSDAP_Wahl_1933.png)


Is there any books I can read that documents the NSDAP rise to power? Specifically from a leftist perspective or a leftist analysis? I'm specifically looking for a book that follows the events as they happen.
3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Hamburg, too. Hitler would rarely visit the city, because sentiments there were still broadly leftist


What exactly were “junkers”, I seen that term used a lot during Marx’s writings on German society.


more traditionally in general German usage, a young lesser nobleman usually without land and in military service
it was eventually adapted into a name for the Prussian aristocracy, who did own a ton of land in Prussia and swayed elections there under the Weimar republic
Hitler kind of saw them as part of the backstabbers of WWI although more passive, but they still ingratiated themselves with him and succeeded obviously


Despite the fact it was written by the Allies "trials of war criminals before the nuremberg military tribunals" is an incredibly well documentation of how the Nazis came to power in support of major corporations.


Know of any good books about the Great Patriotic War?


Full contact martial arts

sambo, kudo karate, Marine Martial arts, army combatives, full contact karate, Chinese Sanda
no Bullshido kung fu stuff


anyone have a good version of Jixiao Xinshu, can't find a complete version anymore

File: 1617655547553.jpg (354.23 KB, 762x1100, PP030.jpg)


Who did it? Soviets? Nazis?
Why were the polish officers killed? What was the motive for the massacre? Were they preparing a revolt?

Are the documents fake? Whose investigations are trustworthy?

22 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


NKVD, documents prove it and i don’t believe tankies that openly justify many other of stalin/beria’s ethnically targeted atrocities like deportations to central asia would be so surprised that bolsheviks were capable of such a thing


File: 1648568175009.jpg (18.25 KB, 818x123, katyn greentext.jpg)

>documents prove it
Documents? You mean the ones that got admitted to being forgeries? Or perhaps the documents by Nazi Germany?
>tankies that openly justify many other of stalin/beria’s ethnically targeted atrocities
>deportations to central asia
<Muh tankies!
Fuck of liberal


that quora thing is basically admitting it was done systematically against certain ethnicities, but waffling pathetically around it. again don’t know why you’d even be so surprised if this is the kind of stuff you think


File: 1648582596698.jpg (289.67 KB, 1600x916, FDR Katyn Massacre.jpg)

>admitting it was done systematically against certain ethnicities
<Let me take a point out of context to portray it as admission!
You argue in bad faith and use a false narrative to try and claim another false narrative, and cry about "le evul Stalin/Beria/tankeez" in the mean time. I'd suggest going to >>>/leftypol/ or better yet reddit, those liberal echo-chambers are more your speed.
>inb4 'N-no u echochamber'
People have discussed Katyn and the debate of it being the NKVD or not before, they also discussed Soviet deportations before, this is acceptable discourse. You are engaging in dishonest fallacies, putting a slight spin on old Cold War myths and exaggerations.


File: 1649450320992.png (122.66 KB, 1245x450, WikipediaBeingWikipedia.png)


This is a pretty good examination of it all, It's important to note though that most Communists are able to admit mistakes and excesses commited by Socialist nations. I don't doubt that when the Soviet Union started taking in Polish officers (Most of who fought in the Polish-Soviet war) they treated them pretty badly, but the idea they spread is that one executioner (Vasily Blokhin) executed tens of thousands of Poles by himself right next to Smolensk (A city of at least a hundred thousand and all with German guns and bullets) and nobody knew till the Nazis came by is just insane.

File: 1608528010941.jpg (40.95 KB, 554x380, trotsky.jpg)

 No.733[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Alright so I've had a few interactions with people on /leftypol/ who seem to think that Dialectics means rejecting the Aristotelian law of non-contradiction. As far as I can tell this has no real basis in the work of Marx or Engels and is a good to not be taken seriously by anyone who understands logic or philosophy or mathematics. I was really confused about where this came from for a while. I have read Mao's "On Contradiction" many times and I suppose that text could be read that way, but I don't think that is what Mao meant by contradiction or "the unity of opposites". Last night though I read Leon Trotsky's "The ABC of Materialist Dialectics" and I think I've found my answer. In it, Trotsky straight up makes a case for why A=/=A, and does make a somewhat compelling argument until you examine it critically.

This piece is well written like most of Trotsky's work, but his argument is full of non-sequitors and general misreadings of Marx and Engels. I want to make this thread to do some comparing and contrasting between four texts in particular, but we can bring in other lit if people want. Those four texts are…

Anti-Duhring by Engels:

The ABC of Materialst Dialectics:

Dialectical and Historical Materialism:

On Contradiction by Mao Zedong:
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
136 posts and 60 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



File: 1649180939099.pdf (30.83 KB, 197x255, Aizenberg.pdf)

Not sure if this is the appropriate thread for discussing this type of stuff, but since it involves dialectics, i figure it would fit.

But, honestly asking, what is the point of studying dialectics? I read PDF related, and didn't get much from it. This Aizenberg guy even claims Hegel used the Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis triad (i thought that was Fichetean meme?).





Here zizek mentions the idea of a dialectical mode of thinking or something. I generally agree that dialectics is more about presenting things in their fullness, contingency, process, and necessary movement, but this was a neat little thing. Basically just this part:

>There are, roughly speaking, two philosophical approaches to an antagonistic constellation of either/or: either one opts for one pole against the other (Good against Evil, freedom against oppression, morality against hedonism, etc.), or one adopts a "deeper" attitude of emphasizing the complicity of the opposites, and of advocating a proper measure or the unity. Although Hegel's dialectic seems a version of the second approach (the "synthesis" of opposites), he opts for an unheard-of THIRD version: the way to resolve the deadlock is neither to engage oneself in fighting for the "good" side against the "bad" one, nor in trying to bring them together in a balanced "synthesis," but in opting for the BAD side of the initial either/or. Of course, this "choice of the worst" fails, but in this failure, it undermines the entire field of the alternative and thus enables us to overcome its terms.

I think there's also something to be said for a dialectics which privileges overcoming deadlock and active thought, and another which comes to view the relationship/unity of opposites as necessary and in some way able to be thought of in a self-contained way. But this is just a feeling. It's also interesting to me that in Engel's laws, they can't be easily lumped into one thing. Negation of negation, quality into quantity, and unity of opposites - they're on both sides, the unity sees the opposites as united, whereas the quantity into quality and negation of negation sees the overcoming of deadlock and the specific form of transformation (quantity into quality). I'm just a dialectics lightweight tho so anyways take this zizek essay


fam this is unreadable omg


Is mathematics invented, discovered or both?
49 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


sry, or oranges are already fake as fuck, see this highly underrated comment (not mine, just based and noumenon pilled):


the question isn't very interesting. there isn't very much practical difference between invention and discovery in the first place. to invent and to discover are both to unveil something novel. it's why european settlers refer to things like "the discovery of america" which just as well be described as the invention of colonial states in the western hemisphere. was deep sea navigation discovered or invented? the astrolabe was invented, but doesn't work if you haven't discovered the relationship between sun declination and latitude.


Mathematics is an expression of truth. If you look at the various branches of pure mathematics, many don’t even remotely resemble what you probably had in mind (high school algebra or the basic college curriculum of calculus and linear algebra). Mathematics is similar to a programming language. You have some set of primitives, some set of operations you can perform, and from there you begin to derive the consequences of the operations you’ve defined. I guess you could say in that sense that mathematics is “invented” or “contrived”. Whether it is “real” or not depends entire on whether the system you have defined is useful for solving any real problems. Like if I define a logic about Barbie dolls, I define what properties Barbie has, what operations I can perform on her (brush her hair or undress her), etc… with a little effort we can make such a logic self consistent and valid. You obviously realize immediately that we probably can’t gain any useful or meaningful knowledge from that, so is it real math or not? I don’t see why not.


I just realized what point I was trying to make. Mathematics is obviously invented. It is just a framework within which you can systematize your reasoning about a given question or problem. However, the conclusions you derive from within that framework are discoveries. So a given branch of mathematics or logic is just a method for making discoveries.


math is invented. to say that math is "discovered" is idealism

File: 1640369773415.pdf (7.6 MB, 169x255, marxism ethics.pdf)


I finished reading Eugene Kamenka's Marxism and Ethics earlier this week and I found it so interesting.
There are two big thesis that stuck with me from the book:
Marxism can be seen as an ethical system that is not concern about good or evil, right and wrong but about alienation and liberation.
If moral system stem from material conditions that can be seen in soviet history, during the revolution soviet thinkers denounced many ethical ideas as bourgeois and celebrated revolutionary violence but after WWII when eastern socialist countries became prosperous and estable ideas that were denounced as bourgeois returned to ethical discourse.

Honestly the book doesn't answer the question of what marxist ethics are or what ethical system is more compatible with marxism but shows really well how ethics can be understood as how the conditions of a society understand the meaning of their actions.
Kamenka has another book on ethics and I wish to read it next.

This thread isn't just about Kamenka's book, I want us to talk about ethics in general and how they relate to marxism.
8 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Here is the book


>At the same time, the materialist interpretation of history, with its emphasis on historical change and class conflict, helped to lay the foundations for pluralist view of man and society - for the recognition of competing moralities and outlooks within society and within the individual man himself. It taught us that society was not a harmonious whole and that men were not harmonious wholes. Just as there was no total social interest, subsuming and reconciling all individual interests, so there was no total individual interest - a man could be part of many traditions, confront himself and others in many roles, be torn between allegiances to competing groups and ways of life. Marx himself and his disciples, it should be noted, were never thoroughgoing in this pluralism: they did tend to treat any individual man as belonging to a single class and to think of society as being made up of a finite number of classes. Marxian pluralism has to be, and has been, carried further than Marxists have been willing to carry it: we have to recognise the individual man, and the individual society, as infinitely complex, as the battlesite of an infinite number of traditions, outlooks and ways of life, as an economy of motives and interests which can never be exhaustively enumerated. None of the components of such an economy can be treated as atomic simples, confronting other components as monads without windows. Within each society there is an infinite number of sub-societies; component traditions and interests have points of affinity as well as points of conflict; they enter into alliances, change allegiance, split up into further components and so on. The complexity of individuals and 'their' interests has long been recognised in literature, especially in the novel; it is time that it was more clearly recognised in ethics.
Page 34, 35

Liberal hogwash. Of course the world is deeply complex and the motives of individuals can be fractured into numerous pieces, but the issue is that liberalism does not ultimately assign precedence or weight to factors. Everyone is given the freedom to decide for themselves to zero in on whatever factor they arbitrarily deem important and what weight they assign to each factor. Precedence and weight of all factors remain free to choose at any moment. This typically leads to the unverifiable, fantastical explanations of liberal political analysis, for which there can be countless of for the same eventPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


>Dr Israel Getzler, in his biographical study of the Men- shevik leader Martov (Martov, Melbourne U.P., 1967), shows us the moral disgust that Martov and other Menshevik leaders felt when faced, especially between 1903 and 1918, by Lenin's un- scrupulous tactics and lack of nicety in moral matters (the scandal of the Schmidt inheritance and Lenin's connection with counter- feiting and bank robberies to augment Party funds are the best known instances).
Page 54

Based Lenin.


The author in the OP‘s book shoehorns a lot of unsubstantiated claims in that he seemingly expects the reader to take as self-evident. He could have elaborated on each of those claims. Given there are only 67 pages the counter argument surely can‘t be that the book would have been too long otherwise. The perpetual snobbishness is also unnecessary.


Man, I am dying to participate, I'm too busy to do anything but shit post.
I have objections to these conclusions. Marx thought many things and one of the things is "man makes history, but not to their desire" or something like that. I think socialisms have been a very obvious result of trying to establish socialism by sheer will, rather than the thrust of political economic God thrusting us to it. And it has worked, and is working. So its not so much that the proletariat will win just because, but that in order to win it must win from wherever it is now, not from some desired state. Due to capitalism still existing 200 years later, it has changed and become different.

Idk, I haven't read the book, of course, but I disagree with the claims being made. It sounds like it wants to shoehorn ethics into Marx where there are none, and ignores the ethics that is arguably definitely in marx, namely the normativity of proletariat fighting for itself. Which is a historical truth but it is also a perspective claim Marx makes, I think.

File: 1624852411991.png (460.24 KB, 699x453, Screenshot_1.png)


Can you recommend me some books that exposes the pornography addiction in modern society? I want a book that explains this phenomena by a marxist perspective, without any conservative "but tha westarn moral is dyingg!!11".
16 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>>6760 fucking autocorrect
>and were free
and weren't free


>Inb4 "false analogy" the effects of pornography are comparable to heroin and other hard drugs, not some basic bitch shit like alcohol and weed.
This is very clearly just sexuality being a strong presence in the human experience. Your treating it as if its an opiate that should be rejected at every turn.
>>show that people get aroused easily
>Except that's a oversimplified and intentionally misleading claim
>Actually it is, faggot. Pornography wasn't as graphic, easily-accessible and wide-spread even back in the 90s, people jacked to Hustler and Play Boy, which was just nude girls, not sex scenes and were free and couldn't be sold to minors legally. Anyone can open Pornhub and find tens of thousands of videos, pictures and more today.
>In the past, before the 1960s porn was limited to very esoteric circles of photographs which were neither widespread, nor widely sought. Erotic imagery from actual art is not the same as pornography either, so don't bring up some ancient depiction of a sex scene as some evidence of porn being old.
Deliberate misinterpretation of what I said but I'll bite. Your acting as if before pornhub people had more "tame" sexuality. Go out and look through the ancient drawings of sex and you will see its just as raunchy as it is today.
>Again, PORN IS FREE, only in a trap will you find free cheese - YOU are the product, retard.
No shit.
This is simply rebranded evangelical talking points of the 80s moral panics, but we're stuck in a time loop between the 80s and now. Clearly your under 25 and a virgin who is afraid of they're own dick. Go outside, have sex and pay attention in school.


I don't know why people go out their way to defend such garbage. Modern p*rn is distinct from what we've seen in the past in terms of accessibility and the ability to escalate. There's probably not much from a leftist perspective unless you want to dip into radfem stuff.directxDirect X


>very clearly just sexuality being a strong presence
So basically you're just repeating yourself without actually arguing, concession accepted
>eating it as if its an opiate that should be rejected
If you can't see the difference between literal brainwashing of dopamine receptors and normal libido, you need help.
The fuck is there to elaborate, yes humans are horny beings but porn is an unnatural product, that doesn't fulfill basic needs and actively affects our minds in similar ways to narcotics; that being addictive and damaging to the brain. Porn is not a part of normal sexuality and people shouldn't be aroused this easily because that's called hypersexuality, which is a disorder.
>our acting as if before pornhub people had more "tame" sexuality
Yes, yes they did. Outside of the upper class and other lazy bastards with money, most people had sex to have children and did not diverge too far from just that sex. Moreover even casual sex is still less shitty than pornography because its actually real.
>see its just as raunchy as it is today
Come back to me when you find the dozens of futa furry porn and shemale domination and all sorts of fucked shit. Come back to me when you show me that murals, paintings, drawings, wood-cuttings, frescos, carvings, sculptures and more depicted sex constantly, graphically and in public. And no showing genitals or having a mildly erotic scene is not porn.
>This is simply rebranded evangelical talking points
1) Wrong
2) I think I'll side with the Evangelicals on this one given that porn and pro-porn liberals have tended to be the worst kind of glowfaggot scum anyhow
>Clearly your under 25 and a virgin who is afraid of they're own dick
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1648482515343.jpg (59.29 KB, 657x527, 1635023423044.jpg)


I have the impression that psychology is a field that is heavily influenced by the societal structure we live in and what culture we have, to deduce that some behavior is inappropriate, an illness, a deficit, or on the other side of the spectrum healthy, a sign of maturity, desirable.
Do you guys have any literature on that?
8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.




Socialism as an idea is derived precisely from the arisen contradictions beholden & intrinsic to capitalism; if there are psychological findings which contradict the ideological propositions of capitalism, such findings are technically still *derived from* a capitalist context and will thusly still be partially tainted in their formative structuration by capitalist ideology. There is no wholly neutral or detoxed finding which could otherwise emerge from psychology under the particular societal mode which contextualizes its epistemological basis.


Honestly, Kaczynski touches on this a little bit in Industrial Society and It's Future. If you're open to reading a wild schizo's thoughts on psychology and sociology, it may match your perspective on the field.


Mental illness is real. It's what society considers normal. Aspergers havers are the only mentally healthy ones, but since they're the minority, they're ironically labeled as mentally ill.


gtfo varg

File: 1608528077076.png (21.43 KB, 331x286, 1570719182043.png)


Is there any Marxist historians you recommend?

>inb4 Grover Furr
58 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1641915534008.png (631.72 KB, 680x666, ClipboardImage.png)

>Basically you start reading and if he's just doing cocaine word salad with no logical negations discard the book
Probably a good idea.


the early Annales school


Why do even communists sometimes shit on Furr? What is the criticism? So far I have only read Bloood Lies and it is quite an indepth, meticulous deconstruction of Snyder's book. Why is Furr disliked among comrades as well?


Oops with the sage whatever


He's often accused of misquoting the historians he criticizes. Whether that's true or not is something I am too ignorant to tell you.

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