[ 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: 1685374091351.jpg (157.06 KB, 752x791, LeTrotskyDB.jpg)


How exactly would you define Trotskyism? How exactly would you summerise it's key differences from other Left wing political positions?

From my understanding most people here are Marxist-Leninsts, and even those who aren't certainly don't seem to look favourably at Trotsky.
So in your view what was wrong with Trotsky's ideas, and with the modern Trotskyists?
38 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



If you have to read Trotsky the meme response is Terrorism and Communism but here have a serious recommendation in regards to your questions



I see sarcasm is not your strong suit


<This system will be made to work not by bureaucracy and not by policemen but by cold, hard cash.
<Your almighty dollar will play a principal part in making your new soviet system work. It is a great mistake to try to mix a “planned economy” with a “managed currency.” Your money must act as regulator with which to measure the success or failure of your planning.
<Your “radical” professors are dead wrong in their devotion to “managed money.” It is an academic idea that could easily wreck your entire system of distribution and production. That is the great lesson to be derived from the Soviet Union, where bitter necessity has been converted into official virtue in the monetary realm.
<There the lack of a stable gold ruble is one of the main causes of our many economic troubles and catastrophes (…) Soviet America will possess supplies of gold big enough to stabilize the dollar – a priceless asset.
What did he mean by this?
<While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the old race of Europe’s Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its original filth, you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics.
<One final prophecy: in the 3rd year of the Soviet rule in America you will no longer chew gum!


>its just a joke bro!!

File: 1687203319937-0.jpg (31.51 KB, 360x277, IMG_4116.jpg)

File: 1687203319937-1.jpeg (36.68 KB, 539x569, images (64).jpeg)

File: 1687203319937-2.jpeg (27.5 KB, 384x450, images (65).jpeg)

File: 1687203319937-3.png (119.6 KB, 1200x1066, ICC_Logo.svg.png)

File: 1687203319937-4.jpeg (43.75 KB, 631x486, images (66).jpeg)

 No.20240[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

I couldn't find any left-com threads in the catalogue so I decided to make my own.

Also, can we get some flags to differentiate between the only 3 left-com internationals? The current left-com flag is that of the PCInt and Bordigism.
I suggest for Damenites use the ICT logo and for the whatever ideology the ICC is use the guy with the hammer.
I know the council coms have a pancake flag but I think the logo on the council-communist reader goes hard. Just a thought.
140 posts and 41 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>marx failed to consider that poop emoji pillows keep the third world employed

its over commiesisters….


this is the only good non-ml & non-ccru theory thread currently


>wikipedia link

sorry buddy, no wikipedia.


>ultra-leftists (anarcho-councilists, communizers, rewilders, tiqqunists)

anymore like them ?


Can we elaborate on the likeness, distinction between
1. demcent and orgcent
2. Leninism and Stalinism
from the POV of ICP/Bordiga's contribution / critique?


The anti party group were Marxists who has survived Nikita Khrushchev's purges. They attempted to democratically replace Khrushchev and return the USSR to Marxism and were arrested.
84 posts and 16 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>But what a lack of judgment it requires to declare the Commune sacred, to proclaim it infallible, to claim that every burnt house, every executed hostage, received their just dues to the dot over the i! Is not that equivalent to saying that during that week in May the people shot just as many opponents as was necessary, and no more, and burnt just those buildings which had to be burnt, and no more? Does not that repeat the saying about the first French Revolution: Every beheaded victim received justice, first those beheaded by order of Robespierre and then Robespierre himself! To such follies are people driven, when they give free rein to the desire to appear formidable, although they are at bottom quite goodnatured.
t. Engels


Bukharin was a proto-dengoid and that's bad enough without making shit up.


Turns out, the Bukharinite-Dengist line was the correct one. The USSR is gone while the PRC is economically defeating imperialism. Huh.


>PRC is economically defeating imperialism.


The facts don't care about your idealist dogmatism.

File: 1680502797148.jpeg (Spoiler Image, 24.86 KB, 318x400, 6B6B6DEB-1524-45C1-BC85-B….jpeg)


Leftypol, what do you think it means to be a man worthy of death? I don’t mean in a way that they deserved to die, I suppose I applaud them for having died on noble conditions . Its a topic im still thinking about it, what about you? What does death mean to you?
3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


What pills?


gay pills


Technically true, but it means something to other people. That matters.


This is the current most bumped thread on the education board
Let that sink in



I know this sounds like a bizarre request, but does anyone have all 3 volumes of das kapital as a single unformatted .txt file? I want to be able to ctrl+f all 3 volumes.
21 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Capital has sadly been removed from Marxists.org for copyright claims
uh, no it hasn't
shortest communist meme


We know from further up the thread comrade >>18047

One edition they were holding has been
Come the revolution I will greatly enjoy electrocuting Lawrence & Wishart by the testicles Inshallah


there's a bunch of form feed characters ( U+000C). cleaned up txt (tr -d '\014') attached
I see. I think Marx' PhD thesis is also not on there for similar reasons


a lot of the stuff removed by lowrinse and fishfart can still be found on the archives


thanks comrade

File: 1687110685997.png (68.4 KB, 480x360, ClipboardImage.png)


What's the memo regarding this? I haven't looked deeply into the case of Tuchachevsky specifically but I've heard several things.

>Czech intel sending evidence to the USSR that Tuchachevsky was pro-German and made pro-German remarks in Prague.

>Tuchachevsky was framed by German intelligence under Reinhard Heydrich and Walter Schellenberg.

>Tuchachevsky was plotting a military coup against the Soviet leadership.

My questions are:

1. What was Tuchachevsky's relationship with the Trotskyites and their secret organizations that were exposed?

2. What was Tuchachevsky's relationship with Nazi Germany and Japan?

3. Is the modern Russian Federation sitting on critical files and documents which explain the Trials and subsequent purges of the Red Army and Soviet gov? If so why?
7 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Literally nobody outside your fbi.gov.org pseudo-friend circle gives a shit.
Save it for there and spare us.




from what I remember of the threads about moscow trials, I had been convinced they were legit, and had all the necessary proofs through cross examination of testimonies and a few docs.

if the topic doesnt interest you just fuck off elsewhere maybe ? go touch grass for example


its funny cuz every trot org will accuse slightly different leninists of the exact same shit ion even fw tukhachevsky like that Im just sick and tired of minor sectarian issues being treated seriously


Interesting article here:

>Tukhachevsky persists in the historical imagination as a deeply fascinating character. The “Red Napoleon” who never was, a brilliant military thinker whose life ended in abrupt fashion at the hands of the NKVD. The execution of Tukhachevsky and his allies has traditionally been characterized as a carefully orchestrated campaign of lethal repression carried out to ensure Stalin’s absolute power. This Cold War era narrative, which has largely been discredited with the opening of Soviet archives, has been used to show how Stalin’s ostensible megalomania sabotaged his own army’s prospects on the eve of war. On the other end, many contemporary Marxist-Leninists, adhering to the view of Stalin’s Soviet state, justify the execution of Tukhachevsky on the grounds that he was the ringleader of a fascist plot.

>In contrast to both of these theories, I draw on the work of various historians to argue that the execution of Tukhachevsky was the outcome of a factional power-struggle between two competing visions over the strategic direction of the Red Army. Tukhachevsky’s notorious personal power ambitions and his embittered military-strategic opposition to Stalin’s officer, Voroshilov, were perceived as a source of internal disunity capable of a producing a crisis that could potentially derail the war effort. Historian Vladmir Rogovin, in reference to the Stalin-era purges, stressed the importance of needing “to separate the fantastic and absurd charges from the evidence of the defendants' genuine anti-Stalinist activity” (Rogovin, 1998, p. 482). This requires going beyond Stalin’s psychology and the sensationalism of the Moscow Show Trials to find the power-struggle and oppositional politics at the heart of this matter.


you're just a GNOSTIC!!!1! - Eric Voegelin

It's important to examine the the thought of reactionary thinkers. So here I present Eric Voegelin, buddy of Hayek, and conservative thinker.

Essentially his whole thesis is that Marx, Nietschze, and Scientific Positivists are "gnostics". and that Marx was a "speculative gnostic".

>Voegelin understood "gnosis" as a purported direct, immediate apprehension or vision of truth without the need for critical reflection; the special gift of a spiritual and cognitive elite and 'Gnosticism' as a type of thinking that claims absolute cognitive mastery of reality. Relying as it does on a claim to gnosis, gnosticism considers its knowledge not subject to criticism. Gnosticism may take transcendentalizing (as in the case of the Gnostic movement of late antiquity) or immanentizing forms (as in the case of Marxism).

And basically that modern thinkers, by rejecting metaphysics and the origins of things (God) were unconsciously self deceptive but what sets apart Nietschze and Marx is that they were self aware of the self deception and therefore consciously "demonic" or "demono-maniacal".

>Voegelin's work does not lay out a program of reform or offer a doctrine of recovery from what he termed the "demono-maniacal" in modern politics. However, interspersed in his writings is the idea of a spiritual recovery of the primary experiences of divine order. He was not interested so much in what religious dogmas might result in personal salvation but rather a recovery of the human in the classical sense of the daimonios aner (Plato's term for "the spiritual man"). He did not speculate on the institutional forms in which a spiritual recovery might take place but expressed confidence that the current 500-year cycle of secularism would come to an end because he stated that "you cannot deny the human forever."

vidrel is a catholic workers/left wing catholic's take on Voegelin.

According to his critics:
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
12 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


I suspect if you go read through the primary texts you'll find that the denizens of the republic by and large viewed themselves as searching for truth in dialogue with others like socrates than picking produce from the market place of ideas

To the extent you may be correct it would have been from the fringe gawkers only engaging in the movement through consumption

Ah I believe we may be onto something here on the genealogy of the pomo burger brainrot

>Ah I am an intellectual I read journals publishing letters from the republic picking and choosing truth like I am shopping for a fancy

Here I suspect we have the ur postmodernist cockroach shuttling around feeding off scraps in the dark


>republic by and large viewed themselves as searching for truth in dialogue with others like socrates than picking produce from the market place of ideas

whats the difference


>Jefferson already have the idea of a republic of letters in the 18th century
The "republic of letters" isn't equivalent to the "marketplace of ideas," and the concept (and term) predated Jefferson by centuries.
>Hayek's theory of knowledge is a totally different thing which says that tacit knowledge is distributed throughout society and that the market and price signals are a way of communicating that knowledge.
That would be the middle period Hayek, more under the influence of Michael Polanyi. For the later Hayek (in "The Fatal Conceit", this summary makes the similarities clearer:
<Strangely for a doctrine that started out so concerned about respect for the inviolate individual and his or her subjectivity, the late Hayek rendered his system internally coherent by admitting that some knowledge did not really persist at the level of the individual mind, for the most part, but was processed and invested with meaning at the suprapersonal level. In a catch phrase, since so much that people actually knew was inaccessible to them, the only entity that really was capable of judging and validating human knowledge was The Market. The key turning point, as Hayek informs us in The Fatal Conceit, was his essay “Competition as a Discovery Procedure” (1968):
>[Epistemology is governed by] competition as a procedure for the discovery of such facts as, without resort to it, would not be known to anyone…. The knowledge of which we speak consists rather of a capacity to find out the particular circumstances, which becomes effective only if the possessors of this knowledge are informed by the market which kinds of things or services are wanted, and how urgently they are wanted… . Knowledge that is used [in a market] is that of all its members. Ends that it serves are the separate ends of all those individuals, in all their variety and contrariness.10
<No longer was knowledge being treated as an elusive thing by Hayek, scattered about in an inconvenient matter; in this version, not only is much human knowledge unable to be retrieved from within by the individual in question but, indeed, there exists a species of knowledge not “known” by any individual human being at all. Here we are cosseted in the Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Talk about how schizo it is to call every non-Abrahamicuck a single word, rather than engaging in labelbrain & associationist arguments about the postmodernism boogeyman.


>whats the difference
A republic isn't a marketplace, for one. The former is a political notion, with each member having an equal vote and the ability to change the system in substance. A marketplace doesn't suppose such an equality or even a voice in how this market functions, and the consumers exercise influence only on the vendors who operate within it. While the "republic of letters" implies the ability to enact changes in the form and content of the political system, the "marketplace of ideas" implies a more limited control over content and no direct control over the form.

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

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