/edu/ - Education

>>24465
Read the Eclipse and Re-Emergence of the Communist Movement, his second book?
Apparently he said that Marx was wrong, is that true? Kinda put me off reading it.

>>24465
Here's some articles by other communizers I personally like or find important in order to understand what the theory defends:
https://www.sicjournal.org/what-is-communisation/
https://www.sicjournal.org/the-suspended-step-of-communisation/index.html
https://www.sicjournal.org/communist-measures-2/index.html
https://illwill.com/theory-of-the-party
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/endnotes-journal-1

I've also read Eclipse and Re-Emergence and it certainly is an interesting work. Its the book that got me into communization theory in the first place. I like Dauvé's critique against trade unions but don't like his Bordigisr conception around the party, i.e. the so called "historical party."

<Bump European lunchtime, 1st of may.

I'll bump every day at different timezones until proper replies have been made. I'm not really asking for much with the question in the OP of this thread. It should be answerable for an estimated 1/10th of the userbase of the site. I'll assume they just haven't seen it.

Tbf Kotkin recently said that Stalin was always against the popular front idea but retards like Thorez, Togliatti and obv Dimitrov convinced both the Comintern and the party itself. Its so funny how people were also still listening to Kun after doing the same pop front bullshit with Hungarian Soc-Dems

Maybe try looking at the German left, in the 20s social democrats of the Kautsky variety allied with KPD and formed the VKPD with a former Spartcist Paul Levi at the helm. These guys actually partook in the failed and I think adventurous insurrection in Middle Germany alongside KAPD(march action)

I think what you are looking for is the Marxist-Leninist pole organizing around the European Communist Action/International Communist Review. Those parties affiliated have truly made leaps in an honest and sober historical/doctrinal review of the communist movement without the baggage of dogmatism and negationism of the communist movement's path. I'll attach two articles I hope you find interesting:
https://www.iccr.gr/en/issue_article/Contemporary-conclusions-from-the-imperialist-Second-World-War/

https://www.komep.gr/m-article/O-OPORTOYNISMOS-STO-ENIAIO-METOPO-ENANTIA-STO-FASISMO-OI-DIETINEIS-PIGES-TOY/

>>25693
>a prognosis of 1-2 years
holy shit, dude
sorry to hear read that

Unfortunately, I don't know how to help, I have no experience with this kind of stuff

Also, what do you mean by
>I just need advice on things like; legacy videos (don't dvds\ electronics just rot after a while too, due to some oxidative thing?)
You want to record a message to future generations on a dvd? Or are you talking about dvds you own that someone's going to inherit?

>You want to record a message to future generations on a dvd?
Yes, something like that. dvd or a more durable format–dunno if "generations", maybe that's too far, but for my current child-relatives for whence they grow up.
I'm trying to pull a bucket list, explore options, maybe start taking a RISK or two.

>>25693
Have you considered getting cryonically preserved? There's a chance you could be reanimated hundreds of years in the future.

>>25693
"m-disc" dvds are supposed to last a long time
if you want something to last for eons then get a metal plate and etch a message into it with a laser cutter
make a trust with your wealth and dedicate it to some cause you support
kill a politician/capitalist before you go out

>dvd or a more durable format
Multiple copies in different locations.

>>26008
>because it's actually deeply flawed
The problem with Cohen's analysis is that he spends an absurd amount of time trying to formalize something which is secundary to Marx's historical materialism. Iirc, most of the argument is concentrated on proving the base/superstructure dichotomy, which is simply not that relevant to Marx's historical materialism

For starters, Marx doesn't build a "theory of history". He's not creating a teleology, precisely because he rejects Hegel's conclusion that the development of the state and society must follow reason. Instead, he analyzes the root of change in society and its condition. His argument in essence goes about
>Man exteriorizes himself in the world through productive activity (labor). He changes the world around him to satisfy himself, to provide for his needs, to develop his interests etc (self-realization).
>In doing so, he enters relations of production to produce more effectively and to develop the forces of production required for his reproduction/production of self-realization
>However, as the forces of production are developed, new possibilities of the organization of labor emerge. Some classes (defined by their role in the productive process) obtain the possibility to further develop their self-realization by changing the organization, whilst for some, these changes can constitute a challenge to the position which they benefit from
>this creates antagonism between the class, which opens the possibility for clas conflict
This is the fundamental mechanism for class conflict. It's the idea that society's Mode of Production is defined in relation to labor, which itself is a social and creative process by which humans self-realize.

On the other hand, the base/superstructure dichotomy is more or less an attempt at formalizing how ideology, laws, and social norms emerge. Here, Marx's argument is only that these norms can only build themselves upon a pre-existing social arrangement, which can only occur by the socialization of labor. In other words : you can't build laws if you don't have anything to be their subjects. The superstructure thus regulates the mode of production because it is its object.
This does not mean howePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Reality is not Marxist, that's just a clever quip. The truth is Marxism strives to understand reality and has made theoretical developments with strong explanatory and predictive power. That's the real meaning of the phrase.

>>25809
>I haven't read enough of my priors on dialectical materialism
You're misusing "priors", this phrase doesn't make sense.

Teleology isn’t scientific lmao

Marxism is just a system of analysis, a useful one, and one that holds up well to scientific scrutiny (other, more rigorous analysis) most of the time.

Meanwhile reality is simply there, not analytical itself but infinitely ripe for analysis.

>>25809
>Is this as wrong as I think it is, and if it's not, why?
Marx is an ecclectic thinker who wrote A LOT on many things. Dialectical Materialism (albeit pioneered by Engels but validated by Marx), historical materialism, class analysis, surplus value are all things on which Marx was mostly correct about, albeit modern developments have truncated some unnecessary elements. The reason for that is simply that he was the first to analyze society as a whole in its relations rather than try a metaphysical explanation of it. This is also why he's considered one of the founders of sociology.


>>26035
Marx never builds a teleology outside of political motivated texts like the manifesto.
Hegel did build a teleology, but Marx's entire critique of him is precisely that he's assuming that the development of society and the state must necessarily follow reason rather than material circumstances. In the German Ideology, Marx explicitly says that communism is a movement rather than a predetermined end state
<“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.”

>>25711
>Arthur Kronfeld
>German-Jewish psychiatrist
>Founded the The Institute for Sexual Science
>He claimed that he had scared the living daylights out of those nasty Nazis.
LOL

>>25784
Nazis were and continue to be gay and insecure

>>25848
Fascism and MLism are brothers jackass

>>25850
and other hilarious jokes you can tell yourself.

>>25847
<He claimed that he had scared the living daylights out of those nasty Nazis.
Eh, no he didn't…?

Stop reading with your arse

A lolbert wrote this book on why he thinks education is bad:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education

This just got out, however you need to find a free pdf either from Anna’s or zlib etc

>>25933
i hope this is a satire book, i know misandrists are fucking insane but this just genuinely retarded even for them.

>>25843
Having read some Dworkin, I don't know if she ever directly said that because it seems like she never directly says anything ever. All Dworkin does is complain about men, and all positions she is said to hold seems to be more inferred from the exact way that she is complaining about men in any given work rather than directly stated.

>>25844
Yeah I mean the other problem is that Dworkin is a coward. Dworkin's conclusions are trivial and she is afraid to state them outright.

too much of the criticism agaisnt dworkin is just using token anti zionism and pointing out the fact that she isn't the "infallible uberwoman genius" that terminally online radfem like to potray her as and thus fully discarding ANYTHING and EVERYTHING she has EVER said (or at least the strawman version of her) and continuing to feel confident knowing that there is absolutely no need to interrogate or self introspect their deeply held views, opinions, and habits

>>25830

sophie lewis is (mostly) unnecessary and sometimes just horrid from what i know of her and her writing

>>25839

>The very term "women's liberation movement" in this time-period and in a Western context (that she is almost exclusively referring to) is so retarded as to be fucking comedic, if not for the fact that there are stupid entitled burger-women and men that actually subscribe to this ideological bullshit.

semantic bs

>Women are not a separate class, but an identity. Take off that Soviet flag, you bring shame to Marxism-Leninism.

bro dosen't know about the womb or the role of the housewife💀
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>26028
>fully discarding ANYTHING and EVERYTHING she has EVER said
The more I read of her, the more my criticism of her actually becomes that she never actually says anything ever. She just writes books complaining about men and any positions she is said to hold come from inference about the exact way that she is complaining about men.

Which makes some of the more frustrating discourse around Dworkin more understandable. When you try to talk about some of the more radical implications that Dworkin gestures at, the Dworkinites will come out and say that she never actually said that, and they're not wrong because Dworkin never actually says anything. For instance, the only conclusion you could possibly come to when you read Dworkin write about sex and rape is that all heterosexual sex is rape, but there is absolutely no passage anywhere where she actually says that directly. She complains about men and the implication of the way in which she complains about men is that all heterosexual sex in rape, but she never outright says it.

>>26023
im by no means and expert on judaism or whatever so i probobly should just stay quiet on this BUUUT if i am gonna say something based on the things that i already do know it feels a bit TOO reductive to frame the entirety (not saying thats what you're doing) as a "racialist religion" but like i said im not very familiar on that stuff so i could be wrong or whatever

>>26023
the concept of a "chosen people" is reactionary
cutting baby penises is reactionary

>>25447
The only bible that has my imprimatur is the skeptic's annotated version. I even have a hard back copy.
https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

>>25741
I love you

God isn't real. Stop this retardation. All religions are false made up inventions, only useful to the modern world as a cautionary example of how large numbers of people can be fooled by manipulative ideas. Eventually the whole world will be atheist and this retardation won't even be studied as a historical curiosity because it's so boring.

>>25950
People will never stop believing in metaphysical bullshit
We replaced angels and demons with AI and other brain worms

But tbh I don’t think people believe in God as a literal cosmic anthropomorphic sapient but rather as a psychosomatic effect

>>25950
>Eventually the whole world will be atheist
I highly doubt it