[ 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: 1641210455435.jpg (101.69 KB, 512x383, unnamed.jpg)


Been reading about how the modern Right has studied and weaponized leftist thinkers like Gramsci, found it super fascinating. But it got me thinking, is there any right-wing or far-right thinker we could utilize the same way? Every major right-wing figure I've attempted to read like Rand, Guenon, Evola etc. turned to be actual straight-up hot garbage. Is there any, and I mean ANY worthwhile right-wing thinker that could be useful to study?
82 posts and 16 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


No, what entices me about fascism is the promise of obscene enjoyment, leftist movement feel like one has to renounce something instead of being given something. Now that i word it like this maybe appropriating fascism is not the answer.
> but are there any really good reasons to know your enemy in depth?
Knowledge itself is a good reason but this thread was started with the idea of finding stuff to appropriate because of recent rightist cadres appropriating leftist ideas.


ah the zizek critique
i mean punk can still offer obscene enjoyment, plus any kind of non-elitist extremism as well

but obscene enjoyment is shitty so fuck it, plus there's normal enjoyment that is good enough
>Knowledge itself is a good reason but this thread was started with the idea of finding stuff to appropriate because of recent rightist cadres appropriating leftist ideas.
ah, in that case i guess they were strengthening their side with some reason lol. I do think that patsoc stuff is an important link in the chain which bridges between "leftist" in the general sense and which comprises much academic views and rests on a sort of post-modern pluralism, and dialectical materialism. Maybe studying Lasalle would be useful. I think the important thing is to know them to critique them though, since they're not particularly strong or drawing people besides the usual "you're special white man, show the world your power, be an alpha male".

I'd be critical too because any time you accept even a tactic of an enemy, its colored with their specific position. Knowing that the right is about obscene enjoyment (plus knowing their justifications for it too: it's tied in to a belief in competition and willpower/victory/struggle giving sanction to enjoy others suffering and transgress all boundaries) will only help us to explicitly formulate ourselves as for moral, socially conscious enjoyment, collective building, etc. It's important to think about the kind of enjoyment we are offering, but we can't just mirror the right. So thats why i was suggesting the best we could do by mirroring is using it to funnel people who are looking for fascism or whatever into leftism. But ultimately too it's about class and status, and it seems silly to want to attract class enemies to convert them rather than attract allies to team up with, so it was a dumb idea ig.


you know what, also it's interesting not only that the right on the surface is against obscene enjoyment, while really its based on it, this could just be projection, but the method of obscene enjoyment is a transgression of boundaries and a freedom to do what you will if it pleases you, and this is a point of unity between left and right (i say left here not including communism). Pointing out the nature and history of the idea of the sanctity of will and the transgression of boundaries is necessary to prove that nazism is not free of liberalism, it's based on a radical fulfillment of liberal ideals in the same way that e.g. anarcho-communism is. There's both a unity with their direct ideological enemies, and a unity with the ideological past (modernity, liberalism, democracy, relativism, etc.) that they hope to break with.

This is really important at least for showing the correctness of communism and dialectical materialism against these deviations in order to break free of liberalism on the ideological level (to say nothing of the economic level - cause right wing economics as far as ive ever seen only even shows itself as a patch to the capitalist system, if not just letting capitalism run wild).

One thing I always come back to, even though it's silly cause i'm not a christian, but i'm reminded of St. Augustine's quote "first love god, then do as you please" and Crowley's "do what thou wilt will be the whole of the law". It's a sinister inversion because it's not upending the idea, its removing the obligation to act with love, that's all. Purely formally, it's liberating.

But anyways I guess it's not that simple as exposing the obscene enjoyment, since on the face of it these people are supposed to be ascetic hardasses who love pain and struggle and character-building hardship, and fantasies of torture and rape only come through the cracks but can't be "proven" based on theory. Which is why I guess it's also important to empower fucking common sense against people trying to fearmonger against psychoanalysis or reading things subtextually or doing an analysis of culture compared to doctrine, where the whole is the sum of its parts, or to put that better, cannot be abstracted away from its concrete realization.

Also I'm such a lazy ass lol it's one thing to say "we need to know this in order to show x is like y" Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


I guess you're right, we need to address leftism's unappealing message but promising obscene enjoyment doesn't need to be the answer.
No rightism and obscene enjoyment steams what I'd like to say is the rightist syntagma: the belief that some people are worth more than others and that those that are worth more have rights over those who are worth less, men over women, white over black, rich over poor etc. So rightists are not hypocrites because for example the christian right uphold marriage yet elects Trump even if he's an adulterer, they actually love that a rich white man doing X and then telling the people bellow him to not do it is the very core of rightism,.
So it's not really a promise of obscene enjoyment as much as it is a promise of fulfilling one's right over other as long one submits to their superior's right. Tho the desire for violence still exists within everyone's id seems other factors are what make people lean left or right but also explain why fascism seems so enticing.


File: 1657041350227.jpeg (822.99 KB, 1690x1488, 1656809089236.jpeg)

So I heard that Guenon is the new meme rightist all the /pol/yps are into right now.
I found this post >>>/leftypol/1017391
>Basically Guenon (Who was a pen-pal of Evola) fell into the very literal 'reactionary' [Not in the sense its commonly thrown around] sphere of ideology where they basically think that everything since the English Civil War, The reformation and the French Revolution was / has been / will be a definitive downward slide for humanity on account of the process of society becoming more 'demotic', The replacement of Kings who [At least in their minds, this is up for debate] ruled for life and had a vested interest in the upkeeping of the state with bougies who just buy elections via advertising, and the collapse or corruption, either real or perceived of religious institutions (I.E hyper-universalist protty Christianity, and Vatican 2.0 / Reform Catholicism etc),

>The belief is that in Feudal Occidental society (church) formed one of the 'three estates' along with the (Peasantry / Free-city Proto-Proles) and (Nobles + Merchants), It's deformation and the replacing of Catholic spirituality with church as a social club or a political pulpit has basically thrown off and damaged European civilisation in their eyes,

>To correct this in Rene and Evola's minds they needed to basically 're-discover' european spirituality and they believed they could do this by delving into the numerous Occult and esoteric splinters from mainstream religion that had formed through the late 18th. 19th and early 20th century (Evola believed in 'Magic' and borrowed plenty of the), Along with studying schools like Sufi Islam and Vajrayana Buddhism that they perceived as having kept the basic 'spiritual truth' of religion Christianity had lost

>A lot of later writers in this field of thought also link back to the concept of the societal Socius, And how the change from the Socius most basic for the upkeep of the system, which under feudalism was the Monarch or arguably Terra itself, has now been replaced by capital as a concept described by Marx.

But what else can you guys tell me about him?

File: 1608528384265.jpg (169.33 KB, 1200x525, hegel anti idpol.jpg)

 No.4337[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

There are people who spend their entire lives reading Hegel and still manage to come out empty handed.

ITT we discuss the great thinker, Karl Marx's teacher, and he on who's shadow we walk:

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

1. What are good things to read/view to get an understanding of Hegel from a philosophical neophyte?

2. What service can Hegel's philosophy provide us today?

3. What an be done to make Hegel more accessible to the masses? Why is it so unpenetrable?
112 posts and 15 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


„Contradiction“ makes little sense to me. In a material sense it just seems like „opposing forces“. Be it in classical physics of material bodies colliding or the interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat being opposed to one another. Other than that there aren‘t in a literal sense „contradictions“ in the material world. The more I read about it in political literature the more it seems like some odd fetishization of a term that serves as a reoccurring metaphor. A bad one, because it seems like a needless obfuscation to me. I haven‘t read Hegel in German yet, but „contradiction“ could be translated into „Widersprüche“ or „Gegensätze“. Intuitively, I understand „Widerspruch“ to be a logical impossibility. Hence why „contradiction“ made so little sense to me the way I read it in political literature. „Gegensätze“ on the other hand, or „gegensätzlich“, can be understood as „contradiction“ as well, but rather in a sense of „antithetical“ or „antagonistic“ or „oppositional“. This on the other hand makes much more sense. I still wouldn‘t have gone for calling it „contradiction“ in English. „Oppositional“, „antithetical“ perhaps.


This is a good point and is pertinent to the problem of commensurability within translational efforts, but I do think that there is some incidental and thus intuitive meaning registered within the process of assuming the term 'contradiction' through the english-speaking mind's encounter with the to-be-translated Germanic text. Keep in mind the insights of Hegel rocked the anglosphere, and if we historicize the context in which this reception occurred, we might better understand how the psyche was operating in reaction to the newfound insights of Hegel–Hegel marks the formalized introduction to dialectical thought for the anglosphere upon his introduction, and, knowing that, we can therefore infer that for the translators of the time, the word contradiction was what manifested itself in the immediacy of their psyches because, having come from a pre-dialectical background prior to their encounter with Hegel's logic, the concept of resolute oppositions would have been relatively arcane, so instead of the consequential comprehension of the process (which we would then, through dialectics, come to understand as 'oppositional' or 'antithetical'), you have this impression of shock which is subconsciously causing the registration of the german term to appear as 'contradiction' in the translator's understanding, because this relates to how they would have grasped the material in their nascent involvement with it. This is to say, to the angloid, since this is the first encounter with dialectics, coming from their pre-dialectical background, that which is latently understood as oppositional in dialectical terms must therefore instead be assumed as a 'contradiction' insofar as one is burdened or hamstrung with the lack of initial dialectical thought, aka a pre-dialectical background, because without dialectics, the transformative process of the 'synthesized resolution of oppositional forces' would instead seem a contradiction.


File: 1656696687713.png (981.16 KB, 1572x1048, makingitfreedomaintfree.png)

hello i just finished reading the phenomenology yesterday so i am thinking of making a reading group for intelligence and spirit. im not posting this in /read/ because while negarestani is probably a marxist, this isn't really a marxist text. anyways, if you find it interesting please join! i am planning that we read one chapter a week (starting next week)!


oh sorry i only posted the space not the room


i wrote a summary that you guys can check out here:

File: 1632507970941-0.jpg (506.67 KB, 1280x1840, 04lnjOTIL1qdfjhdo1_1280.jpg)

File: 1632507970941-1.png (2.09 MB, 1086x764, 4567890.png)

File: 1632507970941-3.webm (60.16 MB, 1920x1080, 3456789.webm)

File: 1632507970941-4.jpg (205.27 KB, 1200x801, Esoup8NW8AElonC.jpg)


It was a dress rehearsal, without which the final victory of the proletariat in October 1917 would have been impossible. (Lenin)

The revolution of 1905 came as a surprise to everyone, although Russia had been going to it for a long time. For example, the American historian Richard Pipes considers it a prologue to the student unrest of 1899. The Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Izvolsky believed that the tsarist regime began to collapse even under Alexander III, and the publicist Mark Vishnyak counted the end of the autocracy from the mid-1870s, when Alexander II stopped the Great Reforms and decided to" freeze " the country. Russia and the ruling dynasty could only be saved from revolution by the introduction of a constitutional monarchy. But the last Romanovs, in an effort to preserve the unshakable autocratic foundations of their power, eventually lost everything and led the country to the catastrophe of 1917.

Interactive map of the 1905 revolution
73 posts and 96 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.




File: 1644707973441-0.jpg (1.01 MB, 1545x2145, HandsOffRussia.jpg)

File: 1644707973441-1.jpg (903.85 KB, 1417x2161, HandsOffRussia1.jpg)

File: 1644707973441-2.jpg (1.1 MB, 1473x2194, HandsOffRussia2.jpg)

File: 1644707973441-3.jpg (2.61 MB, 2954x2137, HandsOffRussia3.jpg)

File: 1644707973441-4.jpg (2.63 MB, 2946x2156, HandsOffRussia4.jpg)

Hands Off Russia
was written by William Paul
and published in 1919

This copy belonged to Alfred Comrie,
who was a founder member
of the Communist Party of Great Britain

Taken from http://www.heartfield.org/HandsOffRussia.htm


File: 1644708001316-0.jpg (2.5 MB, 2962x2156, HandsOffRussia5.jpg)

File: 1644708001316-1.jpg (2.64 MB, 2953x2156, HandsOffRussia6.jpg)

File: 1644708001316-2.jpg (2.58 MB, 2977x2148, HandsOffRussia7.jpg)

File: 1644708001316-3.jpg (2.67 MB, 2961x2164, HandsOffRussia8.jpg)

File: 1644708001316-4.jpg (2.69 MB, 2977x2132, HandsOffRussia9.jpg)


"Jambourg" is apparently a francization of Yamburg, now named Kingisepp, after Viktor Kingissepp, founder of the Estonian Communist Party in 1920 and a Chekist before then, executed by the Estonian secret police in '22.

File: 1655589897131.jpg (62.91 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg)


A discussion with Dr. Howard Waitzkin regarding his 1986 study which compared the physical quality of life in socialist countries to that of capitalist countries at the same level of development. He co-
authored the article with Dr. Shirley Cereseto.

They talk about the origin of the study, some of the stats, and what this study would look like if done in 2022.



Is there like an abridged version of "Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism"? It just goes on, and on, and on about outdated figures from a century and a half ago. I just want to cut to the point of it. I can't understand how people actually read this shit in current year.




It's literally just 100 pages


It's not a very engaging book, but you can safely skim over the tables and stuff, and the discussions with Kautsky rely on some knowledge of the debates about imperialism during the early 20th century so that's not all that useful nowadays either (though quite interesting as a critique of second international theorizing; shame Lenin didn't respond to Luxemburg in that book). But as with all theory you just gotta power through, one page at a time. No easy way out.

File: 1655352839444.png (316.3 KB, 960x720, ClipboardImage.png)


recommended reading to learn about the IMF and the world bank? They're the financial arm of US imperialism and power projection into the third world. They force structural adjustment programs and high interest loans and labor discipline and austerity and resource extraction onto the 3rd world through soft power, but I wanna know the deets


I haven't managed to read it yet, but apparently Ha-Joon Chang's "Kicking Away the Ladder" is quite good. He's not a marxist since it's pretty much illegal to be one in South Korea, but he seems to be pretty legit as far as the historical information goes.


Also you might want to check out John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hitman, which though it is not a great book, sheds some light into the actual experiences of the agents that enforce IMF policies.


Could anyone give a rundown of what exactly was it that Einstein proposed in response to Bohr's stochastic atomic model, and more to the point, what are the actual material implications of either interpretation being true?

Also I am curious what exactly was the point of disagreement? As I understand, the Einstein's critique was that a particle couldn't be undefined (the whole god playing dice quote), and that it is a mistake to propose it as being statistically determined in its position. But isn't this a case of both Bohr and Einstein being right and wrong at the same time? As far as I understand, Bohr's idea is just a best-effort way to empyrically predict and describe a particles location, basically meaning that yes, Einstein is correct and the particle does have a concrete and determined physical location, its just that for the limited power of human observation the best we can do to find it is the probabilistic Bohr model. But this is just how I understand with my limited knowladge on the subject. Is this a correct understanding of the situation?

And finally, has the Bohr model (Copenhagen interpretation) even have any legitimate alternatives? It seems Einstein was decisively the "loser" of the debate, and the Bohr model is now globally accepted as correct.



So the gist of Einstein's position (from the EPR paper which you can find on the internet) is that the quantum state is not a complete description of reality, because he assumes some "hidden variables" – i.e. that a particle HAS a specific value for a variable, but that it cannot be measured exactly.

In fact, this position has proven to be incorrect thanks to the expreimental verification of Bell's Inequalities. So it has been experimentally proven that a quantum system does NOT have a specific eigenstate for non-commuting operators. It's not about the inability to measure it due to technical limitations. If you are slightly savy in the technical details of QM you can watch John Preskill's lecture on Bell's Inequalites.

The current interpretation that most working phycists hold would be the "minimal interpretation" which can't be boiled down to "it's just how things are don't try to explain it further". Personally, I quite like this because you can't expect human intuition to actually correspond to how things work on different scales, in the same way that Special and General relativity are also, to say the least, counter-intuitive. If you're interested in this there is a section at the end of Chapter 2 of Audretsch's book called "Entangled Systems".

There are literally no material implications of either interpretation being correct due to the fact that historical materialism is a theory dealing with a specific scale, that of human life and experience, which is unaffected by the laws at the quantum level.

Thanks for reading my blogpost.


is it worth it to study Hegel? How does the Marxist even interpret his works? Just replace every time he mentions spirit or god with matter? His logic seems to be the primary focus of marxists but what of his phenomenology?
12 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Directly he doesn't, yes, but it's important to understand the process of philosophical developments and their relations throughout history in order to fully holistically grasp the philosophy itself; it will embellish one's self with a deeper range of angles and conceptuality. As a random example, imagine trying to read someone like Quentin Meillassoux (weird philosopher, relevant in the sense that he poses a 'challenge' to materialism, albeit not a rigorously formidable one) without first having read Kant. You theoretically could, in that you could ascertain his novel framework independently, but you'd be deprived of the very important partial context which informed Meillassoux's basis.


File: 1654899933976.png (292.15 KB, 820x980, ClipboardImage.png)

these guys won the russian civil war because they knew their hegel


No but they listened to someone who understood Hegel


File: 1654911153082.png (1.98 MB, 1195x823, bolsheviks-posing.png)

Those guys won the Russian civil war because they listened to people that followed a materialist dialectical critique of all that is Hegelianism. This is called Marxism.


There was an active split of Marxism right after the Russian Civil War between Deborinists and Mechanists. The former won out and attributed dialectics as the foundation of Marxism. The Mechanists rejected dialectics and wanted to make Marxism purepy empyrical, and distance it from the idealist Hagelian roots. Ir is also important to mention that the Deborian school found its origins from German idealists of the 19th century that were oppossed to "anglo" empyricism as it was applied to the sciences. It is also worth to mention that these idealist notions about science can be thoroughly considered bogus by todays standarts. Sadly the same can't be said about Marxist doctorines.

File: 1641161194536.jpg (26.68 KB, 306x463, 978-3-030-40068-2.jpg)


Does anyone have a PDF of this book? Eugenics-Kun posted it in the last Quantum Mechanics thread, but I was too stupid to save it before our dear mods banned him and deleted all his posts.
6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



File: 1641281042667.jpg (20.86 KB, 188x338, Sickle_and_Hammer.jpg)


Thanks. I have read some of his essays and while he makes some valid points when criticizing the "left", his obsession with eugenicism, opposition to "technocracy" and labelling ecology of any sort a type of malthusianism, makes me wonder why imageboards are simultaneously able to attract people with wonderfull insights on many subjects and absolute schizos like eugene


Is quantum mechanics an idealist psyop to discredit hidden variables and gather additional funding?


no, read a fucking book

File: 1654462714864.jpg (1.09 MB, 2876x2987, 20220421_050802.jpg)


I ghosted my employers. I was working in front of a deep fryer, never clocking in sober, and hauling ass if I do say. I sent in a picture of a positive covid test right before I ghosted so hopefully that slowed down finding a replacement a bit. Fuck this company even though its union.

Basically, I'm sick of working minimum wage jobs. I was already sick of it which is why I was unemployed for so long before this one. I've been making "content" since I was a kid and I've had some humble earnings, never much more than 500 a month. I've never even tried the whole cookie cutter daily upload thing, usually opting only for projects that are both completely outside my skill-set and have some inherent social worth in my eyes. I've long known this to no be a profitable strategy. At this point I think I have the requisite skills for a number of somewhat seedy and extremely boring online business ventures so I'm trying that. Nothing you'll see me promoting where people can often recognize my writing style.

I also want to try something new though. I'm not planning to finish my degree anytime soon but I am thinking about IT certs, specifically CCNA. I've done some cursory research and it seems to be in demand. That said, I'm far from convinced that it isn't just another scam. Network administration is not something I have any background in or knowledge of but I find it stimulating and I don't foresee any major problems learning the material.

I test pretty well and know how to take good notes. The tools are pretty intimidating for now but that is to be expected at this stage I think. Obviously I'll make sure I can pass multiple practice tests before I send Cisco their however many thousands of dollars it costs to test. I think this is the usual order of operations but I don't actually know that so I'm pointing it out anyway.

Does this seem like a good plan? Are certs a scam? Are all these companies listing CCNA as a job qualification on indeed getting kickbacks from Cisco? Are there additional qualifications required to be competitive in this industry that I'm overlooking? Are there any good "big picture" type resources on certs that don't have the off-putting moonboy energy? Everything I find via search engines makes me feel like I'm being tricked, but what do I know. Maybe education really SHOULD be left to the most soulless corp in town.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


Thanks for the advice anon. I think I will start with Comptia A+ like you suggest. I had thought that it was just basic windows stuff and like, how a computer works but looking over the material I see that there's also some remote management stuff that I don't already know. Is there a study guide you would recommend?


I don't know shit about the subject and I'm not the other anon, but:
1. Certifications have a ton of bullshit. Just like college degrees. But employers want to see you have that paper.
2. It is foolish not to "hack" standardized tests, meaning that at some point, you should study for the certification test specifically, not necessarily the skills. If you are confident you can pass and your final grade is not important, then maybe ignore this point. Remember it for the future though.
3. Torrents have lots of certification material. There might even be previous years tests.
4. When you switch careers, you'll be low balled. Don't get discouraged, use an entry job to gain experience. You want to switch jobs whenever you stop learning; go for a higher paid job. 1.5 years no more than 3 years, find a better job.

Be patient and persistent.


Thank you! I wholeheartedly agree. I aced the SAT by doing pretty much what you say: studying the test itself rather than the material and taking older exams. I also used the Princeton Review and College Board books though. Ideally I would like a book title that I can find on LibGen, Abe, or–ugh–Amazon. If anyone has a recommendation for a let me know.


1337x.to and zlib, just type in the key words you want, Comptia A+ 1001 1002 ig


I have ccna and it got me 1 job interview for a job I was under qualified for. Still working at a supermarket, making like $2 an hour less than our in house IT techs with less stress. Don't fall for the nerworkchuck meme. IT is going to be fully proletarianized soon. Get a degree in CS if you want to fuck computers otherwise learn a trade.

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