[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)
Required: 3 + 1 =

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

| Catalog | Home

File: 1651060306525.jpeg (6.45 KB, 240x150, akmc75.jpeg)


Less about the parasocial more about the signal.

Less about subscribing to an individual podcast, more about listening to individual episodes and why that episode resonated.

Not videos. This is a chance for you to educate yourself while working, doing chores or exercising.

I'll go first. This episode of politics theory other was memorable because it made me reconsider the intersection of sex and politics, particularly as someone who sees themselves as becoming more skeptical about everything surrounding idpol as it's being co-opted and weaponized.

42 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Here's the follow up to the last episode: because of the explosive contents of the newly unredacted Angleton Church Committee testimony Dr Aaron Good convened a panel of experts for discussion.
>There are two separate monuments to Angleton in Israel
>"You have to think of James Jesus Angleton as an Israeli agent in the US government" at or beyond the level of President
These podcasts lay out the history of the US/Israel relationship at the highest levels and explain why the US + UK are willing to crash the Rules Based International Order to defend Israel today


took me a while to get thru the first one. interesting point made about the compartmentalisation of the intelligence agency. angle ton had the Israeli account. which was sealed off from the Arabists. Zionists often argue that because these state dept arabists exist, they're a persecuted minority, and it shows the US and UK was always hostile to zionism. but they misread a state can have different factions supporting different interests. going to get thru the other one later



>Fight Like An Animal is a synthesis of behavioral science and political theory in search of paths to survival for this planet and our species. Each episode examines political conflict through the lens of innate contributors to human behavior, offering new understandings of our converging crises.

Very informative about biology and anthropology, makes a lot of daring and interesting claims. I would suggest starting from the first series of episodes "The Biology of the Left-Right Divide" and sticking to it even if you find some of the conclusions disagreeable.


>Abandon all hope ye who subscribe here. Varn Vlog is the pod of C. Derick Varn. We combine the conversation on philosophy, political economy, art, history, culture, anthropology, and geopolitics from a left-wing and culturally informed perspective. We approach the world from a historical lens with an eye for hard truths and structural analysis.

Really good informed analysis with a variety of guests.


>haha look at that schizo thred about ancient alien civilizations or whatever
that was me until this really effective asmr podcast The Fall Of Civilizations. I've no idea about the provenance or accuracy of the content but it's an amazing way just to get out of the moment and consider our place in time. Fall of the Pharaohs. Three. Thousand. Years. Ago. Having someone chill narrate the entire timeline is kind of mind blowing. They didn't have a line of 31 kings, they had a line of 31 dynasties. It starts to become clear why they teach ancient history and shit like latin in elite private schools and not to the proles in public schools.


also interesting theory that he was basically the prototype-neocon.


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?
29 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


What books should I read about this? I wanna own someone the next time I get into an argument about this.


i guess the original woke mob was the angloid puritans doing rigged witch trials on each other


if they were trying to shoot his jaw off, instead of him failing to kill himself, why did they bother arresting and executing him? instead of to load the gun with another bullet and shoot him again? He was mostly unconscious for an entire day after the failed suicide. There was plenty of opportunity to kill him as intended, right? Unless you concede that a show trial was their aim all along and Robespierre was trying to deprive them of this by killing himself.


hebertists were ultras


they know you were right which is why they never replied

File: 1703185782202.jpg (161.17 KB, 1193x752, jollymarxism.jpg)


Hello, i used to be a white nationalist. i don't want to be one anymore after my life went to shit when everyone found out. i was radicalized by the alt-right by my friends when they became nazis in early this year. i viewed their white nationalist rhetoric as correct. they stopped being my friend when they found out i was trans and gay, and i still held onto the white nationalist beliefs when we stopped being friends. i want to fully get rid of my white nationalism and become a leftist. i go by they/them pronouns btw.
68 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I don't think you get OP. I come from a somewhat similar background. I was a weird geolibertarian incel, and am now an anarchist. I find it perfectly possible to believe OP had intellectual left-wing sympathies, but had emotional ties to white nationalism. I think you misunderstand what OP wants. OP is more asking about how not to let seeing gay furries ruin their whole day. IMO politically incorrect phobias should be treated much like ordinary phobias with systematic desensitization therapy. Maybe OP can start small with reading some light writing by people of color.


Look at it this way.

If your only goal is to feel the feeling of happiness, you could easily just do drugs. The chemical happiness.
But for most people, thats not what they want. Not what they claims to deserve.

When we're faced with injustice, we may feel compelled to take action. But someone might suggest that meditation and other techniques can help resolve conflicts. However, we often know that our desires are more profound than just resolving surface-level issues. They're intentional - driven by a deeper sense of purpose and meaning.

It's not the chemical happyness, its the realy thing. Something ought happen in real live.


>Machismo demands men to be eternal stunt doubles for yhe sake of women and elders.

The sexual desires and the wishes of love are not a optical illusion. Has nothing to do with machismo.

Once a criminal, always a criminal?

> OP is more asking about how not to let seeing gay furries ruin their whole day

Does right wingger really?


This is retarded irony. You are positing the very same type of reactionary essentialism which is so endemic to, and syntagmatic of, the 'right wing' which you claim to decry.


This is retarded irony. You are positing the very same type of reactionary essentialism which is so endemic to, and syntagmatic of, the 'right wing' which you claim to decry.

File: 1716273200349.jpg (1.45 MB, 2463x3121, NorthKoreaFlags.jpg)


I need books on the following countries:


>Communist Romania
>Albania under Hoxha
>Democratic Kampuchea

I'm particularly interested in the notion of autarky and how all of these countries were able to govern themselves while defying the rest of the world.


Try Bruce Cumings works on Korea
>Communist Romania
Tough one. I only know one book on socialist Romania and I haven't even read it. It's called Ceausescu: Builder of Modern Romania
>Albania under Hoxha
Coming of Age: Albania Under Hoxha by James O'Donnell
Pickaxe and Rifle by William Ash
>Democratic Kampuchea
Try Michael Vickery's works on Cambodia


>Try Michael Vickery's works on Cambodia
Are they pro or anti-Pol Pot?


Read classical economical argument on free trade and spezialization.


I don't think he's either, but right wingers will call him pro Pol Pot because he's way less biased than lib historians and rejects the claim of KR killing millions. i once saw Vickery referred to as a "pro-Vietnam revisionist".

File: 1716969699383-0.jpg (151.85 KB, 735x1164, 2011ET3700 (1).jpg)

File: 1716969699383-3.jpg (305.82 KB, 1015x2174, 774.jpg)


What decent books are there about the Dhofar War, and southern Arabian (Yemeni & Omani) socialist experiments? All I can find are articles.

It's a shame that such fascinating historical movements that brought Arab and Iranian leftists together against their reactionary regimes, are virtually unknown.


Socialism in Arab countries was always a branding thing. A lot of Arab socialists were borderline fascists especially Nasserists and Ba'athists. At one time, the Shah of Iran portrayed himself as a socialist implementing a revolution in his country. There was always a fringe within right wing Arabist movements that had an interest in Marxism and that's how you get groups like the PFLP which split off right wing Arabist groups to pursue a Marxist line but kept ethnonationalist Arabist ideals and pro-Nasser or pro-Syria/Iraq stance and anti-monarchist bent. Some of the Omani groups were the same and effectively became proxies of regional powers.


post a book rec on this tho, I'm not OP but I've had exactly the same interest ever since reading Red Star Over Iraq by Johann Franzen.


That's cool except South Yemen was actually socialist not just nominally and it clashed with Arab nationalists as well.

 No.1855[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Was the Meiji restoration and "restoring power to the emperor" a good or bad thing in 18th century Japan for the peasants? It marked the upper class revolution that caused the samurai feudal system to transition into a capitalist system. (Which ultimately turned into a racist imperialist empire that tried to invade and oppress all of its neighbors in Asia in a sort of fascist system, and as Japan lost the war the people starved and suffered greatly.)

I just found this photograph btw. Samurai didn't look nearly as impressive as I thought they would, and that hairdo is "objectively ugly."

There were a lot of peasant revolutions/movements that tried to go against the samurai but they all ultimately failed so no one except historians talk about them. Unfortunately too, the people who study Japanese history appear to be mostly weebs who romanticize the samurai so much that you never get to hear about the peasents' movements.
190 posts and 53 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Good video on Chonmage as well
>The Surprising Reasons for Samurai's Strange Hairstyle
>Let's ask Shogo | Your Japanese friend in Kyoto


So how inaccurate is this?
>The Forgotten Story of How British Redcoats Took on Japanese Samurai
>Redcoat History


If I remember right, in Musui's Story his dad had him put in a cage for 2 years in their like living room as punishment for being an asshole


Any anime in this art style ?


I think there is but I don't remember the name of it. I'll ask in >>>/anime/4229

File: 1608528091138.jpg (96.19 KB, 1920x1200, 1589137529016.jpg)


The history of space travel. I want all material, factoids, trivia, books on space. From Sputnik to the recent Crew Dragon and further beyond
31 posts and 21 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1706205725944.png (428.39 KB, 580x580, ClipboardImage.png)


File: 1711388245481-0.png (8.19 MB, 3169x2113, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1711388245481-1.png (1.27 MB, 1151x804, ClipboardImage.png)

Related slightly to the nuclear thread as well >>20394

This is late news but a month back the US MSM was drumming up hysteria about Russian ICBM capabilities and supposed preparations in the use of space-nuking.

Russia is developing space nukes… as a response to the US refitting the space shuttle platform as an orbital nuclear launch system for glide vehicles in violation of the outer space treaty, which was a response to Russia developing hypersonics* and the US being unable to compete, which itself was a response to the US unilaterally pulling out of the ABM treaty so they could deploy dual use nuclear capable anti-missiles in Eastern Europe pointed at Russia claiming non-existent Iranian threats as justification to escalate to the current war in Ukraine. The USA is also working on space lasers for early warning and tracking against hypersonics and possibly direct energy anti-missile systems which is why in response china developed and successfully tested their satellite killer missile. The interesting part is that the USSR predicted this as being the end goal of NASA's Space Shuttle program, despite denial from them.



Part of the reason for this hysteria is justified, in the sense that Russia's ballistic missiles of every type are superior to NATO equivalents, with only the aging Trident II SLBM being any actual threat and the LGM-35A Sentinel program being delayed heavily because of costs and mismanagement.

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


File: 1713202146274.png (4.24 MB, 1402x1452, ClipboardImage.png)


The Angara A5 rocket was successfully tested recently. It is the replacement for the Proton-M series of rockets with several serious advantages relative to the older Soviet rockets.


The DPRK jammed a GPS satellite over the Yellow Sea, during operations involving surveillance balloons


File: 1711306198619.png (891.89 KB, 789x583, ClipboardImage.png)


I recently came across a heritage post about a castle in Lebanon built by the Crusaders, It got me curios and I did some digging and I was surprised to learn that pretty much all castles in the MENA countries were either built by the Crusaders or the later Ottomans.
So I have to ask, what gives? The Arabs were a smart people and castles and fortresses are a fairly useful resource for defeating cavalry forces. Even outside large scale war sand politics, in small petty tribal warfare, they would have been incredibly useful, that's why they appeared so much in Europe and why did the Ottomans adopt them more thoroughly then the Arabs.
4 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Then why did the Ottomans build them.


Arabs are plenty capable of building stone forts(they most likely built great Zimbabwe). they just don't build castles that much.


did they? i would assume common influence from byzantine architecture that both western europe and the ottoman empire had


Furūsiyya (فروسية; also transliterated as furūsīyah) is the historical Arabic term for equestrian martial exercise.[1] Furūsiyya “Knighthood” is a martial tradition dating back to pre-Islamic Arabia.[2]
Illustration of a horse's ideal physical traits, 13th century manuscript of the Kitāb al-bayṭara by Aḥmad ibn ʿAtīq al-Azdī.
Late Mamluk / early Ottoman Egyptian horse armour (Egypt, c. 1550; Musée de l'Armée).

The term is a derivation of faras (فرس) "horse", and in Modern Standard Arabic means "equestrianism" in general. The term for "horseman" or "cavalier" ("knight") is fāris (فارس),[3] which is also the origin of the Spanish rank of alférez.[4] The Perso-Arabic term for "Furūsiyya literature" is faras-nāma or asb-nāma.[5] Faras-nāma is also described as a small encyclopedia about horses.[6]



ottomans loved larping as romans/byzants so that might have had some influnce

File: 1708789829494.png (2.62 MB, 1270x900, ClipboardImage.png)


>Historical events, states and peoples with cool names
'The expedition of the thousand', 'Triarchy of Negroponte', 'The Battle of the Crater' and 'The Boxer rebellion'
32 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


><Not a single nigha said “The Long March” yet
sounds like a gay parade tbh


>The Troubles


Tetrarch of Galilee




This is one where translating everything into Greek is totally justified because Resh Galuta just doesn’t have the same ring, as much as I like it.

File: 1714527586528.png (44.09 KB, 324x402, georg.png)


I have to confess something to you, comrades. I've been a leftist for many years now (here since the 8chan days), and I still CANNOT fully understand what the fuck dialectics is. Yes, I've read plenty, I've read a lot of Marx and Engels, later Marxist authors, philosophy books, dictionary definitions, I've watched philosophy lectures, youtube videos. I've even read some Hegel, with a lot of difficulty. All this and my brain still cannot grasp wtf dialectics is actually supposed to be.
The first problem is that many of these texts on dialectics look like pure gibberish to me, and it makes me mad when I can't understand them. Second, the words and definitions seem to change constantly depending on what I'm reading. Some people talk about the "dialectical method", others about "laws of dialectics", the "dialectic of history", "materialist dialectics", "dialectical biology", "dialectical consciousness", x person's dialectics, x philosophy's dialectics, others even bring up math and physics, etc. It all becomes increasingly convoluted and confusing, and in the end I fail to understand anything. It just leads me back to my initial question, what the fuck is dialectics? Maybe I'm just really not smart enough for Marxism, or philosophy is not my thing.

Still, I've been thinking about giving dialectics another try, maybe starting from scratch again, so if anyone knowledgeable can point me in the right direction, I'd really appreciate it. Maybe there's some key treatise I've missed or some obscure lecture that will make it all easier. Thanks for reading my rant.
5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>Yeah. Ever since I became enamored with Marxism I tried to translate dialectical materialism to science. I think complex system theory and some ideas in physics such as critical transition are a scientific expression of dialectical materialism, coincidentally so. Though they still harbor brainworms due to the philosophical grounding of capitalist society (e.g. mechanical materialism, idealisations)
Ok then, good to know I'm going in the right direction. I get that having scientific knowledge is necessary to understand dialectics too. I've heard many times from marxist authors and soviet textbooks that dialectics has been vindicated by science. They mention dialectics in many scientific fields and in concepts like entropy, elementary particles, natural selection and so on. Karl Marx considered Darwin to be pretty important, he told Engels about Origin of the Species
>This is the book which, in the field of natural history, provides the basis for our views.
Have you ever read Dialectics of Nature? After studying a lot of science back in his day, Engels was convinced that nature is indeed dialectical and wrote this book with Marx's backing in an attempt to prove it:
>"To me there could be no question of building the laws of dialectics into nature, but of discovering them in it and evolving them from it."
>"Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics, dialectical thought, is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature"

>That was a very interesting watch. Are you German? If not then it must be quite difficult for you to understand the content, having to learn all of that in a different language.

No. I should have mentioned that the video has English subtitles. Still, many of these words that the German philosophers used like substance, thing in itself, immanent, spirit, and the infamous Sublimate/Aufheben have been VERY confusing to me. I should make sure I understand them all before trying to step into German idealism.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>Have you ever read Dialectics of Nature?
Yes, and I was quite disappointed by it because it wasn't what I was looking for. For most of the book, Engels meanders about scientific questions that are archaic today and when he spoke about what dialectical materialism means in scientific terms he did so relatively briefly.

>have been VERY confusing to me.

Bet. The terms are more intuitively understandable when you speak German.

>Really? So you don't prefer to read in German? I thought Marx and Hegel would be way easier in the original language.

I didn't explain that well. I do read them in German nowadays and also think it's easier to understand them when you read them in the original language. What I meant was that I used to read everything in English because most of the content I engage in is in English. Free English PDFs are much easier to find than German ones so I started reading German philosophers in English first.


Traditionally, dialectics was a subdivision on of logic and was about the study of how arguments are derived. Hegel's dialectics (which is what Marxists are usually building on) refers to a particular kind of dialectical method used by Hegel. If you want a simple introduction read Hegel's Encyclopedia. Its a basic short summary of his whole philosophical system. Get a physical copy. grab a drink, put on some music, and just read and make notes as you move along. Its the only way to do it.


>For most of the book, Engels meanders about scientific questions that are archaic today and when he spoke about what dialectical materialism means in scientific terms he did so relatively briefly.
Oh well. Do you know Alan Woods' works? It's the most recent work I know of that attempts to tackle science from a marxist point of view. He wrote a book called Reason in Revolt and a history of philosophy
Thank you, I actually forgot that Hegel wrote a condensed version. I've been slowly reading it these days. I've been forced to consult a couple extra books, like a Hegel dictionary/glossary thing because some expressions are really hard to get (and don't get me started on Kant, he's even more confusing than Hegel). I've been checking out the book The Philosophy of Hegel (1955) by W.T. Stace, which was recommended to me during the 8chan days of /leftypol/, but I'm trying to not rely on it much.

Well I think something is finally starting to click. At least I'm slowly starting to get Being and Nothing, which is way more than I ever knew before. You know it's too bad that Marx couldn't write that treatise on Dialectics he had planned. Would've saved decades of arguments and debates.


>Do you know Alan Woods' works?
Yes, I read Revolt in Reason and liked it very much. It's closer to what I expected when I read Dialectics of Nature.

Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 / 35 / 36 ]
| Catalog | Home