[ 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.)
Required: 2 + 2 =

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

| Catalog | Home

File: 1683793162773.png (510.51 KB, 488x678, ClipboardImage.png)


look, i know it's trendy for some to be all about that dialectical life, but let's be real for a sec. the way that social-fascist pseudo-Marxists and pro-China neo-revisionists try to wield dialectics is not only tired but downright oppressive. they act like their version of Leftism is the only way to resist capitalism and imperialism, but they forget that even Marx himself recognized the limitations of dialectics in his later years.

i'm not saying we should all become anti-Leninist Maoists or anything, but we need to recognize that dialectics doesn't account for the fluctuations of reality. it's too rigid and dogmatic for our ever-changing world. instead, we should embrace eclectics, which allows for a more fluid and adaptable approach to revolutionary praxis. we can take inspiration from various theories and practices without getting bogged down in sectarianism.

now, i know some of y'all might be thinking "but what about post-structuralists?? they're all about that anti-dialectical life!" and while i agree that their critiques are important, we also need to be cautious about how we approach their theories. we don't want to fall into the trap of the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, who use postmodernism as an excuse to avoid taking any real action.

what we need is a safe space, a place where we can embrace the complexity and messiness of reality without getting trapped in dialectical thinking. this means recognizing that our ideas and strategies will always be provisional and subject to change, and that's okay. as long as we keep moving forward and adapting to new circumstances, we can create a truly revolutionary praxis that is inclusive, adaptable, and effective.

peace and love
43 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I knew it was GDP immediately and didn't say nothing to nobody


no you didn't. admit you got fooled and couldn't remember if you posted this earlier in a delirious state


anon if im sane enough to kno i didnt post it, you should be sane enough to not post it in the first place



very based.
all the fields


File: 1683768686326.png (511.69 KB, 700x581, ClipboardImage.png)


hot take: Kautsky's theory of "ultra imperialism" was ultimately correct, but 100 years ahead of its time. Lenin was correct in the contemporary debate, but Kautsky is correct today. Today we have an ultra-imperialist coalition called NATO that will coup, sanction, embargo, invade, wage proxy wars, and otherwise destabilize any government, even bourgeois governments, that do not align with its economic hegemonic interests. This ultra-imperialism, rather than exporting capital and creating its own future competitors in a developmentalist fashion, has learned from the mistakes of past empires, and now limits the amount of capital it exports. It no longer develops the periphery like the traditional bourgeoisie of the 18th and 19th century did. It instead arrests the development of peripheral countries, so that they can remain neo-colonies for as long as possible. This is done through relatively innocuous methods like coup regimes taking out high interest IMF loans with structural adjustment programs rather than obvious methods like invasion and enslavement. Because of the innocuousness and efficiency of the methods of neocolonialism, the neocolonial relationship is obfuscated and made confusing to the general public, who do not see it operating. It also make geopolitical conflicts more confusing, and can make a power defending against a proxy war look like an aggressor. Furthermore, China is bourgeois, but they are bourgeois in the traditional sense that they actually export capital and help develop the global south, which is why global south nations are choosing to ally with them over the imperial core. Having a traditional imperialist relationship turns out to be less parasitic than having an ultra-imperialist relationship in the same way that being an indentured servant is better than being a slave. Traditional imperialism makes the nations of the periphery indentured servants to the imperial core. Ultra-imperialism constantly resets the clock and arrests development, effectively making them slaves to the imperial core, because their level of development can't catch up enough to throw off the shackles of the imperial relationship and its fundamental wage disparity, even though their development nominally continues. this is the source of all the confused argument over multipolarity/unipolarity, whether such and such nation is bourgeois or not. The difference between comprador and national bourgeoisie now matters more than ever. Also, the climate iPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
39 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Go ahead.


I was hoping you'd do it lad or lass
I'm trying to settle down and get to sleep after a hard days work and am old and getting long in the tooth


>No one mentioned
I did. I'm steering this conversation now.
>Get a grip
I did. I'm steering this conversation now.


File: 1683829704397.jpg (510.62 KB, 2124x1336, catholics.jpg)

is this supposed to be an argument?


Do you wanna argue

File: 1683657153010-0.jpg (17.64 KB, 275x388, worstbookever.jpg)

File: 1683657153010-1.pdf (15.46 KB, 197x255, GEDpatent.pdf)


This utopian garbage by P.F Skinner (Yes, THAT Skinner, for whom the Skinner Box is named after) has no right to be called a socialist novel and anyone who says it is is delusional.

For starters, the book is objectively terrible from a literary standpoint (like most Utopian novels honestly, it's a shit genre). Every chapter is dedicated to some aspect of the Walden Two "Utopia" and consists of Frazier, P.F Skinner's self insert character in the novel, explaining why Walden Two is so epic and based and wonderful in X aspect to bland and unoriginal to a small cast of forgettable characters visiting Walden Two for no reason other than to be ranted at by Frazier apparently.

Walden Two's "Utopia" is ran by a professional caste of Planners (unelected, naturally, not even held in check by a Party of any kind) set apart from the usual workers who run and plan everything and use Radical Behaviorism (essentially mind control through selected use of pleasure and pain) to alter the needs, wants, and desires of its citizens to conform better to society's needs. It's funny how the book is structured to make this seem like a good thing. Many chapters go to great lengths to explain why Walden Two is a haven for art, culture, shorter working hours, better working conditions, etc, in order to justify this behavioral altering. The chapter on education shows hungry children made to sit in front of food for hours at a time without eating it in order to build "patience". One can only imagine the child abuse going on behind the scenes to make this sort of lunacy possible. Walden Two is the sort of book that is in favor of beating your children.

Towards the end of the book it's revealed that Frazier is a complete egomaniac who personally runs and plans much of Walden Two (But um, actualleh that's totally OK b/c Walden Two has a 4 hour work week!!!!). He compares himself to Jesus Christ and his fellow Planners as his disciples.

Walden Two takes the liberal argument "hurr durr, muh human nature means ppl too greedy for socialist utopia" and responds with "You're correct, people are greedy and evil! Let's MIND CONTROL people into being selfless!" instead of refuting the initial argument as liberal bullshit.

All attempts at implementing Walden Two IRL are either hippie communes that have long since abandoned Skinner's philosophy (as they should) or dystopian torture nightmares that take Frazier's egomania in the original novel to the extrPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
9 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Walden 1 was better


What convinced you not to give up on Marixsm ? Capital ?


noooo don't give up on marxism, you know so much about german idealism nooooooo
lol, lmao


the fact that he is dumb as fuck, probably. he begins by complaining that, because a guy went and commodified child abuse, these utopian fantasies are the inevitable future of society. class struggle? material interests and conditions? politics? forget about all of that, what changes reality are our hecking ideas! the world would be so different if everyone read <utopian fantasy #162>!


>The most notable modern-day Walden Two inspired project is the Judge Rotenburg Center founded by Matthew Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Israel) which tortures autistic children with their patented Graduated Electronic Decelerator whenever they act out (or scream in pain when being shocked, or fail to reply when greeted, or break some other minor rule). This Matthew Israel guy studied Behaviorism under P.F Skinner, read & loved Walden Two as his favorite novel, and literally has a Disney Villain backstory where he realized he can control people through pain and founds a school to continue doing just that.
This guy is complete fucking scum. Being sent to a place like that is one of my biggest nightmares. Institutions are honestly worse than prison because at least most prison sentences end. I want to force him to play a piano with the threat of being electroshocked the second he stops.

File: 1683503677937-0.png (1.35 MB, 811x952, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1683503677937-1.png (489.5 KB, 623x684, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1683503677937-2.png (135.93 KB, 215x602, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1683503677937-3.png (1.67 MB, 800x1384, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1683503677937-4.png (1.5 MB, 1234x891, ClipboardImage.png)


Why do people continue believing in ghosts or souls after Phineas Gage?

I see a handful of religious leftists on here who believe in souls, ghosts, and even silly things like an immutable "National Character" inherent to geographic regions. They usually use these things as an excuse for reactionary idealism or outright sadism.

The "self" is a function of biology, rather than an eternal and immutable immaterial thing.

>Phineas P. Gage (1823–1860) was an American railroad construction foreman remembered for his improbable  survival of an accident in which a large iron rod was driven completely through his head, destroying much of his brain's left frontal lobe, and for that injury's reported effects on his personality and behavior over the remaining 12 years of his life‍—‌effects sufficiently profound that friends saw him (for a time at least) as "no longer Gage". 

>Phineas Gage influenced 19th-century discussion about the mind and brain, par­tic­u­larly debate on cerebral local­i­za­tion,​​ and was perhaps the first case to suggest the brain's role in deter­min­ing per­son­al­ity, and that damage to specific parts of the brain might induce specific mental changes.

Absolutely spooked reactionaries to this day continue to believe we have little ghosty ghosts created by God that determine our personality, our disposition, the kinds of choices we make in our life, and that in turn determines which fictional realm our ghosty ghosts get sent to after we die. When, in reality, something out of your control like an illness or traumatic brain injury can fundamentally change who you are and how you act and the kinds of decisions you make.

Spooked reactionaries are sadists who want to continue to punish people for how the machinery of their brains work, rather than closely study people to determine a path to changing behavior without torture, imprisonment, capital punishment and other reactionary spookery. They say "actions have consequences" not realizing that the "consequences" of actions are socially constructed or that crime and other taboo behaviors are rarely deterred by the severity of punishments.
32 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>The "self" is a function of biology
so its real?

are souls and selfs the same?


File: 1683602205548.webm (1.31 MB, 640x356, self.webm)

>so its real?
who's asking?


>so its real?
ask your self


what if no balls?


 No.14720[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Nearly every successful socialist revolution has happened in an underdeveloped nation in the global periphery, usually very early in that place's capitalist development. While these revolutionary projects have proved incredibly successful at raising living standards and quality of life and modernizing their nations, most successful socialist projects have a habit of reverting through revisionism into some level of capitalist development. Those who remain committed to more Marxist-Leninist economic practices often become incredibly isolationist due to imperialist pressure.

Similarly, working class movements, things like trade unions and communist parties, were vastly more successful in the imperial core in the early stage of capitalist development. Stuff like the Paris Commune or the 1877 St. Louis General Strike would be nearly impossible today with the state of working class organization. Post-war modernization became incredibly efficient at decimating union membership and demonizing and coopting social movements. Besides, if you get a guy organizing like Lenin in a modern state they'll just kill you or imprison you for 30 years instead of sending you to a comfy cabin in Siberia for a couple summers and hoping you learn your lesson.

Essentially every highly developed capitalist nation has become incredibly efficient at atomizing workers, manufacturing alienation, and crushing the capacity of its people to organize any resistance. Look at miserable places like America, or South Korea. If the social technology available to the ruling class to manufacture consent and divide & conquer their working class only gets more sophisticated over time, why should we assume that socialism is necessarily bound to emerge from developmental progress, even if it's obviously better and technological advances might even make stuff like cybernetic central planning feasible? What's stopping them from simply making human beings so alienated from each other that fighting back is impossible? Stuff promising "socialism by 2050" because development will necessarily lead to communism seems about as likely as liberal states promising net zero carbon emissions by 2050 or whatever. Is there anything to meaningfully contradict this? The resurgence of nationalist social democracy in LatAm and stuff is encouraging but it feels like a step back in ambition.
119 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Socialism is when people are nice and don't look after their own profit but engage in "mutual aid"
This is what I get from liberals so I think it's the generally agreed upon definition


We will have a classless society when capitalist have liquidated the useless eaters and replaced them with AI.


Yes useless eater


>Capitalism is defined by crisis every ten years or so
>If the Chinese continue to have no crisis then by definition it is not capitalism
China never had much trouble since Deng's liberalization because they make big bucks from international trade, their trade balance has (almost) always been positive so far.

But Chinese growth is also predicated on a large amount of debt (see Evergrande) that is expected to be reimbursed, and unlike the US, they don't control the world's reserve currency, on the contrary the renminbi is soft-pegged to the USD for devaluation purposes, in order for the US domestic market to absorb a lot of the glut of Chinese manufactured goods circulating on the world market.

In short, the Chinese have been unironically developing the productive forces using supply-side economics, but a different kind than Reagan, focused on gaining the upper hand in manufacturing.
It was the whole philosophy behind Deng's catchphrase, more or less "让一部分人先富起来", which was incorrectly translated as "To get rich is glorious", but more accurately means "Let some people get rich first" — if you want the real speech, take a quick look at http://keywords.china.org.cn/2021-01/11/content_77102316.html.

They did a great job at this, but the problem is that now, worldwide recession is happening — and crises have long-lasting effects, remember 2008, it's the main historical reason why you feel so miserable all day!

What I expect is the following:
>1) Western consumers absorbing the glut won't be able to afford as many Chinese goods as before, due to economic depression.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


"lol" said the ruling elite "lmao, even"


Oliver Cromwell was the greatest British Revolutionary.
Oliver Cromwell is akin to Robspierre, a revolutionary far ahead of his time, which helped develope a revolutionary tradition within britain and inspire europe itself to light itself aflame in the fires of revolt. His reforms introduced democracy not only to the state but to all of society itself. His New Model army was itself based of a democratic foundation which pushed for discussion and debate within its ranks in order to make the army iteslf a ideological extension of Parlimentary Political thought, something which was also seen within the Red Army.
Since then, a pile of dirt was thrown across Cromwells grave and he was deemed a imperialist, a genocider, and other such statements which were fabricated by the Royalist restorationists with no basis for such claims other than trying to de-legitimize a authentic Revolutionary which was Cromwell. While not as radical as the Levellers or Diggers, Cromwell still stands as a progressive and revolutionary hero in British history, and rehabilitating his image amongst Marxists and Britons as a whole would lay the foundations for a revolutionary revival in Britain.

In short' I'd like to end with a quote from Trotsky: "British workers can learn incomparably more from Cromwell than from MacDonald, Snowden, Webb and other such compromising brethren. Cromwell was a great revolutionary of his time, who knew how to uphold the interests of the new, bourgeois social system against the old aristocratic one without holding back at anything. This must be learnt from him, and the dead lion of the seventeenth century"

35 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1683613754870-0.png (153.42 KB, 500x500, Grace smile cheerful.png)

File: 1683613754870-1.jpg (105.2 KB, 1024x683, FveMFHgXgAE2ayA.jpg)

Read monarchist propaganda.
Simp for Grace.
All hail HM King Charles III.

<So let us not lose the fight, that after we have seen the King in his Beauty, we should see a King in Blood; no, if the Laws of God, and the Mercy of the King not quench Fire-brands, but there should happen to be new flames, new wars, let all faithful Subjects be dismembered rather than one Member of his Sacred Person should be wounded, and let every loyal Hand in the three Nations be cut off, rather then the traitorous hand should touch his Royal Head. For if we should be deprived again of the King in his Beauty, the Beauty of the Land is gone, and misery of the Land will renew, we shall have old plundering, and rifling, and sequestering, and imprisoning, and braining, and gibbetting again; if the King suffer, let us not think to escape scot-free; if the King die, let us not think to live long after him, no, let us resolve of a general Massacre, and a Funeral of the whole Nation.

t. Tho. Reeve (1661)


File: 1683614362144.jpg (41.9 KB, 398x500, SirArthurHaselrig.jpg)

The real shot of Britain getting rid of the monarchy was this guy tbh: Sir Arthur Haselrig. Opposed Monarchy, opposed Cromwell's Commonwealth, opposed Lambert's junta, seized power and restored the Rump Parliament before being betrayed by Moncke. He wasn't as radical as the Diggers or Levellers, but he had a real shot at solidifying the gains of the Civil War and prevent a Restoration, if he had not trusted Moncke.

The Diggers were cool and all, but if you read the True Levellers Standard Advanced, you'll see how they were too pacifistic to really succeed.
>Our bodies as yet are in thy hand, our Spirit waits in quiet and peace, upon our Father for Deliverance; and if he give our Bloud into thy hand, for thee to spill, know this, That he is our Almighty Captain: And if some of you will not dare to shed your bloud, to maintain Tyranny and Oppression upon the Creation, know this, That our Bloud and Life shall not be unwilling to be delivered up in meekness to maintain universal Liberty, that so the Curse on our part may be taken off the Creation.

>And we shall not do this by force of Arms, we abhorre it, For that is the work of the Midianites, to kill one another; […]

Levellers were proto-bourgeois, they were pretty based too, but it was a slim chance to get An Agreement of the People past the Grandees, when they tried it IRL the Grandees drafted the Heads of Proposals and presented that to Charles instead.


File: 1683614521897.png (510.13 KB, 576x768, ClipboardImage.png)


File: 1683615142169.jpg (6.24 MB, 3000x4000, ingsoc.jpg)

gemmy; here's higher res (maybe)


This would be England now if Corbyn had taken the revolutionary course instead of trying to placate the r*mainers.

File: 1683332969815.png (3.74 KB, 464x209, basu1.png)


With all the corporate consolidations and acquisitions and mergers at an all time high and with banks collapsing left and right. Is the ROP just tanking? And I mean so low that there's no way to draw any more profit except through more and more consolidation. To me it seems that the ROP has gone into the negatives and shareholders primacy is the only policy, abandoning long term plans for short term quarterly results.
32 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1683432193192.jpg (328.68 KB, 1176x635, steel-featured.jpg)

Yet investment in the means of production has also hit record lows. The USA has lost tonnage outputs across the board for heavy industry like steel as American capitalists simply hasn't invested in industry since the fall of the Soviet Union. This is why even the US Military industrial Complex can't complex even with modern Russia with mass production of arms due industry starving for reinvestment.

All those profits are short sighted as come at the cost of US industry falling father and farther behind its competitors that are investing in production.


>corporations will provide money and other benefits for the overall welfare of those who work there like healthcare, dental care
Yea but they reached that point due to workers not having vooting powers and their predecessors working their ass out to make company revenue. After you reach a certain point of prosperity its easy to provide these amenities and focus more on employ welfare.

>Labor-managed firms also already exist; the most well-known is the workers cooperative Mondragon. Even within a neoclassical framework, labor-managed firms are entirely viable.

Yea but its still under capitalism with markets and are a minority


>Yea but its still under capitalism with markets and are a minority
You said:
>>electoral democracy in politics have proven to be a inefficient lets implement it in workplace… what could go wrong
>giving workers the voting rights will eventually degenerate companies into welfare units
Neither of which is true empirically. If your contention is that people won't work under socialism, that isn't true either in the case of "actually existing socialism" or in the case of the more socialistic kibbutzim in Israel.

Also, if you're the one advocating for monarchy, monarchy makes even less sense from the point of view of efficiency. If a monarch is mentally stable, intelligent, and healthy, the state will at the very least tend to function as well as any other, all else being equal, but these qualities are hardly guaranteed historically. Primogeniture is always a matter of genetic chance, and, if the successor is nominated from within the royal family or within the nobility, this doesn't guarantee continuous and stable administration, even if the monarch in question is successful, intelligent, and so forth (e.g. Marcus Aurelius and Commodus).


I see USSR graph like this, compared to China today, and realize just how much USSR degraded after Stalin. Just another country, analogous in results to capitalists


And then comes in China and makes it so instead of 2 million products you can only sell 1 million or even less.


Preface: This handy set of rules covers most of the games which disinformation artists play on the Internet (and offline). When you know the tricks, you’ll be able to spot the games. Even if you’ve read this list before, you might be surprised at how useful it is to brush up on these tricks.

Update: This was originally apparently written by H. Michael Sweeney.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponenPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
15 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Dear sir, madame, comrade, citizen or beautiful, extravagant other,
I'm here to politely inform you that you seem to be getting drawn into the very thing your article warns against.

Ad hominems, name calling, emotional attacks, etc.

So perhaps be aware of that and then secondly, I'd like to add to your lists something I did not observe from a quick perusal, the tactic:
Isn't that in the three "D's" of information warfare?
Or is it four?
Dilute, distract, demoralize, destroy?

At any rate, yeah, if you haven't, and if you feel so inclined of course, you can look up textbooks and etc on ol libgen there, the search phrases: "memetic warfare" (which apparently even the United States Marine Corp wrote a book on),
"information warfare",
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


"Disinformation" doesn't have rules. There are some general patterns but bad faith discourse adapts to its contexts.


File: 1685662136218.png (570.62 KB, 1498x2428, 1657539654898.png)




>obligatory "ZOMG this is cointelpro u guys" reference
It's like these people just don't learn what cointelpro was or who it targeted.

>fun shitposts are literally a conspiracy

I get what they're saying, and if it were an actual serious board and not just /v/, it might have some good points about concern trolls and low-content posts. I'm 80% sure this is just some GG autist who wants /v/ to be their personal army, like the neo-nazi organizers desperately trying to turn disaffected gamer nerds into disciplined warriors.


So did the Thermidorian reactionaries make up all the crazy shit about Robespierre, or is it mostly true? I find stuff like the festival of the supreme being where he descended from a mountain to give a speech particularly batshit and theatrical and farfetched.

I regularly hear from people on here that stories of revolutionary atrocities are outlandish lies or exaggerations fabricated by reactionaries to make themselves seem better in comparison. Why wouldn't that be true of the French Revolution? Was Robespierre really a megalomaniac, or did the Thermidorians make all that shit up after they won, and that's what got passed down to us through counter-revolutionary academia?
24 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Sure, it would not be considered a very legitimate court nowadays since it placed the burden of proof on the defense rather than the prosecution
well that wouldn't be considered very legitimate back then either. In the early 13th century, Louis IX of France banned all trials by ordeal and introduced the presumption of innocence to criminal procedures. It was during the seventh crusade that he had witnessed the presumption of innocence in practice by the ruling Muslims and sought to adopt and implement this law on his return to France. Presumption of innocence hadn't been "progressive" in france since the 1200s lmao. The presumption of guilt is characteristic of very backwards regimes, even those that claim to be advancing progressive causes. and it's funny, since the presumption of guilt ended up being a double edged sword used on the Jacobins during the Thermidorian reaction anyway. Those were show trials, homie. Presumption of guilt is very characteristic of a show trial.
> but it was lenient considering the circumstances,
presumption of guilt is not lenient
>Let's also not forget that the entire reason it was established in the first place was so that those accused of political crimes had a chance to defend themselves in a court of law instead of being lynched by an angry revolutionary mob, like what happened during the September Massacres.
this is what makes them "show" trials. They were basically a continuation of the September Massacres, but with a facade of legality.


File: 1683489244416.png (91.07 KB, 680x554, ClipboardImage.png)



i didn't read the file extension; i thought it was just a jpeg

it scared the shit outta me lol


File: 1683653450382.png (102.61 KB, 244x250, ClipboardImage.png)

>François-Noël "Gracchus" Babeuf, who led the Conspiracy of the Equals after Thermidor.
the absolute boy


robespierre was a great dude

 No.13080[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

A lot of you seem to be under the belief that you can have marxist theory without ontological grounding. But to me it seems the positive sciences that say things about the 'world' rely on a totally certain idea of what 'world' means. So why don't we all have a calm discussion about ontology and attempt to come to an understanding of why there are so many of you (usually tankies) for whomst philosophy and ontology appears 'meaningless'? For me it seems to be the most important thing that we properly understand the dependency and aims of sciences (which simply explicate categories about our "external" reality) on a proper approach towards the world. In a sense, I think Marxists also unconsciously on some level agree with this, because you recognise that the bourgeois sciences mainly operate in service of capital, and this is unwanted. But on the other hand you seem to shoot yourselves on the foot by explicitly denying the validity of ontology in favour of vapid essentialism. From where does this 'materialism' come? Even in naive realist ontologies we see that the brain mediates reality, but there is no account for this in the materialist ontology.

I don't see much substance from Marx by way of arguing for materialism either. Deleuze follows kind of a more enlightened transcendental empiricism which I find far more respectable but that required torturous meditation beginning from a throwing away of beings in favour of the search for a proper ontology. But *you* personally, the person who is reading this, how do you understand ontology, if all you've spent all your life on is the pursuit of small-B beings, never evaluating the existential nature of 'world', which rather than being something we are merely placed in, is constitutive of our being?
129 posts and 28 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


these are metaphyiscal positions, not ontological ones. They're focused on substance not being


Isn't ontology metaphysical harry potter


it would be great if you could explain why you think that. most people consider ontology to be a part of metaphysics.


Okay but what the hell does that mean


>these are metaphyiscal positions, not ontological ones.

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