[ 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

Learn, learn, and learn!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

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

| Catalog | Home
|

File: 1620188567162.jpeg (41.27 KB, 474x316, digital_archive.jpeg)

 No.5596[Reply]

I've made a backup of the bunkerchan.net /edu/ and /tech/ boards, since a couple of users mentioned that there were still some useful semi-active threads.
This is a direct offline mirror, those two boards should work properly. To enter, open /edu/index.html or /tech/index.html.
https://anonfiles.com/f4zd85u7u9/bunkerchan-edutech-archive_zip (about 400MB)

Let me know if there are any issues.gentooGentoo

 No.5723

Nice, bumping.

 No.5781

>>5596
Trying to download it but it keeps sending me to pop ups and downloads random shit

 No.5785

For real? I swear that site was fine last time I checked. Sorry.

 No.5786

>>5781
When I have JavaScript turned off, it didn't give any ad pop-ups but if I have JS enabled it did until I clicked again. That site used to be the go-to but now it's flooded with ads and google trackers.
Anyone know a better long-term upload site?

 No.7975

File: 1633626221860.jpeg (201.14 KB, 2000x1432, nothingtoseehere.jpeg)

>The file you are looking for does not exist!



 No.1420[Reply]

Any one else seen of the scandel that collegeboard has gotten itself into?

Long story short, because of coronachan, they did AP exams online, problem is that they had every person in the world take them at the same time, including international students who had to take them very early in the morning like 2 AM.

What should be done about this? Collegeboard also seems to have monopolized education because of the fact that every university and college requires people to take the SAT which collegeboard owns

My idea would be for the government to not recognize it as a nonprofit anymore by taxing the shit out of them.
If they end up raising the prices of their tests, it would prove our point that they are a greedy company in disguise, or its gonna force them to just plain admit that they are a company, and that they will cut back on test costs to gain their nonprofit status back.

Either way fuck this greedy company, Collegeboard is one of the higher powers that is fucking up the American education system
4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.7847

>>7842
It ain't free once you get to college bud.

 No.7966

>>7847
>what is community college
>what are scholarships (that you can get from CC and the fucking SAT)
you know, thats actually the best part about the US education system. you can get scholarships and stuff for *free* at a time in your life when your choices are the most conscious and under your control. you can also go to college easily if you dropped out.
compare this to a lot of countries in yurop, where if you didn't get good grades in an even more arbitrary exam than the SAT that is not free in access (only accessible through the school system), you get fucked out of your scholarship AND have to frequent high school again for at least another year so you get accepted into college. this easily happens if you're poor, have a bad environment, abusive parents, etc; literally outside of your control. so much for meritocracy right?

 No.7967

>>7966
>AND have to frequent high school again for at least another year so you get accepted into college.
because you're expected to know some things before university. a third of college graduates in the US are illiterate. not even joking, look it up.

 No.7972

>>7967
Yo i'm trying to look this up and im not finding anything that links to the study. Help??

|https://hnn.us/article/118549
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/walter-e-williams/campus-lunacy

 No.7973

>>7972
https://nces.ed.gov/Pubs2007/2007480_1.pdf

nevermind i found it. Holy shit.



File: 1632842296161.jpg (167.45 KB, 2058x1672, e3a.jpg)

 No.7505[Reply]

Give me a guide to learning philosophy, starting with the Greeks all up to our current era. Preferably, I would stick with the most prominent thinkers of their epoch. You guys probably have an infographic for that, right?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.7509

>>7507
I'll check that out

 No.7512

File: 1632852823901.pdf (2.29 MB, 232x300, lit-guide-phil.pdf)

>>7505
This one has good recs. Maybe pick and choose from it since it's so extensive.

 No.7529


 No.7822

>>7507
I'm in the process of reading this, but what should I do afterwards?

 No.7825




 No.7527[Reply]

Not quite short enough to be reused easily, and not quite long enough to be a novel. Any overly-long greentext can go here too, I guess.

On Technodefeatism
https://tanketterambles.wordpress.com/2021/09/29/on-technodefeatism/

>I’ve noticed in the past few years that there’s a trend among both libertarian socialist types and even supposed ‘anarchists’ which I’ve come to call “technodefeatism”. Broadly, the tenants of technodefeatism are as follows 1. Revolution is not coming, 2. Technological advances in fields like automation will soon bring about a post-scarcity society 3. Therefore, our goal should be to make things livable until that post-scarcity society comes about through things like environmental protection and social welfare. Technodefeatism is a cancerous trend that must be catalogued and extirpated as it tempts discouraged activists away from revolutionary activity and towards lethargy. I’ll attempt here to outline the tendency and give some thoughts on how best to combat it.


>This pessimism on its own is familiar to most people on the left. It’s what’s known as ‘doomerism’; a sort of intense, all-encompassing pessimism regarding the future. Technodefeatism goes further than mere doomerism, though, because it purports to offer a solution. This solution is to do… nothing! That’s the beauty of technodefeatism: it doesn’t require any major change from the status quo. It doesn’t ask anything of us; it doesn’t require us to risk anything. It presents itself as an inevitability; as a ‘safe bet’ (as opposed to the very unsafe bet of armed struggle).


>This confidence comes from its adherence to a principle which is, at its core, liberal in origin. Namely, that capitalism spurs innovation which leads us inexorably towards greater progress. The main focus of technodefeatism is automation and robotics technology, although AI plays a role in some technodefeatist thinking. The idea is that as capitalist society moves towards greater and greater automation, the need for wage labor will slowly dissolve given the availability of cheaper robotic labor. Because nobody needs to work anymore, and because capitalists no longer need to extract surplus value from humans to profit, we will be able to live in
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.7532

How many times from 1850 to 1990 did America engage in coup d’états of foreign states?



Overthrow of Hawaiian government in 1893.

Organized regime change in Puerto Rico and Cuba in 1898.

Organized regime change in The Philipines 1899.

They were a part of the coalition that crushed the Chinese boxer rebellion (1898-1901).

They helped to "cut" Panama from Colombia.

From 1900 to 1925 - invaded middle America states numerous times, especially Honduras and Nicaragua.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.7533

I can write about Yugoslav resistance movement. But I will give a broad picture so everything can be understood better.

Yugoslavia was under the dictatorship of King Alexander since 1929 and until his death (he was assassinated in Marseilles in 1934). Before and after that the Yugoslav "democratic" system was weak. For example the elections after 1934 looked like this: the voter came to the polling station where he had to say his name out loud and who he was voting for and then the members of the voting commission registered his vote.

There was also the great depression which affected Yugoslavia deeply, also the peasant population (more than 70 % of the population back then), there was civil unrest and many strikes in 1935-1936, there were also national tensions, primarily between Serbs and Croats. Also, communists existed (that will be very important later on) and had a great illegal network of operations because they were banned as a party and many of its members were assassinated by the government and many others were brutally tortured in what were basically concentration camps.

The state relied heavily on France and Britain (WW1 allies of Serbs), but in the 30's it also started leaning towards Nazi Germany, however each government tried its best to stay neutral in the European conflicts - but by 1941 the government gave up under the pressure and signed the tripartite pact with Italy, Germany and Japan. Massive protests of the population sprung up because of this and a coup was carried out by a Serbian general, backed by the Brits. This pissed of Hitler and Germany decided to invade Yugoslavia. The fighting was over in like 14 days, the army saw many sabotages (Croatians were killing their Serbian officers, Croatians officers gave up weapons immediately or instructed their soldiers to just go home). Yugoslavia was divided among Hungary, Italy and Germany and it basically ceased to exist de facto. The Germans and Italians also supported the Croat Ustaši and they supported their state NDH (Independend Croatian State), which was pretty much a puppet state. Similarly, all Slovenian "legal" parties decided they don't wanna fight against nazi and fascist occupation, but that they want to work together with them - but they didn't even get a puppet state, Slovenian lands were de jure and de facto incorporated into Italy, Hungary and Germany.

The communists were the only force that called out to the people to start an armed rPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.7534

The instability in the Balkans goes back to the falling might of the Ottoman empire since the 19th century. Balkan nations and then the states they established fought over the questions of borders - 1st Balkan war, 2nd Balkan war. Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia were part of Austria-Hungary and they fought for the central powers in WW1, while Serbia fought on the side of the entente (it is true that many south slavic volunteers from Austria-Hungary joined the Serbian army).

After the war the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was established, which was renamed into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929 when king Alexander established a dictatorship. The Serbian elite saw this post war state as a means to achieve a "Great Serbia" and this always clashed with the autonomy tendencies of Croats and Slovenes. Serbs wanted a strongly centralized state while Croats and Slovenes wanted a federal state. The tensions were particularly high between Croats and Serbs which culminated in the assassination/murder of the Croatian political leader Radić by a Serb mp, who was tied strongly with the court. Dictatorship was established after this incident and many thousand political prisoners were murdered and brutally tortured by the regime.

By this time also the Croat ultra nationalist ultra catholic movement called The Ustasi gained prominence and together with other groups they orchestrated the assassination of King Alexander in Marseilles in 1934. The Ustaše wanted an independent Croatian state. Their leader was Ante Pavelić, living in fascist Italy in exile and was influenced by Italian fascism. By 1939 the Serbs and Croats came to an agreement to grant huge autonomy to Croatia.

When Yugoslavia tried to sign the tripartite pact mass demonstrations broke out and a coup was carried out by a Serb army general with the support of the British. When Germany invaded Yugoslavia, which had a relatively massive army, the Croats sabotaged the military as they saw this invasion as a means to destroy Yugoslavia and establish an independent state. And an independent Croatian puppet state was indeed established (NDH), ruled by Pavelić's Ustaše and the catholic church. The Ustaše regime carried out horrible crimes and violence against Serbs, also Romas, jews and others - the Ustaše commited the worst war crimes of the war, at least in Europe, but probably even worse than what the Japan unit did in China. They slaughtered people, the Ustaše catholic priests carriePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.7538

File: 1633003492067.png (62.46 KB, 600x600, wadidijusread.png)

>>7530
>socialist regimes

 No.7539

>>7538
it was as question posed by a liberlul



File: 1632333903782.jpg (286.1 KB, 1920x1080, 60006dcc85600a2c5847ac1a.jpg)

 No.7854[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

I don't understand the Stalinist response to Trotskyist thought.
Trotsky alleges that during the 20s there was a bonapartist coup where the reactionary forces of the soviet bureaucracy gained control of the political organs of the USSR. He identifies Stalin as the protagonist of this movement. Trotsky says the subsequent shift in foreign policy, (The USSR/third international adopting a defensive, class collaborationist line) is evidence of this degeneration.

But what is the Stalinist response to this reasoning? Do Stalinists argue that bureaucratic Bonapartism is impossible? Or do they think believe that it didn't occur until later? It's an interesting situation, because obviously *something* happened over the decades which diminished the proletarian authenticity of soviet politics. Do Stalinists have some alternative material explanation for what exactly occurred?

Anyway, first time coming to /leftypol/ in a few years, I hope you all have been well.
100 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.7957

>>7955
>>7956
I'm just joking around, sheesh you guys are uptight. Compared to last year shit is worse though cause of the split and mod drama.

 No.7958

>>7957
what split?

 No.7959

>>7958
Last month lefty (chan) (dot) net split into a separate site because the mods had a meltdown over a variety of things, ranging from "muh /pol/" to avatar-fags. leftypol.org holds strong but suffered a bit and is currently recovering AGAIN. Some older threads are missing posts and the other boards are underused

 No.7960

>>7959
sorry, didn't mean to sage, bump

 No.7961




 No.353[Reply]

>In the study of language, description or descriptive linguistics is the work of objectively analyzing and describing how language is actually used (or how it was used in the past) by a speech community.
A language, its rules and words should be determined by the collective people who use it and not by academic institutions and scholars
FUCK OXFORD DICTIONARY, FUCK RAE AND FUCK GRAMMAR NAZIS
ignore the semi-cringy comic btw it was the best pic I could find as OP
7 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6800

Descriptive > Prescriptive but I think what >>356 said is right as well. To learn a language you need prescriptivsm. But having a purely prescriptive approach in language teaching is cancer.

 No.7287

bump

 No.7288

>>353
>A language, its rules and words should be determined by the collective people who use it and not by academic institutions and scholars
Yeah no that's inane bullshit. Words do not arise from nothing and neither do their meanings. Linguists and academic definitions of language are used to determine the etymological origin of a word and thus it's original meaning. For a new meaning, a new word based on the rules of alphabets, language and their spelling/grammar a priori.
This "fugg uthority" idea on language is childish liberalism that is completely ignorant on the process of language and definition formation.
Obviously academia is riddled with ideologues that can make imprecise definitions and the like, but that does not discount academic definitions in and of themselves.
>Comic
The comic is cringe, but also goes directly against your OP idea, and rightly so, those that use words without understanding their meanings are inane or ignorant.

>>383
Caring about ANOTHER language =/= dismissing definitions in a dictionary.

 No.7292

>>353
>A language, its rules and words should be determined by the collective people who use it and not by academic institutions and scholars
>FUCK OXFORD DICTIONARY
The OP is probably gone, someone bumped the thread. The ignorance I see still surprises me. It would have taken OP twenty seconds to look up how dictionaries, especially OED, are constructed.

The OED was a crowd-source attempt to catalogue every word in the English language, its etymology and its use/definition throughout the years. People were asked to send in words, their definitions and the context in which they appear, as well as the written work were they appear. Even today, dictionaries do not dictate how words are used, only dweebs say they do so they can argue semantics. Dictionaries reflect the language in use. For example, Merriam-Webster has "ya'll" in the dictionary because of its widespread use in the southern United States [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/y%27all], while Oxford English Dictionary has the word "yeet" in it, because people use it/write it [https://www.lexico.com/definition/yeet]

>Words do not arise from nothing and neither do their meanings. Linguists and academic definitions of language are used to determine the etymological origin of a word and thus it's original meaning. For a new meaning, a new word based on the rules of alphabets, language and their spelling/grammar a priori.

This "fugg uthority" idea on language is childish liberalism that is completely ignorant on the process of language and definition formation.
This is a bunch of hogwash, because language and its definitions are determined by its speakers/users, not by academics in ivory towers. That poster doesn't know what they're talking about.

 No.7477

File: 1632798167777.png (3.21 MB, 1224x909, ClipboardImage.png)

So, if discard a dictionaries' definition of, say, socialism, how then i'm an supposed to define it? Under Marx's view? Under the view of utopian socialists? According to Hitler, Mises, boomers or 14yo me? Based on what most people currently think?



File: 1613867468946.jpg (29.77 KB, 363x480, cat.jpg)

 No.5028[Reply]

Thread for PDFs related to the 'Anti-Anglo reading group - left deviation'
75 posts and 75 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.7045

Van Horn, Mirowski, & Stapleford (eds.) – Building Chicago Economics. New Perspectives on the History of America’s Most Powerful Economics Program (Cambridge; Historical Perspectives on Modern Economics, 2011)

 No.7046


 No.7047

Later Ionian & Athenian Thinkers, Part 2 [Atomists] {cor.} (Harvard; Loeb Classical Library 530, 2016)

 No.7048


 No.7291

Gerson & Inwood (eds.) – The Epicurus Reader (Hackett, 1994)



 No.216[Reply]

We should make a general history guide for an overview on leftists history movements/people/thinkers that type of thing

There's a lot to cover so we should just stick with what would make the best overview
8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1764

>>1752
I do not speak with Dengists.

 No.1765

>>1744
>guy interested in psychology
Try introducing him to Mark Fisher

 No.1784

File: 1608528121462.pdf (336.88 KB, marxisms.pdf)

Here you go.

 No.1788

you guys gotta read Hobsbawm. his whole Age Of series has been indispensable to me

 No.7286

bump?



 No.7246[Reply]

i wasn't sure to put this in /edu/ or /music/, so if this is in the wrong place, mods please move it there

i was wondering if anyone knows any good books/files regarding socialist music or the connection between socialism and music theory (or socialist realism and music). this is mostly due to the fact that most pre-contemporary music (not including folk) was very bourgeois in nature, and most books seem to focus on such composers/theory.

the books i'm looking for include; the theory behind Soviet composers like Shostakovich and Khachaturyan; as well as the influence which socialism may've had on a composer's style (ie. Bartók's repulsion towards «upper-class music» which he viewed as tainted, choosing to focus on villagers and peasants for influence).


File: 1632174669432.jpg (120.04 KB, 500x698, unser-wille-une-weg.jpg)

 No.7487[Reply]

I've been digging through a Nazi propaganda archive hosted by Calvin University, a Christian university in Michigan, and came across a 1932 essay from Nazi propagandist Fritz Oerter titled "Our Speakers in the Anti-Marxist Battle," published in their agitprop journal "Our Will and Way."

https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/wilweg03.htm

It's an interesting historical document, and I also believe there might be things we can learn from it, because the Nazis were trying to figure out Marxists' strengths and weaknesses at the time with the goal of winning over workers and recruiting ex-Marxists into their ranks. So it's like an enemy document about how they would target us in the battle of rhetoric and public attention. There are some things in the essay that I think are worth pondering.

The article begins by mentioning that the Nazis had gone as far as they could winning over members of the "'middle class' reactionary front" and that they risked wearing them out in terms of attendance at public rallies and so on, and the party wanted to expand beyond their middle class / petit-bourgeoisie base and recruit workers, which posed many challenges.

>Those citizens whom we could interest in our world view through marches and mass meetings, the sensible members of the middle class, have been reached. The “middle class” reactionary front has been ground down — despite their election “victory” of 6 November. Nationalist circles are the ones that increasingly visited our mass meetings, that saw our marches with growing enthusiasm, and remain today about 95% of the attendees at our meetings, although they have long since been won over to National Socialism.


Next, Oerter claims the party had won over a "large number of former Marxists" and that the Social Democrats in particular "are fighting desperately for their survival … Still, Marxist propaganda, and especially its press, regularly succeeds in leading people who have seen the light back into error, and bringing them back under the control of Marxist party leaders."

The Nazis viewed Marxism as founded in and nurtured within liberalism, which afforded it some protection, while also challenging liberalism with the strength of being a younger movement challenging an older movement.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
9 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.7497

>>7495
god damn nice post anon

 No.7498

>>7487
>It's an interesting historical document, and I also believe there might be things we can learn from it, because the Nazis were trying to figure out Marxists' strengths and weaknesses at the time with the goal of winning over workers and recruiting ex-Marxists into their ranks.
I bet Hitler would use the red brown card. The Nazbol vortex. Before annihilating non-white "ex-Marxists" altogether. But luckily the swastika is the symbol of losers since 1945.

 No.7499

>>7495
Based

 No.7500

>>7488
Welcome to feels>reals politics.

 No.7501

>>7495
>In their heart and soul, many of these former Marxist workers are already National Socialists; only their materialism keeps them from breaking with the false gods of the past.
I wanted to comment on how fucking retarded all this is, and then double-checked. The Night of the Long Knives was in 1934, so this article aged poorly. :^)



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