[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ 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 - 2?
Not reporting is bourgeois
| Catalog | Home
|

File: 1710983496278.jpg (617.47 KB, 2048x1536, chicken-2193305283.jpg)

 

Reposting to /edu/

I want the best materialist theory/practice texts that have had more than ten people compose them. I may be mistaken, but all the big figurehead texts seem to be monographs or just 2 or 3 guys worked on them; please clear me up if Mao's and Lenin's big works weren't just by them. I don't care if these monographers backed their stuff up with loads of data and citations, I want commitees involved. I dont want anthologies either, i want it so that every block of text went through multiple changes by multiple people, if possible

P.s. By materialist i mean left like leftypol

>>21759
some parties or orgs publish theses, these will have been worked on by multiple people before being agreed upon. That's where I'd look.


File: 1711675807373.jpg (35.71 KB, 643x360, 360_F_673711193_xbuoDVgukc….jpg)

 

Can there be a proletarian nationalist revolution according to Lenin? I've seen people argue that nationalism is reactionary and that it advocates for class-collaboration instead of workers revolution, since a nation is an abstract that includes all classes.
Also, did Lenin advocate for self-determination of nations? And in what context did he do so?

>Can there be a proletarian nationalist revolution
no
>according to lenin
if so then he'd be a revisionist
>I've seen people argue that nationalism is reactionary
it is
>and that it advocates for class-collaboration instead of workers revolution
not inherently, but even with that it'd be useless

File: 1711676786961.jpg (336.06 KB, 1600x1200, 1711516360762917.jpg)

nationalism is gay. if you are a nationalist you like men and u are gay. you like pride parades, flags, butch dudes marching, and idpol and big manly leader to overpower u. thats gay. GAAAAY. u are a faggot OP.

>>21811
I agree!


File: 1710637985056.jpeg (1.7 MB, 1741x1170, IMG_5455.jpeg)

 

This is the third time I am making this thread. I made the first one on Bunkerchan back in the day and again on here, and both times it generated interesting discussions. So I ask again

What is consciousness?
1 post omitted.

>>21744
Does your own consciousness exist?

>What is consciousness?
An unknown process crafted by natural selection, that is necessary for our mind to function properly.
>>21744
I think we can assume its existence, because we can all experience its symptoms. The goal should be to observe the process.

If anyone could post a time machine link to the previous threads that would be great.

>>21766
>>9849

>>21769
Ah thanks, I totally overlooked that.
Also a link to the first thread https://archive.ph/LSgow


File: 1708970277617.jpg (44.32 KB, 713x1000, 71- GvjCE-L._AC_UF1000,100….jpg)

 

Can anyone make a tldr of this book like >>14131 I'm trying to explain to my friend in simple terms what imperialism is, but I'm shit at explanations.

becoming good at explanations goes like this:
read a chapter
write its point out in your own words
take your explanation and cut it down to no more than three or four points.
try make any point explainable in a couple sentences.

if you cant explain the subject you either:
havent understood the subject deep enough
or
havent attempted to prepare an explanation prior to speaking

or both!

You know Lenin already did something like this in many of his texts, where he would write a condensed version in some part of the book. His words on Imperialism:
>If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists; and, on the other hand, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which has been completely divided up
>We must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features: (1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
There's more bits like this but I have to find them


File: 1710093371037.webp (90.82 KB, 640x391, IMG_1138.webp)

 

I would like to ask for some recommendations for educational materials about:

French revolution.

Decemberist revolt.

US civil war.

I would like to know more about the material reality that caused them, effects of these events, sides which participated in them, the skirmishes and battles etc. I would prefer if the recommendation is a book, but other things are fine too. I’m fine with materials that are in english and or russian languages.
2 posts omitted.

>>21710
everything is fine, I would like to know as much as possible.

I'm not especially well read but:
Black Jacobins seems to give a good account of the French Revolution (since it's inseparable from the Haitian)
Haven't read it yet but an anon in /usapol/ recommended Battle Cry of Freedom for the US burgerkrieg.
I have read Foner's Reconstruction which deals with slavery before, during and after said war along with the different forms that Reconstruction took, highly recommend.

>>21723
thank you! If anyone got more recs please post them!

The Spanish Constitution gave hope to enlightened Russians for building a just society in their Fatherland. So, if the Decembrists "awakened" Herzen, then the Decembrists themselves were "awakened" by the very boldness of Spanish democracy. In the opinion of some historians, the project of the Russian constitution by Prince Sergei Trubetskoy was partially based on the Spanish law of 1812. One of its main points is almost word-for-word taken from the Spanish version of the document: "The Russian people, free and independent, are not and cannot be the property of any person or family" - "Nación española es libre é independiente sin ser ni poder ser patrimonio de ninguna familia ó persona (The Spanish people are free and independent and do not belong to nor can belong to any family or person). The Spanish Revolution of 1820 added fuel to the fire, as during which military and liberal-minded segments of Spanish society managed to get Ferdinand VII to restore the "Constitution of the Cortes" of 1812. One of the Decembrist leaders, Pavel Pestel, literally dreamed of a Russian version of "pronunciamiento" (coup). He admitted that he believed in the realization of his plans, relying precisely on the example of the Spanish Revolution. The Decembrists often compared themselves to the leader of the Spanish revolutionaries, Rafael Riego. Many even believed that Sergei Muraviev-Apostol "resembled the Spanish hero closely and accurately." So, the Spanish Revolution can be considered one of the factors that influenced the events of December 14, 1825. In fact, it was the Spanish Revolution, not the French one, as the Decembrists believed that Napoleon's conquests were doomed.
https://little-histories.org/2016/05/13/tristeza_espanola/

an interesting article about the luddite movement
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/492191


File: 1710708514421.png (509.95 KB, 696x860, Screen Shot 2024-03-17 at ….png)

 

Been on a roll with Hofheinz, Bonnell, and Brody recently, and realized that I wanted to go deeper than what Buhle offered, so what if we started a reading group on the history of American Labor Organization and the material forces behind it that lead to business unionism as the only option? We can start with Buhle(and the sort of rebuttal that Minchin wrote via Labor Under Fire) but I'd like to hear other voices on the issue since I know I'm being retarded and narrow right now.

I am not a historian on the subject but as a union organizer, I think that the foundation of the UAW administration caucus marked a really big shift in the fundamental structure and mode of operation of the UAW that was followed by many unions. It may be worth a study.


 

Are there any scholarly sources analyzing former communist snitch memoirs like Whittaker Chambers' Witness, Louis Budenz's This Is My Story, or Bella Dodd's School of Darkness?

I'm curious about the mentality of former communists who dipped and turned state, the "true" reasons they left communism to begin with, what inspired them to snitch, how their "redemption" stories were anything but, etc.
3 posts omitted.

Don’t remember what it’s called, but there was a book on psychoanalysis published shortly after Chambers’ death which proved he was a psychopath who snitched on Hiss mainly out of revengeful reasons.

https://www.proquest.com/openview/8850071a29d27e97e6b480971ad41e26/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

I have the full PDF but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post that on here for copyright bullshit reasons.

>>21737
Is it on scihub?
>>21730
There's also Thomas Sowell an "ex-communist". Pretty funny what he says about communism and why it can't work.

>>21738
Don't think so.

Is there a place where I could legally upload the entire PDF and not face penalties?

>>21741
What makes you think you’d get in trouble if you uploaded it on here?


File: 1709462478050.jpg (206.69 KB, 850x1082, sample_d80168b881188ce7a5c….jpg)

 

Me and my friend are discussing the book "On contradiction" by Mao. He insists that the external factors are the fundamental cause of development, because when you start analyzing, let's say, capitalism, it's internal contradictions are nothing more but external factors from past events, hence the internal contradiction being the secondary force.
What do you think? It seems to make sense, but without the internal factors being deterministic, there would be no change, no?
Sorry if this read like shit, english is not my first language
7 posts omitted.

File: 1709494811899.png (80.72 KB, 1200x714, ClipboardImage.png)

>>21658

>>21650
I'd not focus on whether internal or external contradictions are more important in general (part of dialectical materialism is the rejection of universal logic - no need to generalize things this abstract), instead it's important to just know that both internal and external contradictions exist, and both may spur development. For dynamic systems that are self-moving, internal may play a larger role. For a rock - what internal contradictions are impelling it to change? Another important piece is also Mao's idea that external contradictions only work via internal contradictions. (I think this can probably be justified scientifically, but some people are very against finding dialectical principles like this in nature. It's important imo to not just apply abstract philosophical logic in a blanket way unless its proven to apply to a reasonable large number of domains. Else we just turn Mao into Sun-Tzu). As far as primary and secondary contradictions, I think of it practically (I don't think it holds any real strength as a concept otherwise; i think these things are able to be shown empirically but not beforehand, at least in social issues), like sudoku. In sudoku there are lots of 'contradictions', but usually you'll be pulling at one thread and that lets you pull at another, and so on, until the whole puzzle is solved. I think this relates best to practice, though, and not theory.

>>21658
>a-ha, but thinking about things is in fact philosophy!
This is just the kind of bullshit that phil grads pull when stemlords criticize philosophy but I repeat, you do not need to know philosophy, much less garbage like Hegel, to understand marxism which is at its core just an in-depth analysis of capitalism.

>>21662
First of all, I am also a STEMlord. I majored in computer science and work in biotechnology now. Still, I realized philosophy is indespendible and you won't even grasp that until you've educated yourself.

>>a-ha, but thinking about things is in fact philosophy!
Not my point. Marxism is in itself philosophical and its distinct analysis of capitalism is founded on critiques against and an advancement from other philosophies, that currently still dominate Western society in which people (including you) have been socialized into. You likely operate under fallacious philsophical reasoning as instilled by the primitive philosophy of this society. That you don't like capitalism and prefer socialism doesn't mean much. The fallacious philosophical underpinnings of your thought misconceive of whatever you believe Marxism and socialism is and that will show once you are confronted with concrete matters. You have *some* conception of what Marx's analysis means and you have *some* reason to support it, that doesn't mean the former reflects the real thing or that you are able to replicate his method of analysis once you stand on your own.

>>21652
>>21660
Thanks for the answers, guys.


File: 1641495265321.png (525.44 KB, 640x853, ClipboardImage.png)

 

New reading project for the Continental Floppa reading group is beginning. We will be reading various writings related to the subject of "Patriotic Socialism" and national identity. This thread is for slower discussion of the topic and readings and for posting links or uploads for relevant texts.

Join our matrix chat to get involved.
https://matrix.to/#/!mjlMGagFTDhvgxMWhY:matrix.org/

Our tentative plans are to discuss readings on Saturdays, but this will depend on what anybody joining the group has to say. We are still determining which texts to include in our readings and the order.
37 posts and 7 image replies omitted.

Told that the reading group may be considering Settlers in the future, I was told whilst Settlers is a culturally important document, it doesn't have much the modern left can benefit from reading it and has many flaws to it.

And I was instead suggested this reading list to better study the question of race and class in the American settler social formation and how racial chauvanism presented itself and sabotage the proletarian struggle for power, something that we can't understand from reading any one book.

Here's the reading lists of books we should read before Settlers:
>A Nation Beneath Our Feet by Steven Hahn
<Workers of the World Undermined by Beth Sims
>Roots of Oppression by Talbot
<The American Crucible: Slavery, Emancipation and Human Rights by Robin Blackburn
>Whiteness of a different color by Matthew Frye Jacobson
<Black Awakening in Capitalist America by Robert L. Allen

W. E. B. Du Bois is an author that would also be integral to study the question as well

I think reading all these books and authors would give us a good comprehensive understanding, but we should also eventually read Settlers for its impact on the left as well to give us the tools to expose arguements and criticisms of the book by those who haven't actually read it

>>10454
>Told that the reading group may be considering Settlers in the future, I was told whilst Settlers is a culturally important document, it doesn't have much the modern left can benefit from reading it and has many flaws to it.
Black Reconstruction -> Settlers -> False Nationalism, False Internationalism are pretty much the go-to combination for those interested in understanding the thread topic from the context of the New Communist Movement.

This Saturday
Time: 6pm UTC (subject to change if it's inconvenient)
We'll be covering Lenin's The Discussion On Self-Determination Summed Up. (again)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jul/x01.htm
We want to give everyone the opportunity to read and join the discussion, since this text is closing out our introduction to the topic before we move into the modern context in the following weeks. We'll be doing an overview of the Self-Determination question as well, including the question of how the question manifests in the present.

The plan for the readings in the following weeks are:
<1> Decolonization is not a metaphor by Tuck & Yang (2012) (40 pages) https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck%20and%20Yang%202012%20Decolonization%20is%20not%20a%20metaphor.pdf
<2> Democratic Confederalism by Abdulla Ocalan (2011) (48 pages) http://www.freeocalan.org/books/#/book/democratic-confederalism
<3> Dawn: Marxism and National Liberation from Tricontinental (2021) (30ish pages) https://thetricontinental.org/dossier-37-marxism-and-national-liberation/

After that, we are planning to look at more specific contexts drawing form this list >>9295 and other places.
Here is the list of suggestions we have been discussing so far.
<Stalin – National Question
<Aimée Césaire
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>10463
Ocelan is the most shameless plagiarist I've ever seen. Is there anyone he hasn't ripped off?

How can you have readings on nationalism without Benedict Anderson or Ernest Gellner?

>>9279
Element client tells me "no known servers" when I try to join.


File: 1698871407744.jpg (959.92 KB, 1700x1244, frenchrev_main.jpg)

 

Where the hell do I start with this shit? Unlike with the Russian Revolution I never see any leftists giving any clear recommendations for the French Revolution, so let's make a thread to address that now.

There are a whole bunch of differing interpretations that are neatly summarized in this Cosmonaut article: https://cosmonautmag.com/2019/09/historiography-wars-the-french-revolution/

Contemporary: The names that get dropped here are Edmund Burke's right wing critique of the French Revolution and Thomas Payne's reply. Seems like something I'm obliged to read eventually but is it a good place to start?

Bourgeois revolutionary: These are the historians that Marx and Engels themselves read: Guizot, Thiers, and Michelet (the latter Wilhelm Liebknecht really liked and who seems to be the most leftwing). The translations are usually pretty old so they might be a difficult read. Do you recommend any of these authors?

Second International Socialist: You have histories by Jean Jaures, E. Belfort Bax, a short one by Kautsky, and some others. Once again physical copies are mostly print on demand dreck, but I'm wondering if anyone recommends these.

Official Communist Academic: The big names here are Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul. These authors combine more rigorous research with an explicit Marxist mode of analysis - albeit presumably with some probrematic baggage about a "democratic bourgeoisie" that must personally lead the "bourgeois democratic revolution" and so on. Anyone read these?

Revisionist Renegades: The latter school actually had some clout in mainstream history departments so there was a big cold war push to discredit them - casting doubt on how independent the bourgeoisie was from the aristocracy etc. However, it's pretty much solely a negative critique, with the unspoken thesis being that the whole revolution was a senseless act of violence and that the ancien regime would have evolved into a parliamentary capitalist regime by itself.

So not ideal, but this school has the benefit of the most up-to-date research and prose. I actually already own one book in this tradition: Citizens by Simon Schama that I found at GooPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

I got into an argument with my professor on this topic. What book should I read on the great terror and to disprove some lies (especially about how it was to target political enemies)? Also, I heard my professor say the Britain was a liberal democracy, can anyone elaborate on that?

File: 1709082585985.pdf (1.48 MB, 173x255, Thompson.pdf)

>>21634
>Britain was a liberal democracy
In the sense that it was a corrupt shithole and the political elite controlled the populace's culture and labor, he's correct.


Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ 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