[ 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


I've finally read the big ones (Deleuze, Guattari, Baudrilland, Foucault, Derrida) and I'm just not seeing it. The only argument I usually see when they bother explaining why is that these authors """reject""" class struggle.
45 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


To me modernism basically means the Zietgiest of the British empire. Post-Modernism means "rejects the anglo model". The idea that it is about grand narratives is a liberal perspective, like how liberals call communists "idealist" because "its just human nature" and "thats the way the world works". Its a reactionary defense of the grand narrative of Whig history and bourgeoisie progress.

Its tied up in the idea that WWII and fascism are directly outgrowths of capitalism and imperialism. The "modernist" model says that freedom and democracy defeated the fascists and America is number one because they are so good. Post-modernists reject this and their starting point is that "modernity" is a farce that is upheld by exploitation, that is pretty much their only commonality. That is why "post-modernists" are secret "cultural marxists", because they are "ideological" and cant accept the true "end of history". Saying that they reject grand narratives is people coping with their precise rejection of imperialist narratives.

Many of them are leftists and their criticism of Marxism-Leninism is an immanent critique of it that accepts its premises, its a type of critical support, not a rejection. Their goal is to integrate the scientific advances in the fields of social science, like psychology, advertising and propaganda, into the established theory of Marx and Lenin. This leads some of them to focus on particular parts that deal with their own subfields, and they adapt to that in a variety of ways depending on their individual education and politics. You can't really say "all post-modernists do X" because it is basically anyone who disagreed with American hegemony during the post war period and not a specific thing.

I think one should separate clearly between being a fellow traveler, and supporting the Soviet Union as a sovereign entity, and being a supporter of Stalinism as an interpretation of Marxism. Even Trotskyites, who derided the Soviet Union as a form of "state capitalism" nevertheless supported the socialist experiment there (which might have been reformed from inside). Frankfurt School theory was born in the revolutionary melee and had to at least give indications that it was on the side of the International and the world proletariat, even as it made biting criticisms of the state bureaucracy, authoritarianism and philosophical positivism.


>Rejection of grand narratives being a grand narrative in itself is a meaningless aphorism
Different anon weighing in on this.
I think this is largely correct tho, even if it's formulated as a dumb logic-bro gotcha. I would leave out the word "grand" and stick with the unmodified "narrative" and call it good.
My experience debating postmodernists is that they can dismiss everything I say by declaring it as a narrative, so therefor i should be able to dismiss what they say as a narrative as well. You can't declare narrative competition but put yours beyond question. That would be idealist, because nobody would accept that premise. If you can feel my scorn in these words, it's because post-modern philosophy is read without taking the material conditions into account. There was a devaluation of soft sciences in the 50s 60s and 70s and a big prestige gain in hard sciences, this lead to petty academic disputes being encoded into the theoretical structure. If you have ever wondered about the strange language style in post modern philosophy, it's aping tech-bro slang from the 50s, who got way more funding than the sociology department.

>So, although Marx never explicitly word-for-word acknowledged the interrelations of societal subjectivity

Marx's views on subjectivity are uncharacteristically idealist for good old Karl. He thought that there was a dialectic between objective and subjective, but that is wrong. Subjectivity is the result of people being subjected to class domination. It comes from people being subjects to royal fiefdoms or subjects in a bourgeois legal sense. The common sense understanding of subjectivity would be better framed as having a unique personal bias. Subjectivity is not personal, it's the imposition of a systemic bias, that makes people into subjects.

Objectivity is the attempt at removing all biases by various means like measurements like in science or the quest for universal truths in philosophy, it's not limited to eliminating only subjective biases from analysis.

>To me modernism basically means the Zietgiest of the British empire
No modernism was a revolt against the premodern remnants that was still prePost too long. Click here to view the full text.


I still disagree with this aphorism for the reasons I stated above. Just as I disagree with that Anon's reply entirely. He also thinks Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse are postmodernists, when none of them are (let alone the FOUNDERS thereof), and are just Frankfurt continentals. He's deeply confused, possibly from /pol/.

Even if we take your 'narrative as narrative' deference from modification, this is still a problem, because it's denying the context from which post-modernism stakes the specificities of its rejection. Post-modernism, in its rejection of (grand) narrativity, is a kind of socio-phenomenally mediated ontological skepticism, which is itself contingent by way of the internal process of its mediation, and as such, it cannot be axiomatic* nor prescribed as an ultimate social end or absolute* (* *which is what is meant when speaking in reference of 'Grand Narratives'), since the ever-presence of its possibility of self negation subsists via its self-destabilizing processual temporality (and so, it, that is, the rejection itself, can therefore be dethroned and de-standardized, and it never realizes any kind of necessary standardization of itself, all without recourse to any axiomatic necessitation in its functionality).

Now, a grand narrative is a 'category' (all things are, in some reducible sense, categorical), in that (and insofar as) it belongs to 'being a category', but the concept of 'category' is not, in itself, a grand narrative. That is, the definition, or essence of what a category is, formally, is not 'grand narrative' (i.e a cat is an animal but the formal concept of all that is animal is not 'cat').

What's more, from your reply I can gleam that you're an analytic cockshott anglo kinda' guy, since your misinterpreting the usage of the word subjectivity. When I'm referring to subjectivity, in an idealist sense or not, I mean 'subjectivity' as a shorthand taken from the history of continental philosophy ranging from antiquity and beyond, to mean cogito or personal ontology; I'm not thinking of subjectivity as if it means the subjecting thereof. The imposition of any kind of systemic bias relates to the personal, this doesn't mean a wholesale negation of the existence of the personal, and there is an a priori 'personal', the foundational sense of interrelation to the world regardless of all else. Conversely, objectivPost too long. Click here to view the full text.




File: 1686419307462.png (226.38 KB, 1156x1456, critical theory.png)

What is to be done with critical theory, or whatever it is that they now teach in academic circles? The intelligentsia have made ideological pariahs and superstars like Zizek, who write screeds about current technology or media, while tying it into some strange misreading of Marx or some charlatans like Lacan, Lyotard, Deleuze, Guattari, Bataille, Foucault, or whoever else. It's strange that anyone reads this stuff, but I have wondered whether its intended purpose is to obfuscate Marxist analysis or to even co-opt various revolutionary factions on campuses.

File: 1686413835950.png (46.83 KB, 216x180, ClipboardImage.png)


after a few days of reading i got past the first part and I have some thoughts i wanted to share about the almost 750 page piece.

>the good parts

coming in i didnt have high expectations for what the book would turn out as as it continued but i found it to be quite interesting, simon presented alot of ideas on the sentiments of males in pre second wave feminist societies but the idea i found most interesting were her views on what actually made women "the other" in the eyes of males at that time. the answer was subjective to the person, much like in her section that detailed the varying roles and levels of freedom women have had throughout history in several parts of the planet what femininity was percieved as was also subjective and the idea that women must be subjegated to their husbands and treated as objects was a christian one that stemmed from the book of genesis, hold on this is going for too long.
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>from stories of amazonian women removing their breasts
Aren't Amazons a myth that Greek men came up with as a representation of everything they didn't want to see in women


In philosophy you can use anything you want as a metaphor. Even if it's not true, it's true in spirit


The name Amazon (a-mazon, "without breast", basically calling them "titless") is almost certainly an archetype of women giving up femininity to be like men. The degree to which it's inspired by some real culture or real people is less important than the values they represent for ancient Greeks. So in that sense it's a useful point to discuss because it is revealing about attitudes toward women.


this is why I hate idealism


>it's true because i made up a situation where it's true


Can someone please dumb this down for me?
>The concept of “objective” in metaphysical materialism appears to mean an objectivity which exists even outside of man, but to assert that reality would exist even if man did not exist is either to state a metaphor or to fall into a form of mysticism. We know reality only in its relations with man, and just as man is an historical process of becoming, so also knowledge and reality are a becoming, and objectivity is a becoming, etc.
>Engels’ expression that “the materiality of the world is demonstrated by the long and laborious development of philosophy and the natural sciences” needs to be analyzed and made precise. By science does he mean the theoretical or the practical-experimental activity of the scientists or the synthesis of the two activities? In this we could be said to have the typical unitary process of reality, in the experimental activity of the scientist which is the first model of the dialectical mediation between man and nature, the elementary historical cell by which man, putting himself into relation with nature through technology, knows it and controls it. Undoubtedly, the promulgation of the experimental method separates two worlds of history, two epochs, and begins the process of the dissolution of theology and metaphysics and the development of modern thought, whose crowning is Marxism. Scientific method is the first cell of the new method of production, of the new form of active union between man and nature. The scientist-experimenter is also a worker, not a pure thinker, and his thought is continually controlled by practice and vice versa, up to the point where a perfect unity of theory and practice is formed.
>The neo-scholastic Mario Casotti (Teacher and Scholar) writes: “The researches of the naturalists and the biologists presuppose an already existing life and real organism,” an expression which comes near to that of Engels in Anti-Dühring.
>The agreement between Catholicism and Aristotelianism on the question of the objectivity of reality.
>In order to understand exactly the possible significance of the problem of the reality of the external world, it may be useful to develop the example of the notions of “East” and “West” which do not stop being “objectively real” even if on analysis they prove to be nothing but conventionsPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Did lenin write this 😳


not OP but pretty sure it is gramsci


no. all posts with more than 128 words are literal chatgpt output


>to assert that reality would exist even if man did not exist is either to state a metaphor or to fall into a form of mysticism
Your are literally making a metaphor that he argued about.
He says reality does not exist.


I was just asking because it's so much metaphysical pseudery

File: 1674846959785.jpg (6 KB, 158x320, faggot.jpg)

 No.17634[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

I have struggled with this question a lot, particularly because many of the things that get called fascist are quite clearly, in my eyes, not unique to fascism from both sides of the political aisle (e.g. free market advocacy, socialism etc.) So, leftypol, is fascism truly everything I don't like?
210 posts and 43 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


if you think animal farm is fascist literature you're too far gone to warrent my ear


File: 1686090439217.jpg (801.31 KB, 800x1135, Klan.jpg)

Depends how you define "normal" I suppose. Maybe "typical" would be a better term.

I think there's some misunderstanding at least. I'm not saying anyone who was lonely or weird or otherwise "abnormal" is destined to become Hitler-like; if I was, well then I'd be condemning myself too. After all, I had a slightly similar childhood: strained relationship with my father, not too many friends growing up, not many long term relationships, so on.

I guess what I'm saying, is I think that there are certain milestones one can accomplish to have a broadly "healthy" (as in, pro-social) development. Having a strong relationship with both parents for example. Having a network of friends and acquaintances to socialize with. Having a lover. Sustained employment. All of these contribute towards making a person that's part of a greater social body.

As for why that is, I think its because when people don't have the company of others, they end up retreating to the company of their own mind. Now this isn't always a bad thing; plenty of Holy Men lived as hermits and there's a kind of intellectualism that can come from being alone with your thoughts. But when that isolation is seemingly forced on you (even if it's by your own inaction) then it can drive a person mad.

Take, for example, Hitler's hatred of Jews. I think the most shocking thing about it was how nihilistic it was. The awful truth about genocidal Nazism, is that it seems to have come about for no reason. I've tried researching it before, and I don't think there's a single negative encounter Hitler ever had with a Jew prior to the Holocaust. His first crush was Jewish. The doctor who treated his mother, for free mind you, was Jewish. His commanding officer during the war was Jewish. As silly as it is to think some Jew once cut Hitler off in traffic and so he decided he was going to commit genocide, it's almost baffling that Jews were the one people who showed this strange social recluse any kindness, and he responded with mass murder.

It wasn't even a lack of gratitude. Hitler made special exceptions for his old commanding officer and his mother's doctor. He could be personally gracious, but to the Jewish people as a whole, he was a monster.

How'd he square the circle of Jews being nothing but kind to him and his desire to kill them allPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


>I guess what I'm saying, is I think that there are certain milestones one can accomplish to have a broadly "healthy" (as in, pro-social) development. Having a strong relationship with both parents for example. Having a network of friends and acquaintances to socialize with. Having a lover. Sustained employment. All of these contribute towards making a person that's part of a greater social body.
Hahaha you'd have a lot in common with Nazi propaganda thinking this spooked sentimental bs
>Now this isn't always a bad thing; plenty of Holy Men lived as hermits and there's a kind of intellectualism that can come from being alone with your thoughts.
Ah yes, Holy Men are the height of intellectualism
>How'd he square the circle of Jews being nothing but kind to him and his desire to kill them all? If I had to guess, its because he was in this introvert's world for far too long.
Have you considered maybe there were larger political and social things happening which he became a representative face for due to no particular reason? That's not a thing that a self-proclaimed communist would consider?


This kind of post is the exact kind of vulgar "materialism" endemic to people who get their Marxism from Memes and YouTube summaries than actually reading Marx.

The social environment classes and people engage in of course lends itself towards developing reactionary or progressive ideals. Do you even know what spooks mean?


Fascist movements were the natural outgrowth of liberal European nation-states, a fact which disturbs liberals to this day, and which causes them to try to depict it as "irrational" or "totalitarian" and to "psychoanalyze" it. The fascists were managers of the decay of liberalism in the face of proletarian-centric mass movements like Social-Democracy and Communism, agents of Jacobin terror to put an end to these implacable threats to liberal status quo.

 No.14251[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Serious discussion.

The right completely rejects any anti-natal ethic (see pic related). most antinatalists are overwhelmingly pessimists (or cynics) and when politically active they tend to be leftist socialists (Think Thomas Ligotti, David Benatar, Philipp Mainländer… etc). antinatalism is very underground, even more so than veganism and is mostly perceived in a negative light even by the left. it's seen as reactionary and extreme and therefore dismissed.
however, I think that anti-natal ethics have a huge potential to reduce a lot of suffering as antinatalist philosophy often asks deeper questions about life, meanwhile most of the leftist discourse is focused on social identity and capitalism. it's not that antinatalists don't think of those things as big problems that need to be overcome, on the contrary, antinatalists tend to be hardcore socialist leftists but they also recognize deeper issues that (I would argue) are even more pressing than the overcoming of capitalism.
now before you slam antinatalists as genocidal defeatist nihilists, you should understand that antinatalists are not a monolith, some are apolitical and some aren't, some have unconditional anti-life attitudes and some are transhumanists and so on…
the point im trying to make here is that I think it's a mistake to outright reject antinatalism or antinatalists from leftist discourse, and as allies, as antinatalists care deeply about suffering, something that the left is synonymous with.
462 posts and 79 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


You are a retard making enormous assumptions.


File: 1686241740208.png (210.23 KB, 2515x1134, ClipboardImage.png)





"Leftist socialist" doesn't always equate to good. There are after all Fabian eugenicists, Nazi socialists, and lumpen anarchofascists that technically count as socialists but are fundamentally of the reactionary socialist types ultimately. Many Western socialists are simply disaffected petty bourgeois who are mad that the world has some laws.


Its only positive if retards dont reproduce.


I have been reading the works of the architect and self proclaimed "anarcho capitalist" and "former revolutionary communist" Patrik Schumacher, who says that the works of German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (not translated much into English) are a better frame to analyze the world and also prove Anarcho-capitalism is correct.

>MK: In a recent lecture – aptly named ‘In Defense of Capitalism’ – you talk about your personal shift from a self-proclaimed ‘revolutionary communist’ to an advocate of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Could you elaborate on this ideological turn? How has it affected your thinking on architecture and the city (or perhaps the other way around)?

<PS: How society works or should work is the most momentous question that I feel confronted by, but it’s also the most complex, non-trivial, perplexing question. Yet, I was not willing to resign myself to agnosticism on this matter. I started early on to invest a large chunk of my learning and life energy in the attempt to penetrate the matter and reach a position I can argue and commit to. This effort in political self-education evolved out of my overarching effort to gain a comprehensive intellectual orientation which drew me first into ‘pure’ philosophy. For my youthful prior self it was a matter of self-respect to break into the circle of those who address and claim to answer the deepest questions. What is the world? What is thinking? How is knowledge possible? These questions led via language and life forms (Wittgenstein) to society (Habermas) and political economy (Marx). Thus I arrived at Marxism first via theoretical philosophy rather than via any prior political bias. Wittgenstein, Habermas and Marx showed that pure philosophy was vain. Habermas and Marx showed that the theory of society must become the fulcrum of all philosophy. Marx showed that theory must fuse with practice. He delivered a system of political economy as crucial theoretical component of a radical, transformative political project. Marx’s philosophy is of totalising scope and able to theorize its own historico-sociological conditions of emergence and development. Marx’s system was the first ‘super-theory’ in Luhmann’s sense, i.e. a theory that is able to fully and consistently theorize itself. Nothing less should satisfy us.

>Marxism seemed most profound and ambitious to me. It seemed nothing else ca
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


clean this up lear


>Lear is redpilled on the Final Solution to the BOOMER question
finally something I can agree with him on


You didn't prove anything. Last time someone confronted you about your assertion that everybody older than gen Z is bourgeois, you were forced to actually look at statistics regarding wealth distribution within generations, the stats you cited flat-out stated that you were wrong. And I know this, because I read that thread and that post.

And stop spamming emojis like a boomer, it's obnoxious


When the fuck are mods actually gonna start cracking down on schizoposting?

It's not cute or funny, it's at-best obnoxious bullshit that derails threads and at worst obvious cries for help from people who shouldn't be on imageboards for their own sake.


King Lear is an official recognized part of our imageboard culture and heritage and I'm afraid that you're just going to have to accept the occasional schizoposting sweaty.


Are they the most revolutionary class, or are they reactionary? I think they are the most revolutionary because they are the most oppressed. In fact, I don't see how you can make a revolution without the lumpen.

Especially in America, where the regular proletariat (labor aristocracy) has been fully bourgeoisified and proudly supports the imperialist bourgeoisie in everything they do.

Fuck jannies btw


File: 1686242757344.jpg (146.68 KB, 1246x1600, FxZKBjrWAAc-9B2.jpg)

It depend.


They are human reserves by design. Give all of them work and income and rest of the problems will sort themselves out. Lumpen revolutionary potential could be relevant as technology and automation progresses.


can be the greatest allies and hired muscle for reaction, the lumpenprole guys I hang with are p receptive to commie economics


File: 1686245852322.jpg (73.74 KB, 260x383, Nina Andreyeva.jpg)


"I decided to write this letter after lengthy deliberation. I am a chemist, and I lecture at Leningrad's Lensovet Technology Institute. Like many others, I also look after a student group. Students nowadays, following the period of social apathy and intellectual dependence, are gradually becoming charged with the energy of revolutionary changes. Naturally, discussions develop about the ways of restructuring and its economic and ideological aspects. Glasnost, openness, the disappearance of zones where criticism is taboo, and the emotion heat of mass consciousness (especially among young people) often result in the raising of problems that are, to a greater or lesser extent, "prompted" either by Western radio voices or by those of our compatriots who are shaky in their conceptions of the essence of socialism. And what a variety of topics that are being discussed! A multiparty system, freedom of religious propaganda, emigration to live abroad, the right to broad discussion of sexual problems in the press, the need to decentralize the leadership of culture, abolition of compulsory military service. There are particularly numerous arguments among students about the country's past.

Of course, we lecturers must answer the most controversial questions, and this demands, in addition to honesty, knowledge, conviction, broad cultural horizons, serious reflection, and considered opinions. Moreover, these qualities are needed by all educators of young people and not only by members of social science department staffs.

Petergof Park is a favorite spot for the walks I take with my students. We stroll along the snow-covered paths, enjoy looking at the famous palaces and statues, and we argue. We do argue! The young souls are eager to investigate all complexities and to map out their path in to the future. I look at my ardent young interlocutors, and I think to myself how important it is to help them to discover the truth and shape a correct perception of the problems of the society in which they live and which they will have to restructure, and how to give them a correct perception of our history, both distant and recent.

What are the misgivings? Here is a simple example: You would think that plenty has been written and said about the Great Patriotic War against the Nazi invasion and the heroism of those who fought in it. Recently, however, a student hostel in our Technology Institute organized a meeting with Hero of the Soviet Union and ColonelPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


She did nothing wrong


File: 1686252667221.jpg (21.46 KB, 300x230, Gorby Yakovlev.jpg)

Yes, it was unfortunate that the Gorbachev-Yakovlev clique would use this an opportunity to consolidate their power over the soviet state, by purging anyone who was sympathetic to the “manifesto of anti-perestroika forces” as “Neo Stalinist”.


File: 1686253490150.jpg (80.83 KB, 500x532, 7opnjo.jpg)

File: 1686230813931.mp4 (1002.06 KB, 640x640, police.mp4)


What is the role of the police under capitalism? They do protect property and the interests of the upper class, but I don't think it's as clear cut as they merely protect a capitalist's factory and resources alone. They do try to carry out whatever dicta of law is brought in through legislation within their own funding.
But how are laws made?
Laws themselves are created through the superstructure, which I imagine are first formulated through the interests of the upper social strata inside the organs of the capitalist state, such as universities, political parties, courts, police departments, and legislative councils, as well as by appeasing public sentiment.
The economic and political classes of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeois also seem to be entrenched in the roles of law: prosecutors, defence lawyers, and judges. These are created through the superstructure's education systems and law associations. The role of police as enforcers, or soldiers of the state, against the proletariat and peasantry upholds the sacred principles of capitalism: property, order, and class. Oddly enough, though, the police work against the black market which is merely capitalism intensified. What is the Marxist or Anarchist perspective on the role of police against the worst aspects of capitalism (human trafficking, drug trade, organised crime, gang violence)?
20 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


This guy is very obsessed with denying link between slavery and policing even though no one brought it up


> "the concept of police was invented to capture run-away slaves".
Actually true for the burgroid national context iirc


Another infantile anarchist thread whining about the cops, as though policing is a uniquely evil institution that wont need to exist under socialism. But by all means, try building a state without laws or order or accountability, humans tried to do that once too and it resulted in catastrophe: ever heard of the Flood?


I have read this sort of bait so many times it doesn't even register anymore


File: 1686216447559-0.jpg (392.27 KB, 1204x1152, 8_Hufton-Crow.jpg)

File: 1686216447559-1.jpg (97.79 KB, 750x416, BeFunky_Collage.jpg)


>Parametricism is an architectural style based on computer technology and algorithms. The concept emerged from the digital animation techniques of the mid-1990s, but has risen in prominence in the early-21st century with the development of advanced parametric design.

Stop larping Brutalism, the real redpill of the Future is just to let Zaha Hadid style architects design everything. Functionalism is the doctrine that the design of an object should be determined solely by its function, rather than by aesthetic considerations, and that anything practically designed will be inherently beautiful. Parametricism IMO is just functionalism updated to use computer technology.

I believe that parametricism is the best synthesis of functionalism, with islamic architecture influences but based on algorithmic fractal art, sacralizing cyber-pragmatic. Thanks to computer technology we are no longer limited to platonic forms like cubes that may not be the best use of space, material, or even the most aesthetically appealing.
7 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


ironically the current CEO of Hadid's company and her successor is an unironic ancap see: >>1492623


sucks. posadas NOW!
posadas shinrikyo syncretic solidarity.


concrete boxes > metal-glass blobs
what happens if you need to change one of the curved beams or windows? or if at some point you want to use the building for something else? every single part of these shapeless structures was custom made for each particular building, it is the opposite of functionalism, modularity, and standardization

these things are just prestige buildings, the style is not sustainable, it will never become actually widespread, unlike the brutalist style in eastern europe


Sure, it takes advance fabrication to repair, but how many old buildings get renovated vs demolished? My main gripe is that this new architectural style doesn't employ new building materials like self-healing concrete.


> My main gripe is that this new architectural style doesn't employ new building materials like self-healing concrete.
that can easily be modified since im pretty sure parametricism is mainly about the shapes and curves of a building and relatively agnostic on the material, that is when they dont go concrete like brutalism

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