[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Password (For file deletion.)

| Catalog | Home

File: 1608528311277.jpg (162.13 KB, 945x641, 19fa54e2706190fb82d7457ed8….jpg)


This article claims that Marx's "Poverty of Philosophy" is just a slanderous book that has nothing to do with Proudhon's real theories.

Marx doesn't properly quote Proudhon or openly strawmans him. His claims about Proudhon being bad economist in the begining of the book sound laughable since Proudhon was respected economist in his time.

>Comparing Marx’s “reply” to what Proudhon actually wrote, it is hard to take the former seriously. Once the various distortions and inventions are corrected, little remains. Proudhon was right to suggest Marx’s work was “a tissue of crudities, slanders, falsifications, and plagiarism.” (Correspondance [Paris: Lacroix, 1875] II: 267-8) Worse, Marx himself twenty years later embraces in Capital most of the positions he attacks Proudhon for holding in 1847.

>The dishonesty of The Poverty of Philosophy has distorted our view of Proudhon’s ideas and the time is long overdue for a revaluation of Proudhon and his contributions to anarchism and the wider socialist movement. This does not mean that Marx does not, occasionally, presents a valid point – most obviously, Proudhon’s opposition to strikes was wrong as subsequent anarchists recognised – it is just that these are frustratingly few in the midst of so much distortion. So, yes, Proudhon’s mutualism – a form of market socialism based on worker-run co-operatives – does need to be critiqued but Marx’s book is simply not that work.

are there any counter arguments to this?
4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


C4SS's reply basically just repeats what was already attacked in the original article by Mueller (which is a good read btw). All this makes me even more sure that The Poverty of Philosophy is not slander.


There is a lot of value in the book. It features:
A clear explanation of the hegelian system
The failures of the hegelian system
Incredibly entertaining polemic (Marx will literally work a joke into the structure of his argument and hit you with it 2 pages later)
Creates a clear refutation of market socialism.
It does contain some straw men of M. Proudhon but it's worth the read regardless.


First thing he does in the video is talking about "muh dictatorship of proletariat is bad because it is dictatorship and not democracy". It is a retarded lib video, not worth wasting your time even watching.


no, he doesn't
he says that MLs are communists and as communists they should support direct democracy (at least somewhere in the future) and not to openly support dictatorship which is what Politsturm did in their article.

also, he isn't a lib but an anarchist


btw, is "The philosophy of Misery" by Proudhon worth of reading?

File: 1608528381894.jpg (266.67 KB, 574x497, myanmar.jpg)


I need suggestions of things to translate into English.

>ideally fairly short (not a book)

>classic text or unsung new author
>something awesome.

this is along term project I am starting with the New Multitude magazine and we already have one translation completed (Blood and Earth (1958) by Bamaw Tin Aung) and are looking for more.

any suggestions?


We have a translation thread my friend. There are suggestions posted there.


this is a different project and I don't want to get it confused with the ongoing project on that thread.


File: 1608528383572.jpg (651.16 KB, 804x1200, book.jpg)

imma scan Manuel de Survie by Cesarano sometime cause i couldnt find it anywhere online, i could send it here as a mega link or something when i get around to it i guess
(unless you can find a scan of it already, or even better, an english translation)


what's it about?

File: 1608528023034.jpg (28.78 KB, 640x591, 1154754758732.jpg)


Are there any teachers here?

If so, how do you work with your curricula to insert your chosen beliefs?

And what is the most based methodology and pedagogy?

>t. Primary School, Y 4-5, we play "Red Leader" which is basically capture the flag but with special rules, and I put up lots of posters about "working together" and "team work".
55 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>everyone is influenced by others
>so you should shower kids with propaganda


Isnt that the whole point of political activism?


Maybe if you're a sociopath with zero morals.


What? Do you think the bullshit they get taught in school now isnt propaganda? Have you ever taken a highschool economics or history class?


I don't believe that anybody here would contest that those are propaganda. The question isn't what the ruling class does, it's what we should do.

Now it's possible that there's some talking past each other and that people are using words (like "propaganda" or "influence") differently. But I would say that (1) teachers can never be truly neutral even if they try (for instance they must select what materials students are presented with, and so on), but also that (2) there's a difference between teaching students to think particular conclusions and to think critically and , and that there's a danger in pursuing the former to the degree that it harms the latter.

The goal of critical thinking isn't to produce a truly "independent" thinker. A smart, reflective, curious, critical person who happens to be gentry in Song dynasty China is going to think a lot differently than a smart, reflective, curious, critical person who works in a meatpacking plant in nineteenth-century Argentina - or whatever. But their common qualities also mean that they're not just going to blindly and automatically produce what's given to them, either. They're going to, ideally, look at a wide array of what's in front of them and produce something new out of it. And we need this as a species a lot more than we need people who can repeat a slogan - even a *correct* slogan - for a teacher before going on to repeat another slogan for another teacher.

File: 1608527970499.jpg (8.77 KB, 228x221, IMG_20200404_002238.jpg)


I'm not sure sure where I sit on the left exactly because i am very sympathetic to alot of ansyn and mutualist anarchist models and also strongly center my belifes around the labor theory of value but I don't belive in the dissolution of the state but instead the state only existing as a democratic and transparent beuracratic entity that can mediate between potential disputes between communes and plan for projects that would involve multiple communes coperation

Would it be apt to refer to this as libertarian Marxism?
51 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I don’t think it’s /a/ and /v/ as much as it is stupidpolyps and chapoids.


File: 1608528370187.jpg (33.61 KB, 685x564, LOUD.jpg)

Lib-Marx is pretty viable since I believe the state should be restructured to be horizontal rather than hierarchical as it would reflect the socialist mode of production. Take the Zapatista municipalities for instance, since there style of governing is summed up in their motto: "Here the people give the orders and the government obeys". Luxemburg's stressing of socialist democracy also is an idea I resonate with when reading her work, and Marx himself saw the Paris Commune as a DotP. I think it makes sense for a state to be reduced in power, operate on radical, direct democracy, and be ran by the people themselves as an entire class, without individual leaders dominating all.


Situ, Post-situ and autonomism is severely underrated and highly relevant to our current problems; both in terms of analysis of capital that has become increasingly dependent on data mining and controlling vectors of information, but also in terms of how we organize better, with a baseline understanding of contemporary cybernetic skills competent international reach and needed organizational complexity.


They are not underrated, you are just hanging out with imbeciles.

File: 1608528382477.jpg (398 KB, 1947x1947, 115dcb14eb3c79294b4cd81696….jpg)


/edu/ what are some resources that you've used or know of to help newbies learn to organise?

Obviously "Just join local X to get experience", but just doing prior reading.

MLs, Anarkiddies, Syndies, etc. All sources and styles welcome.

Just trying to build a little portfolio to read and share.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1608528382650-0.pdf (162.22 KB, How to Neighborhood Pod.pdf)

File: 1608528382650-1.pdf (222.76 KB, How to Replicate.pdf)

File: 1608528382650-2.pdf (173.17 KB, Pod Mapping for Mutual Aid.pdf)



File: 1608528382744-0.pdf (136.81 KB, The Tenants Will Win_ TAN….pdf)

File: 1608528382744-1.pdf (3.52 MB, Rent Strike Covid Handbook.pdf)



File: 1608528382819-0.pdf (193.29 KB, DC Guide_ How to Organize ….pdf)

File: 1608528382819-1.pdf (116.45 KB, 02. ACORN Organizing Model….pdf)



File: 1608528382940.pdf (13.23 MB, 04. BOBO, MAX, BOBO & KEND….pdf)



File: 1608528383033.png (222.65 KB, 500x375, a cute.png)


I am open to non-marxist points of view. Evidence for:
>Whilst it forces on more and more of the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, into State property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property.
>The nationalisation of land will work a complete change in the relations between labour and capital, and finally, do away with the capitalist form of production, whether industrial or rural. Then class distinctions and privileges will disappear together with the economical basis upon which they rest. To live on other people's labour will become a thing of the past. There will be no longer any government or state power, distinct from society itself! Agriculture, mining, manufacture, in one word, all branches of production, will gradually be organised in the most adequate manner. National centralisation of the means of production will become the national basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan. Such is the humanitarian goal to which the great economic movement of the 19th century is tending.
>If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.
Let us take another example — the railway. Here too the co-operation of an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is reprPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


>I would say no. He supported the idea of a state ran by the entire working class themselves, but not an all powerful hierarchical one (see: Paris Commune).
Saying that Marx thought the paris commune was the blueprint for communism/socialism is the hot take of the century. His entire writing denouncing idealism and outlining his vision is based on the shortcommings of the paris commune and its orginisation.


Why does it matter? Marx wasn't some prophet. Think for yourself.


Why does anything matter………..>?


We'll never really know because he died before he had the chance to touch in this topic in Capital.


He and Engels saw it as an example of the DotP. I get they critiqued it too and they never wanted to act like they knew the future though.

File: 1608528072588.png (226.94 KB, 498x690, hey-vsauce-michel-here-ive….png)


it should take me a couple of days max to do so.
drop links, pdfs, images

if it's larger than 20k lmk and i'll think about it

i'll also do belarusian if needed
39 posts and 15 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


This one seems to be good. "Main features of cybernetics"


Could you translate anything by the Lenin Crew? Maybe something that stands out to you? I'm not sure if the Google translation is good enough, but I would like a confirmation if it is accurate. If you could, I would like your thoughts and opinions on the website. Or, if you are busy and cannot do any of my requests, I would at least ask you to translate this:
Although I am welcome to a translation of a work that you deem to be much more important.


Requesting translations of these images posted in their respective comment sections:


hey op, could you contact me via [email protected] about some translation work. you can do it anonymously if you wish.

File: 1608528378004.jpg (101.71 KB, 480x341, nebezhin-nemov-proletarian….jpg)


I haven't read much but I'm confused as to why Marx and others conceived of the proletariat as the class that would overthrow capitalism. If we look at history through a materialist lense it seems to me that it's only been a third propertied class overthrows the current system of production, not the people without property. For example, it wasn't slaves that overthrew slavery, it was landlords. It wasn't serfs that overthrew feudalism, it was the bourgeoisie. Every revolution calling itself socialist that actually took state power was led by petit-bourgeois intellectuals like Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, and Fidel Castro and manned mostly not by workers, but by peasants in a semi-colonial semi-feudal relationship to the means of production. Most proletarian movements in advanced capitalist societies have been reformist and class collaborationist. How, after all of this evidence, can we say that the proletariat is the revolutionary class? How can you say the workers have nothing to lose but their chains when they need capitalism to keep going so they can have running water, electricity, and the spectacle to keep them comfortable?
17 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


in both examples provided, classes were sediment and predetermined. this allows for middle classes that can flourish and help the workers because they had a common enemy. In capitalism, however, the middle classes are dissolving into either the proletarian or the bourgeoisie. This class organization means that the proletarian will become the ONLY class with revolutionary potential because, eventually, they will be the only non possessing class. for now though, there is some weak solidarity with some petit bourgeoisie so we should take advantage of that as much as we can at least. hope this helped comrade ! :)


>they will be the only non possessing class
a non possessing class has never been able to overthrow a class system. Again, who overthrew slavery? It wasn't the slaves. Assuming a non possessing class will overthrow our current class system is a break from all historical trends.


well i am not sure how things will play out, but my point was that the proletarian may have to break that cycle out of necessity. however i dont think we should ignore our petite comrades that, with out the influence of the proletariat, would surley not revolt


>but my point was that the proletarian may have to break that cycle out of necessity
just because something is necessary doesn't meant it will happen, remember Marx is not a determinist, he noted that not just proletarian revolution is possible, but that the "common ruin of the contending classes" is just as much a possibility, and if the climate alarmists are correct, this is the where we already are and basically the course change would come too late to matter.


The capitalist mode of production is increasingly powerless. In the pursuit of profit, it is stuck in maintaining the infrastructure of society. Infrastructure maintenance is an unprofitable or low-profitable business. But without infrastructure, society cannot function. Only the proletariat, who do not work for profit, can lead the whole society from the inevitable collapse caused by capitalism.

File: 1608528374058-0.jpg (79.15 KB, 750x575, a8463c4e4cfb0f2e24574d7291….jpg)

File: 1608528374058-1.jpg (75.78 KB, 510x644, Miners_with_bomb.jpg)


I'm a history major in Burgerstan, I'm hoping to really focus in on labor history and eventually get some kind of law degree so I can help Unions or work for OSHA or some shit. I thought it might be a good idea to start reading up on one of the more violent episodes of American Capitalism. Can anybody recommend some good accounts or Historians that cover the Coalfield Wars?


I know a few books but I gotta wait until I can go back to the library to find the titles.


Robert Ovetz's When Workers Shot Back: Class Conflict from 1877 to 1921 would probably be a good starting point. 606 pages; it has a section on the West Virginia coal wars.


Nigga if you are a history major you should be recommending books to us

File: 1608528378231.png (38.47 KB, 860x560, 205-2054291_matte-clipart-….png)


It seems like most socialists are either Marxists who support comprehensive state planning, or anarchists who support either cooperative firms or informal local economies.

Isn't this a false dichotomy, though? Different institutions have different strengths and weaknesses. Non-centralized institutions are necessary to deal with major collective action problems, like for instance climate change, but can come with a small number of failure points. One could imagine a world where SOEs produce public goods and homogenous commodities at scale, while smaller cooperatives form to produce more differentiated or experimental products.

I suppose a difficulty this introduces is that unlike everyone both owning and working for the state, or everyone both owning and working for their cooperative, this produces a seeming worker-owner split, with everyone owning the state but only some working for it. But there might presumably be a way to fix this with the way the state funds new cooperatives and collects back surplus from successful ones, which would seem to be necessary to avoid independent capital accumulation in an economy of just cooperatives anyway; and there may be aspects of the labor/ownership split that are physically inevitable per Critique of the Gotha Program (it cannot ever be the case that the only people who benefit from labor are the laborers, etc.)

Probably people have already done the math on this, or shown ways you could do it or why you couldn't, but I'm an ignoramus, so I'm posting this here.


I agree with your overall point, that we're not dealing with two absolutes, you either centrally plan everything or you decentralise everything. The world we are inheriting, or will inherit, will come with issues and conditions that can only be solved by something that acts as a state apparatus.
>Non-centralized institutions are necessary to deal with major collective action problems, like for instance climate change
Funny, because I'd actually say that climate change is something that needs a central/unified/planned solution, rather than a bunch of decentralised solutions that would probably be counter-productive more often than not.

Things we need central planning/state apparatus to deal with:
>climate change
>nuclear arsenal
>nuclear energy and accompanying infrastructure
>medical science and healthcare
>defense on a "national"/regional scale
>maintenance of ecosystems, land, fisheries, oceans, etc.
>standardisation of things like electrical appliances, and anything else that needs to interwork with other part
>standardisation of education (to some degree, to make sure everyone is sort of on the same level)
Other than that, everything can be decided on a local scale, by community councils or assemblies, or whatever, similar to how the Zapatistas make decisions and run their region.

The idea is that every autonomous region (to call it that) would be largely self-sufficient when it comes to things like food, water, shelter, education, and the basic necessities, while the rest would be made in cooperation with the other regions. Or that's how the whole libertarian marxism, libertarian communism thing sounds like to me.


>Funny, because I'd actually say that climate change is something that needs a central/unified/planned solution
That's actually just me being a dumbass - I meant to list climate change as something that required a centralized solution!

Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]
[ 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 ]
| Catalog | Home