[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / tv / twitter / tiktok ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/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
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)
What is 6 - 4?

| Catalog | Home
|

File: 1688707591367.png (1011.93 KB, 1000x563, ClipboardImage.png)

 

is classics full of nazis? i really like rome/greece, cause history is cool and ever-present, but it seems like people who really like it are a bunch of nazis.

but i really like it too.

help
1 post and 1 image reply omitted.

>>425898
No

Most nonfiction books often directly or indirectly reference socialism or promote socialist policy

What the fuck is a youtube male?

History as a whole is not a fascistic or reactionary field. There are however, historians with reactionary biases, either because of their material interest (an aristocratic historian like Gibbons would be biased in favor of the Roman establishment, for example) or because of deliberate government agenda. The insane "patriotic history" genre is a good example of this (i.e this figure in Serbian history is actually Albanian, Genghis Khan was a dharmic warrior crushing Muslims, Black people actually enjoy slavery)

The attempted appropriation of ancient Greece and Rome by Nazis to bolster their fabricated white chauvinistic identity doesn‘t make ancient Greece and Rome as topics something intrinsically Nazi.

File: 1688719728330.png (359.81 KB, 766x725, marx reminder.png)

nazis are too busy drawing chvdjak gemmies and turning into meat cubes in donbass to study the classics. To the extent that they engage with the classics at all, it's to photoshop roman statues into their fashwave wallpapers. Reminder that Marx as a classics major and inherited dialectics through Hegel from Aristotle.(Mod notice: last post from moved thread, this message will be removed later)



File: 1652832285440.png (735.17 KB, 1136x1551, DamnHeTurnIntoRata.png)

 

Don't ask how, but now I'm responsible for a club of high-schoolers that are self-described "baby leftists" and want to learn more. As far as I'm aware, they don't seem to be as lib-brained as I expected(though they certainly still are to some extent), so I really don't want to mess this up.

Apart from the classic reading lists of /leftypol/, what are some other accessible texts(history especially, because some of the AP history and english teachers here are quite anti-communist even by lib standards and their curriculums reflect that) that I could give them and expect them to get through?
18 posts and 8 image replies omitted.

>>11047
>Also give them stuff about what they can do as individuals day-to-day, then as a group, and then organising, etc.

Not OP, but any examples, ideas, texts, etc? I've found labor organizing guides like the attached pdf, I know the IWW has some too. Does anyone have any texts or ideas for the inter-personal tho?

Graeber’s 5000 years of debt
Bullshit jobs
Capitalist realism
A people’s history
Manufacturing consent
Simulacra and simulation
Anything by Michael Parenti
The end of policing
Amusing ourselves to death
The new Jim crowe
Food politics
Forget the Alamo

>>12587
Society of the spectacle also feels like it could be added to that list - not incredibly difficult but also a good entry into harder concepts imo

>>10691
give baby leftists the materials they need for a good understanding of marxism, rather than a watered down version thereof. the most important thing is history. annales school stuff like civ&cap is accessible to anyone with a brain cell and will set them up with an idea of what "material conditions" really means.

Intro to Marxist History:
Civilization and Capitalism by Fernand Braudel
The Black Jacobins by CLR James
Hobsbawm's trilogy
The Making of the English Working Class by EP Thompson
The Class Struggle in France, 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, The Civil War in France and Capital Volume 1 by Karl Marx

Old ass thread, though



File: 1688180643118.jpg (135.37 KB, 926x728, EPbUhuKXUAIyVQr.jpg)

 

You can't make this up.

https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/the-werwolf-adolf-hitlers-group-of-terrorist-children-585868

http://thecasualobserver.co.za/a-footnote-to-history-boys-as-german-soldiers-during-ww2/

So in other words, while Hitler killed himself in his bunker, he deputized CHILDREN (no younger than 10 and on average, 14 was the most common age) to do his dirty work for him because he was losing? That's pretty fucking low. The first article states that in 1944, the Werwolf group had 5,000 members who were mostly Waffen SS/Gestapo, but in March 1945 they were almost gone as the SS was almost annihilated completely so that number shrunk significantly so they replenished their ranks with Hitler Youth. These boys will later go on to wage a guerilla war with America/Britain/France/the Soviet Union until their last territories were taken (the Black Forest and the Harz Mountains, which they lost jn 1947 and 1950). Among the people they killed in assassinations were Franz Oppenheim (anti-Nazi politician), Major John Poston (liaison officer of Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery), General Nikolai Berzarin (Soviet commander in Berlin who they killed during brutal street fighting in the city) and General Maurice Rose (the oldest Jewish officer in the US Army). And of course they used borrowed tactics from the Soviets in Ukraine.

What do you make out of all this? Was Hitler a coward? I gotta admit these kids were brave using those Panzerfausts and homemade rustic bombs. Not to mention garroting army sentinels with ropes. I think one of their main achievements was blowing up a school that was turned into a military base by tossing grenades through the windows. Many of them deserted Berlin while the ones that stayed got massacre'd.
28 posts and 10 image replies omitted.

>>19371
You’re coping
Humans are animals, what makes us special is that we have behavioral plasticity and thus social plasticity, and these aspects influence each other, humans have a capacity for violence because all animals do, and we have a capacity for immense violence because our aggression and means of dealing out violence and destruction accumulate in ways it can’t with other animals
>>19378
> morality is linked closely to affective empathy which again, the vast majority of people have, which is instinctual although upbringing has some effect
The problem with your thinking is that you see affective empathy as an ontological good, while affective empathy is a large part of why and how the Nazi death squads could laugh and cheer and be merry and drunk while slaughtering civilians, sticking infants on bayonet, and gang raping women in broad daylight

You wanna know the secret?
Even when they were running slave camps where they immediately execute women and elderly people because they couldn’t work and then worked people to death and murdered people essentially at random they still thought they were the good guys

So yea, the other anons point on morality is essentially correct and affective empathy, that thing where you feel what another feels without words, isn’t necessarily the best basis for a moral code, since while it can lead you to feel and try to prevent the suffering of another, it can also let you feel the same perverted pleasure a comrade feels after committing a brutal murder

>>19386
*women, children, and elderly people

>>19386
>The problem with your thinking is that you see affective empathy as an ontological good,
uh no I didn't claim anything ontological. However I do think the value system I mention is aggressively self perpetuating to the point of being similar to ontologicsl beliefs.
>while affective empathy is a large part of why and how the Nazi death squads could laugh and cheer and be merry and drunk while slaughtering civilians, sticking infants on bayonet, and gang raping women in broad daylight
Uh no retard. That is the lack of affective empathy that allowed them to do that. Do you even know what affective empathy is?

>You wanna know the secret?

>Even when they were running slave camps where they immediately execute women and elderly people because they couldn’t work and then worked people to death and murdered people essentially at random they still thought they were the good guys
That's not a secret, that's just a delusion you have that you think is correct because it fits into your (morality based) world view that grim/offending people's sensibilities=correct. It's just antisocial personality cope.
>So yea, the other anons point on morality is essentially correct and affective empathy, that thing where you feel what another feels without words, isn’t necessarily the best basis for a moral code, since while it can lead you to feel and try to prevent the suffering of another, it can also let you feel the same perverted pleasure a comrade feels after committing a brutal murder
Uh no. The key here is "feeling what another person feels as if it is their own pain" sadism is not a part of affective empathy and is in fact in contradiction with it."feel what another person feels without words" wtf is that coming from? A psychiatrist explained it to you? lol
Also you sound like the same poster haha.

>>19360
Glad to see information from my ww2iceberg thread still alive

>>1520775
>Do you?
>Does it puzzle the brain to realize that they felt affective empathy for their fellow soldiers but not for their victims? And the connection to those other soldiers is exactly why they didn’t see their victims as human beings and did not empathize with their pain?
You are saying affective empathy compelled them to act with cruelty like this, but then you point out that they lacked affective empathy for a certain group of people and that allowed them commit cruel acts against them. You are contradicting yourself.

>No those people actually did think they were doing the right thing

According to what information? Source? In what way do you suppose they thought of themselves as "good guys"?
It's a stupid claim to make because basicslly you are arguing that x group of people decided to themselves they are "good" (just trust me bro). Like what is your point? That anyone can claim they are le good if there is 0 prerequisites for that?
Most Germans would not be able to torture and genocide people in the camps and not feel guilt. Most Germans were not completely brainwashed by the nazi ideology either, that is bourgeois (and post-nazi) revisionism.
>Are leftypol tankies so retard you’re at a point where you claim to be Marxists but promote the idea of objective morality?
Max basically does this himself, see picrel. Objective morality exists in the same sense any abstract social phenomena that has effects in the material world ha exists. You are the retard.

>Because empathy isn’t just when you feel someone else’s pain as if it were your own, but someone else’s pleasure, anger, and joy as well, that’s why.

And? Do you not see how sadism is a contradiction here? Affeftive empathy as you repeat here agreeing with me(?) is feeling someone else's emotions as if they were your own. Sadism is an inverse of that phenomena wherein you feel someone's pain and feel pleasure in response. Actually non psychopathic sexual sadists have reported that they have become turned off and stopped their attacks when theybstart to empathize with their victims, like if theybstart crying or show signs of humanity.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



File: 1688169518626.jpeg (13.47 KB, 284x177, download.jpeg)

 

Comments on an "Anti-Capitalist" Riot
Friedrich Engels

These excerpts are from letters written by Engels in the immediate aftermath of the February 1886 "West End Riots". The letter to Laura Lafargue is taken from Engels-Lafargue, Correspondence, Vol.1, 1959. The letters to Bebel are from Marx-Engels, Correspondence, 1846-1895, 1934, although the last two paragraphs from the 15 February letter have been translated from the German original in August Bebels Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Engels, 1965.

To Laura Lafargue, 9 February 1886

Our clever folks of the S[ocial] D[emocratic] Federation scorn to rest on their laurels. Yesterday they must needs interfere in a meeting of the unemployed – who count now by hundreds of thousands – in order to preach La Révolution, revolution in general, and ask the mass to hold up their hands, those who were ready to follow M. Champion wherever he would lead them to – well, to what he does not know himself. Hyndman, who can only overcome his personal cowardice by deafening himself with his own shouts, went on in the same strain.

Of course you know what a meeting at 3pm in Trafalgar Square consists of: masses of the poor devils of the East End who vegetate in the borderland between working class and Lumpenproletariat, and a sufficient admixture of roughs and 'Arrys to leaven the whole into a mass ready for any "lark" up to a wild riot à propos de rien [about nothing].Well, just at the time when this element was getting the upper hand (Kautsky who was there says das eigentliche Meeting war vorbei, die Keilerei ging los und so ging ich weg [the meeting proper was over, the brawling broke out and so I made off]), the wiseacres above named took these roughs in procession through Pall Mall and Piccadilly to Hyde Park for another and a truly revolutionary meeting. But on the road the roughs took matters into their own hands, smashed club windows and shop fronts, plundered first wine stores and bakers' shops, and then some jewellers' shops also, so that in Hyde Park our revolutionary swells had to preach "le calme et la modération"! While they were soft-sawdering, the wrecking and plundering went on outside in Audley St and even as far as Oxford St where at last the police intervened.

The absence of the police shows that the row was wanted, but that Hyndman and Co donnaient dans le piège [fell into the trap] is impardonable and brands them finally as not only helpless fools but also as scPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
25 posts and 2 image replies omitted.

>>19349
Could not have said it better. This hits at the core of issue

File: 1688188738346.png (150.95 KB, 282x266, porky scared.png)

>>19326
>Engels the London porky denounces destruction of porky property in London
Occam's Razor

>>1520395
Lumpen mean rags, not Louis Vuitton and Lacoste

>>19350
Thanks

File: 1688195652908.png (473.87 KB, 1079x1239, ClipboardImage.png)

>>19348
>he hasnt read enough marx to recognize the quote
>he hasnt been around long enough to see it used to justify rioters
>he hasnt even been around long enough to see it regularly posted in this cesspit to defend the george floyd riots against quasi-conservatives who get cold feet about revolution every time poor people start fighting back

You need to go back or start reading, your choice

Pic related, my contribution to the thread. Marx described Louis-Napolean as lumpen-proletariat, do what you will with that. But try to actually fucking read the man before you decide it means Lumpen = Bad you pack of foaming morons



File: 1688061329211-0.jpg (33.26 KB, 474x765, th-3443335968.jpg)

 

I have a lot of views on this book, but I couldn't reasonably explain everything i want to say about it just know it's not perfect and has a ton of issues with overgeneralization and misinformation but it has a lot of things to say

Also one thing that stuck out to me were the implications of patriarchal nuclear families and social alienation along with parental abuse. How many marriages and broken down families today are byproducts of this outdatwd model and what can be expected in the future. Guess I'll have to wait and see
1 post and 1 image reply omitted.

>>18494
Thanks but with the remaining books I haven't finished it'll be a while before I come to read this

>>18493
>How many marriages and broken down families today are byproducts of this outdatwd model
All of them?
>and what can be expected in the future. Guess I'll have to wait and see
We already see new norms emerging, like how many divorced families there are and how many people just remain single compared to in the past. Also people experimenting with new forms of family units like with found families and polyamory.

the second SEX

>>18495
Fair enough anon, it was just for everyone generally really,I went in to the book thinking it was going to be a lot more libbed up than it was, but it still has a lot to say about the Marxist traditions within Iran which i thought would like people here be interested.
>>18497
>We already see new norms emerging, like how many divorced families there are and how many people just remain single compared to in the past. Also people experimenting with new forms of family units like with found families and polyamory.
Obligitory mention of based Cuba for it's based new family laws and referendum which is a massive boot against reactionaries in the social-familial sphere and wider community. I guess it is to early for the Family Laws stuff but are there any books on the Cuban movement towards Referendums for such things?
>>18498
>SEX
Anon you can go and re-enact your childhood as a /b/tard on literally any board, why choose edu/?

>>18498
Bastard can't even é right



 

Can we have a thread to discuss pre-marx socialists thinkers? The idea of communal ownership and abolishment of money existed long before Marx, lets discuss the philosophers that helped usher in the line of communist thought.
11 posts and 8 image replies omitted.

>>17898
Try /sfw/


>>13658
do most islamic philosophers have a name as long as Walī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan Ibn Khaldūn?


>>18464
"ibn" just means "son of", iirc.



File: 1687901025690.png (1.47 MB, 1200x900, 2962.png)

 

The USSR during the Stalin Period was arguably marked by a general retreat of revolutionary forces in many regards. While some things; including the most progressive constitution in the world at the time; clearly illicit praise and support, it's generally hard to extend this level of support to many other projects. The mass deportation of Volga Germans, the mass deportations and dispossession of the peasantry (as the USSR underwent socialist primitive accumulation), and the eventual illegalization of homosexuality are clear signs that many social forces faced active regression. Obviously, not all of this was Stalin's fault, and the contingent of radical liberals who attempt to pin all of this on him personally are not worth really a minute of our time. However, with that in mind, it seems quite obvious that Stalin, despite his successes, obviously had major underpinnings and failures. And many of them become increasingly hard to support in the face of new archives, leaks, and the such.

China also underwent it's own socialist revolution. Interestingly enough, Stalin pretty clearly helped in this one, backing Mao and giving them access and control of liberated Manchuria, no doubt a respectable deed. After the takeover of China, Mao didn't, despite even harsher circumstances in many cases, participate in a large level of social regression. The Cultural Revolution was a revolution within a revolution, the first of it's kind, and has lasting effects on China to this day. People in China don't revere the emperor's of old and Han Chauvinism, while existent, has generally been under control.

The reason i'm making this thread is because of a recent poll i've seen. People who support Stalin generally point out on how most polls in the former USSR regard him as a hero or one of it's greatest leaders. This doesn't really line up considering how the last Tsar of Russia, Nicholas, is usually rated not too far behind, often beating out Lenin (https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25691312). It's even more concerning on how the White Army leader Kolchak is also rather popular in these polls (https://tsarnicholas.org/2019/12/08/nicholas-ii-stalin-and-lenin-top-popularity-rating-of-russian-historical-figures/).
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
40 posts and 11 image replies omitted.

>>19271
This applies more to Mao than Stalin.

>all that shit
libtard

>>19261
Soviet-Tsarist Union.

>>19294
>the USSR initially wanted to join NATO and made an attempt before being rejected
not necessarily true. the 'attempt' (a statement that they would be interested under certain conditions) to join nato stemmed from broader discussions about potential european collective security. i believe molotov knew fully well that, despite nato ostensibly being an alliance for european peace open to anyone, they were in fact just an anti-communist agency. so while the soviets may have supported a restructured treaty, the expression of interest was (at least partially) a way to 'expose' nato, which they essentially did since their rejection was on the grounds of soviet membership being incompatible with its 'democratic and defensive aims.'

>>19261
kek. saved. gonna post it at the next bitch who talks shit about russia
>>19291
literally true though, ultra



File: 1687127949456.gif (851.53 KB, 268x268, 20230523_213932.gif)

 

I came accross, Stalin and the Scientists, but can't seem to find a copy. Anyone have a copy?

https://archive.org/details/stalinscientists0000ings
If you really want to donwload it out of principle there are ways. It's also not the best book out there about the subject.

>>18227
What are the better books about the subject?

>>18220
I believe the Adam Curtis USSR collapse documentary talks about Stalin's 'new engineers' clique, can't remember if it's in super great detail

>>18227
LibGen only has epubs and I hate epubs.
>>18230
Are there better books? Would rather read

>>18228
Foundations of Geopolitcs



File: 1687886307432.jpg (597.97 KB, 2048x1751, skmkn3dlzh401.jpg)

 

there has long been a tendency online that can only be described as 'vulgar hardline' – an attraction to superficially similar, hardline/'anti-revisionist' states that appear to be cut from the same cloth, but in reality were often opposed to one another.
the main contemporary example would be the attitude that many self-proclaimed 'maoists' and 'anti-revisionist' MLs (they're virtually the same, one just primarily praises mao while the other stalin) have towards cuba and the dprk: they hate khrushchev, usually consider the ussr and co. post-1953/56 revisionist, but support historically pro-soviet cuba and the fence-sitting dprk. however during the cold war when socialist countries were plentiful and things were happening in real time; alliances more clearly defined and happenings more clearly understood by various followers in the west; maoists were highly critical of cuba, to put it lightly. to many, it was nothing more than a soviet sugar plantation helmed by a fascist puppet. the dprk was also disliked, but how intensely depended on how much of a red guard you were.
of course there are still those niche gonzaloites with more awareness of the maoist tradition, who continue this negative attitude towards castro and the kims, but for the majority of 'anti-revisionist' communists they're recieved very well.
this vulgar hardline position becomes even more confusing when we further examine actual relationships between the key 'BASED' hardline countries (china, albania, dprk, east germany) and their 'CRINGE' opposites (ussr post-stalin, yugoslavia, the broad cmea.) getting the obvious out of the way, east germany was naturally 100% ride and die soviet until gorbachev and considered fellow revisionists by maoists/hoxhaists of the time, but nontheless you do see plenty of corn critial characters who think the ossies went hard.
now on to the rest…
the dprk in the 60s was both pro-soviet and pro-chinese, depending on the present situation. here's a pro-soviet example from 1960: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/journal-soviet-ambassador-dprk-am-puzanov-16-june-1960
and here's a pro-chinese example from 1966: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.oPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
13 posts and 1 image reply omitted.


>>19235
>>19238
Why is it so hard for people to understand that internet 'Marxism-Leninism' is just a countercultural identity forged out of opposition to mainstream liberalism? Western millenials and zoomers are just trying to be edgy and rebellious, so they defend almost everything to do with the USSR, its allies, and modern anti-American states.

It doesn't matter if their positions are incoherent, it's not meant to be a consistent worldview anyways.

damn brezhnev lookin kawaii desu ne in that pic

>>19235
>despite this antagonism the dprk and china both supported the khmer rouge as most know, but guess who else had amicable relations with the them? yugoslavia!! omagad…
wow, unexpected and based. Tito truly was the vanguard of Marxism-Leninism despite being part of the NAM instead of the warsaw pact.

>>19237
you have been promoted to general secretary



 

Mao’s Contributions to Communist Theory and Human Emancipation Are Truly Profound—
But the “Mass Line” Is Wrong
The Chinese revolution, and in particular the revolutionary upsurge of the Cultural Revolution in China (a revolution within socialist society itself!) and the role of Mao Zedong as the leader of that Cultural Revolution, in the 1960s and into the early 1970s, had a major positive impact on masses of people around the world. This included large numbers of oppressed people and educated youth in the U.S. The Red Book of quotations from Mao was in the hands of literally millions of people in countries all over the world, including in the U.S., as well as providing basic revolutionary orientation for the masses of people in China itself.

(I am speaking of the actual role of Mao and the essential emancipating character of the Cultural Revolution in China, not the crude distortions of this by people speaking out of gross ignorance and those anti-communist political functionaries engaging in deliberate and systematic distortion. A serious, scientific analysis of the necessity, the objectives, and the course of the Cultural Revolution in China—including the contradictions it was seeking to address and the contradictions characterizing the process of this Cultural Revolution—can be found in works of mine, and others, at revcom.us.)

Mao’s further development of communist theory was expressed in a number of dimensions, most of all in the understanding of the danger and basis for revolution to be reversed and capitalism restored in a socialist country—and the means for combating this, which was given concrete expression in the Cultural Revolution.

One significant aspect of Mao’s thought (and a chapter in the Red Book) was what Mao referred to as the “mass line.” This was taken up as a significant tool by those of us who, in those times, became not just revolutionary-minded in some general sense but revolutionary communists inspired and influenced above all by the Cultural Revolution in China. Yet, as has become clear in the decades since then, this concept of “mass line” is not correct and actually runs counter to Mao’s overall adherence to, and further development of, communist theory.

As I have learned in a continually deepening way, communist theory must be taken up and applied as a scientific method and approach to understanding and transforming reality. It must continually develop as the larger world continuesPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
13 posts and 3 image replies omitted.

>>19037
the New Communism gave it away. Avakianites are too much of a pussy to even credit the cult leader they follow and his moronic articles.

>>19030
nice post
I'd also add that it's not only ideas/needs that can come from the masses but also knowledge of struggle. Parallel to the praxis of the mass line laid our by Mao there's a larger point of the merging of communist science with the masses, who are multiple things: they have needs, they are engaged in existing struggles, and they have knowledge of specific oppressions and methods of resistance, as well as local knowledge.

Mao's genius for me is in how he puts fundamental, previously existing ideas within marxism and puts them clearly and concretely. Kautsky and Lenin touched on the relationship between socialism which came from intellectuals and the working class and their struggles. Both touch on a fundamental dialectical relationship, between the knowledge of the working class (and its keepers) and the much larger body of the working class, which will only be in a position to rule society when it's moved by this knowledge.

>>19028
Touch grass

File: 1687943355078.png (245.65 KB, 650x366, ClipboardImage.png)

>>19024
>No matter how you twist and turn it, the fact remains that the ideas of the masses—and even the most “advanced” ideas of the masses—are just too narrow a source, and “concentrating the ideas of the masses” too limited a process, for arriving at correct line and policy.
>Tailing, Instead of Struggling Against, Backward Ideas Among the Masses
Way to miss the point of mass line.
When Mao says to systematise the ideas, he means to analyse the grievances, the wishes they have, through the lense of class science, the lense of marxism, and to systematize them means to create new policies and explanations based in marxism. To then "preach it to the masses until they accept it as their own" means to show this more refined, marxist solution to the masses, thereby leading them on the path to the solutions they need for they problems they have. This is explicitly the opposite of tailing. Tailism is just shouting "we express solidarity with XYZ", to support things already happening that you're not involved in.

Mass line or something similar is important because if you do not do this, you have no basis in reality, no basis in the class struggle, you become a detached idealist basing your ideas on your own whims and old books that you do not verify.

And if the ideas of the masses do not fit reality or do not work as they think they would, only trying it out will show it to be so.

Your entire copy pasted article criticises a strawmanned version of the mass line. You explicitly choose to pull it out of context, even going as far as saying "mao actually explains how to do it right, but i am going to take a single sentence describing one tool of many in a simplistic form and say it sucks".

The things mao teaches aren't to be looked at in isolation. He does not give us a complete scan of his brain explaining every single thing in relation, every step for every possible scenario. He gives us many easy to grasp tools to use in our work. Mass line is just one tool of many, to be used in combination with all of the other easy to grasp tools. Why? Because this allows a more experienced comrade to instruct his newer comrades with the tools they need in that exact moment and place by pulling out a few quotations. Thats the whole didactic point of the little red book. The more Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

How are you supposed to know that you need to implement a program of combating reactionary ideology among the masses unless you go to the masses and ask what they think and then come back to analyze it?



Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / tv / twitter / tiktok ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ 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