[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / 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: 2 + 2 =

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

| Catalog | Home

File: 1684269293952.png (108.8 KB, 299x168, ClipboardImage.png)


I've noticed that all of the ruling classes use the same systems of statism, legality, politics, and economics (a mix of capitalism with social welfare systems). They use legal systems, laws, and courts. They all have governments that control, politics, with parties and political systems. It's all the exact same thing all around the entire world. We have been under this shit for 100s of years meaning a specific order has been maintained with increasing expansion:
<Legal systems
<Economic systems
<Political systems

There are people behind this system of social control. No matter what "side" it is, they all use the same systems I just mentioned, whether China or Russia or the USA. Their public servants like Soros and Gates and Musk And Trump and Putin and Xi, these are all just different factions that are opposed on the surface level. Rich dynastic families with old histories, secret orders, and monarchies have come together over time to rule the world in this way of statism, legalism, politics, and economics. They aren't necessarily on the same side, but they work together to maintain that exact order of the 4 points I mentioned earlier. Why?

You can claim that everyone developed these systems, and every society developed this in the history of civilization! Well, NO. Not all tribes developed the exact same system of control. The ideology of legal systems and justice is a very specific thing. The Native Americans didn't have police, they didn't have their own economic system like the Euro invaders. They lived based on a gift economy, the same way today you go to the Amazon jungle tribes and they have no conception of any of that shit. In the same way, the Aboriginals in Australia don't, there are even videos of them explaining the fucking shit to them because they don't understand how modern society could have gone so wrong.

The important thing is I don't reject everything in this modern situation of ours. I suppose government systems and other current systems would have to be used for a time as we transition and figure things out. The US state out of all the states spends the most on war. All other states are spending resources and money on war too. If we divert all of the money being poured into war, we can solve all hunger, end all homelessness, build a peaceful Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
10 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>another gift economy thread
"Native Americans" did not "have a gift economy". The Incas had money and a planned productive sector. The Maya's did not have a gift economy. Most of North American tribes did not have a gift economy. To claim they all did is historical falsification. To claim one system of organising is "natural" is to essentialize humanity. If it was natural, we would not have developed anything else. English or Chinese is not natural either. They are all tools to help run societies.


Cute baggy eyes cute baggy eyes


File: 1684319593988.png (121.51 KB, 480x480, left anarchism.png)


Well, to be honest, while her stances are obviously demented and she would need a thorough re-education, talking about her looks, while she isn't a classical beauty - so to speak - she's not even that ugly in that no make up pic. I repeat: her main issue is her brain.


No that's an anprim, learn what leftcom means before you try to turn this into a meme.

File: 1628816053504.jpg (13.45 KB, 400x400, tiddly.jpg)


What does /edu/ do for knowledge management? Does it work? How important is it? Experiences?

I am starting a Tiddlywiki and plan on doing the zettelkasten method. The way I understand it, I just take notes and link them to each other with tags or something? Seems straightforward yet quite useful.egoismEgoism
20 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


The appeal for me is the interconnection between concepts, but I think the way I would use the z method would be unorthodox.

I'm not sure how all the different software that implements the z method works but having something that tells you what entries link to the current entry is really useful. It's very close to tagging, but you can go into more detail.

Creating new entries is (read: should be) as easy as [linking it]. So rather than going into a separate area to create a new entry, you just reference whatever topics you want in line. When you go to that topic, you get backlinks.

So I might have several different entries I'd link to. While writing my notes in one entry I might write something like [revolution] to have a page that lists of everything that references revolutions.

I strongly suggest something that is self-contained like tiddlywiki if you're trying to do it on a flash drive. Tiddlywiki just needs a browser.

The reason I don't like using Emacs or other TUI-esque software is that formatting graphically isn't possible. It's easy to create lists or bold text, but resizing tables or highlighting in various colors gets tedious.

For now I'm using Zotero but will probably switch to something else until I find what I like again.


is there any software to your knowledge that would allow someone to do this not on the web ie

im not sure how safe i would feel with it being o nthe web versus being just on my computer. might be irrational but still


Tiddlywiki works offline


Okay. I reinstalled Obsidian. Now that I’m a practicing attorney instead of in school the actual method of study is different because it’s about practical skills and processes. I’m trying to think through what kind of basic info I could put into the system so I have something to work off of, and I thought I’d copy over the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Penal Code, the Appellate Rules, and the rules of evidence of my state. Each being one page per section with any references pointing to each other. From there I can then input case law I’ve found and link it to the code. Lexis and West law already do all this, but I can’t afford that shit right now and they locked me out of my account for nonpayment.

The problem is I feel like this may just be useless busy work, most of the codes aren’t applicable every case. Maybe I just plug in bits of the code I come across as I go, but when I normally do research for trial cases it’s fast quick refresher research, not long and complicated. But I do have a few appeals, and that shit is long and complicated and interwoven at a level I struggle with keeping straight.

Id like to write out my thoughts on jurisprudence topics too. And remind myself of all the bits I come across while reading. I just feel a kind of paralysis trying to implement something new I’ll have to go back and fix or that may be so much I just drop it and go back to what I was doing before. I can’t find shit online about lawyers doing personal knowledge management, the ones that do are all posting about it like SEO marketing, not as real information that’s helpful. I want something that helps me become a better and faster lawyer.

Input appreciated, even if you know nothing of the field.


Why not just reference it? I don't think it's supposed to have foreign text in it. Maybe quotes but not the whole text.

File: 1682284207713-0.png (549.66 KB, 485x600, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1682284207713-1.png (4.31 MB, 2000x1500, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1682284207713-2.png (387.3 KB, 570x668, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1682284207713-3.png (661.19 KB, 787x418, ClipboardImage.png)


"History doesn't repeat, but it often rhymes."

ITT We talk about all the weird historical parallels between events, movements, regimes, etc.

I'll start off.

>Charlotte Corday, "first as tragedy …"

<Sympathized with the Girondins, a moderate faction of the French revolution
<was taken aback when by the September massacres of 1792
<held Jean-Paul Marat responsible
<thought him too extreme, and a traitor of the revolution
<told him he had a list of enemies
<showed up at his house
<stabbed him in his bath tub
<she went on trial
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
60 posts and 23 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


You missed one of the most interesting ones:

Hitler wasn't German despite leading Germany. He was Austrian.

Napoleon wasn't French despite leading France. He was Corsican.

Some people say the same thing of Stalin/Georgia, but that doesn't really apply, since Stalin was the "leader" of the USSR (not "Russia"), which included his home nation of Georgia.

and really he wasn't the leader of the USSR, just the general secretary of its communist party. But libs gonna lib


>Sympathized with the Girondins, a moderate faction of the French revolution
>member of Socialist Revolutionaries, a moderate faction of the Russian revolution


<Girondins purged by La Montagne Party despite playing an important role in the early revolution

<SRs purged by the Bolsheviks despite playing an important role in the early revolution
<Both Girondins and SRs advocated for war abroad (Girondins wanted war with Austria, SRs wanted WW1 to continue)
<Both Bolsheviks and La Montagne advocated for revolution civil war to crack down on counter-revolutionaries instead.


>why is OP a retard
nobody cares about your philosophy degree and existential questions anon to normie people OP is a retard because that is just what OP to do.


you make zero sense


Your mom

 No.13435[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

So I read this book first a few years ago but it came up again in conversation recently. I wanted to make a thread about it so we can have a proper discussion about its positives and negatives, because I think it has both. First of all, I believe it was maybe the first book (that I know of) to give a properly dialectical treatment to the historical development of reproductive labour relations, building largely off of Engels' work. De Beauvoir had her own stuff but a lot of the marxism in her work is under the surface and indirect, whereas Firestone makes constant reference to Engels.

I shall sum up the argument for you, since I know many of you dislike reading. In primitive society, reproductive labour relations for the longest time worked such that matriarchy was the dominant mode of relations for reproductive labour, with differing cultural units for reproductive relations (clan, family, etc). At some point there is a 'flip' under which patriarchal relations begin as the dominant mode, which can be tied to the dawn of 'proper' technological civilisation as we know it (takes place after Engels' notion of barbarism with the rise of aristocracy), occurring as the west begins to exert its power over nature and systematises these relations. Firestone's conclusion is that biologically speaking, woman cannot truly be free until liberated from her biology.

I think in many ways it's a beautiful analysis, but also very flawed in the same way of de Beauvoir- namely, Firestone, rather than critiquing the focus of capitalism on productivity and power over nature, instead believes that women should be changing to conform to be 'more like men'. Moreover, I think it must really be supplemented with more modern treatments of gender (like via Judith Butler) given there's I think significant evidence that gender takes on a life of its own (and in many ways always has) which rather than being recourse to mere reproductive labour, also has its foundations in various other intersections of political life (capitalism, etc). Freud I think gives some good insights as to why sex and sexual relations and gender relations by extension have more to do with the human drive for power rather than reproductive relations.

Nonetheless, wondering if anyone else has read the text. I think it's a great piece of radfem literature.
165 posts and 39 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


No, it wouldn't have. It would've been attacked, just for largely different reasons.

Why was this thread put on auto-sage anyway? The OP is only antagonizing the "books are harmful" faction of this board, which we hardly need anyway. They weren't engaging with anything she said and apparently considered it a personal virtue not to be able to understand, rather than the effect of their own self-induced stupidity.

Even though I disagree in some way with most of these threads, every time I start to write something critical I see the moron brigade out in full force and have to stop myself. If you want to moderate these threads, make examples of them and get rid of their posts rather than the discussion.

Using "communism" as an excuse for this behavior is disgusting and the anti-intellectualism is reminiscent of fascism. It's also ironically one of the most American things about this board.


>"books are harmful" faction of this board
Yeah, about that
That's the whole board with few exceptions


Not even a fan of most radfem thought but OP is right tbh.


Damn, it's incredible how the OP immediately triggered those incels. We really need to clean up this board.

t. misogynist who's tired of the incel spam


A misogynist is a failed misanthrope

File: 1684015765907.png (932.96 KB, 806x837, ClipboardImage.png)


>A unique social and economic organisation
<Tristan da Cunha offers the world a special social and economic organisation evolved over the years, but based on the principles set out by William Glass in 1817 when he established a settlement based on equality. All Tristan families are farmers, owning their own stock and tending Potato Patches and settlement gardens around houses built by themselves or by their ancestors. All land is communally owned, and stock numbers are strictly controlled to both conserve pasture and to prevent better off families accumulating wealth. No 'outsiders' are allowed to buy land or settle on Tristan - despite many applications to join a society referred to as 'Utopia'.

>Flexible Working

<Tristan da Cunha has a model of flexible working which is the envy of many people stuck in a career routine. All people (including children and pensioners) are involved in farming whilst adults additionally have salaried jobs working either for the fishing company and / or the Government or a small number in domestic service. It would not be unusual for a man to have a salaried job working for a Government Department, and also be paid to fish part-time in good weather during the season. He would expect to take days off to build or repair his own house, or to volunteer to help with a neighbour's repair. Family groups would take a few days off in the summer for a Nightingale hunting and gathering trip or a trip to The Caves for a 'holiday', Stony Beach for cattle or Sandy Point for apples. Women are employed in a wide range of Government jobs, also working part-time processing crawfish in the factory on fishing days or in domestic service. Whilst many jobs which appear by tradition to be exclusively male or female, several Heads of Department are women, and the island has a tradition of women in leading roles, including at various times the Chief Islander and the Head of St Mary's School.


Sounds like Cuba when it was riding through the worst of the sanctions post 1990


I think /pol/ is raiding


What is high stage communism? Statelessness, moneylessness, classlessness with the removal of wage laboring to a surplus taking class. It's supposed to be without commodity production… The world is only seen the lower end, the phase on the attempt there. The question is why did we expect high stage results, in low stage material conditions? Anons we know why it's "left" anti-communism

To me it's quite clear high end communism can ONLY occur after we have won internationally. The correct position is in one nation, till all nations, till nations aren't a thing! The correct position is classlessness before statelessness! YOU CAN'T ELIMINATE THE STATE WITHOUT ELIMINATING CLASS! Class isn't a domestic relation it's a international one. You can remove the national Bourgeoisie, only to have a intensified battle with the international Bourgeoisie. AES literally couldn't remove the state, because as we all know the state is a tool of a class to dominate the other. Victory over class is the victory over the state's existence.

So this gets me to a problem in our messaging. We are selling to people the world of the higher stage. We are telling them why capitalism must be removed. Revolution then what? Well nothing but surviving HAS to be the answer till international victory is won. Marxist need to get anarchist set straight. People need to know how hollow the anarchist vision is. To promise statelessness before classlessness is as infantile as it can get! To close to promise statelessness, without explaining classlessness has to come first undermines us!

TLDR? Classlessness is a must to statelessness! Opposing opinions are infantile!
38 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>capitalism has never been truly global in the first place
youre tripping


Then there's 2050
Capitalist crisis every 10 years like clockwork


Beuaracracy is the tool of the bourgioise. Also regular people encounter landlords and employers every single day.


What is imperialism


Solution: do a lot of national revolutions

 No.15484[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Things (pragmata) have not mere objective presence (vorhandenheit), but also a handiness (zuhandenheit), and in average-everydayness we fall into infinite chains of 'in-order-to' via references (verweisungen) between useful things and the 'what-for' (wozu); the mode of being that Heidegger calls circumspection, in which we only perceive things in their handiness. Capital makes heavy use of accessibility, signage, to make things easy to use in production– think about the dull soullessness of modern operating systems and computers; Capital has its own entire branch of study for this - 'ergonomics'. The effect of this is to pull us further into circumspection and out of a recognition of the pure being of things, so that we keep following orders, consuming, obeying, etc.

Things in their pure objective presence only become noticeable for a person stuck in average-everydayness when they break or become unhandy, when there is a 'disruption in the chain of references', bringing us back into the real world and provides real possibility for a re-evaluation of the surrounding world (umwelt). For me this implies that as people who wish to change the world and destroy Capital, we should as our first point of praxis in resistance seek to destroy chains of signification and reference. This calls for not simply protesting calls for people to re-evaluate their relation to labour– but outright sabotage. anti-work. pure destruction of that which pulls people in most into average-everydayness in terms of productive work. large corporations' attempts to ever improve 'accessibility' for the disabled, ease-of-use, ergonomics, etc requires the strongest opposition. the more anti-work and anti-capitalism you are the better, putting up positive ideals for systems has to come after we already have disrupted capitalist signification and brought people back into a sober relation to the objective presence of things so that we can start re-evaluating our relation to the world which has to itself begin with a relation to our own Being. This is not to say protesting capitalism doesn't work since protestations can also yank people out of their average-everydayness but generally it has to be an emotional affair first rather than a rational one.

sooo let's break things ig :)
244 posts and 33 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


im a doggyu


ofc, but that is also one of the angles through which he is attempting to critique marx. i do not agree w his criticism


they're all made up, you're interacting with bots you dumb cunt


>anarchist praxis


Totally don't care engaging in dialogue is a massive force multiplier for thinking and the board tradition and culture is to always take the bait which drives the mods nuts but such is life

File: 1683793162773.png (510.51 KB, 488x678, ClipboardImage.png)


look, i know it's trendy for some to be all about that dialectical life, but let's be real for a sec. the way that social-fascist pseudo-Marxists and pro-China neo-revisionists try to wield dialectics is not only tired but downright oppressive. they act like their version of Leftism is the only way to resist capitalism and imperialism, but they forget that even Marx himself recognized the limitations of dialectics in his later years.

i'm not saying we should all become anti-Leninist Maoists or anything, but we need to recognize that dialectics doesn't account for the fluctuations of reality. it's too rigid and dogmatic for our ever-changing world. instead, we should embrace eclectics, which allows for a more fluid and adaptable approach to revolutionary praxis. we can take inspiration from various theories and practices without getting bogged down in sectarianism.

now, i know some of y'all might be thinking "but what about post-structuralists?? they're all about that anti-dialectical life!" and while i agree that their critiques are important, we also need to be cautious about how we approach their theories. we don't want to fall into the trap of the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, who use postmodernism as an excuse to avoid taking any real action.

what we need is a safe space, a place where we can embrace the complexity and messiness of reality without getting trapped in dialectical thinking. this means recognizing that our ideas and strategies will always be provisional and subject to change, and that's okay. as long as we keep moving forward and adapting to new circumstances, we can create a truly revolutionary praxis that is inclusive, adaptable, and effective.

peace and love
43 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I knew it was GDP immediately and didn't say nothing to nobody


no you didn't. admit you got fooled and couldn't remember if you posted this earlier in a delirious state


anon if im sane enough to kno i didnt post it, you should be sane enough to not post it in the first place



very based.
all the fields


File: 1683768686326.png (511.69 KB, 700x581, ClipboardImage.png)


hot take: Kautsky's theory of "ultra imperialism" was ultimately correct, but 100 years ahead of its time. Lenin was correct in the contemporary debate, but Kautsky is correct today. Today we have an ultra-imperialist coalition called NATO that will coup, sanction, embargo, invade, wage proxy wars, and otherwise destabilize any government, even bourgeois governments, that do not align with its economic hegemonic interests. This ultra-imperialism, rather than exporting capital and creating its own future competitors in a developmentalist fashion, has learned from the mistakes of past empires, and now limits the amount of capital it exports. It no longer develops the periphery like the traditional bourgeoisie of the 18th and 19th century did. It instead arrests the development of peripheral countries, so that they can remain neo-colonies for as long as possible. This is done through relatively innocuous methods like coup regimes taking out high interest IMF loans with structural adjustment programs rather than obvious methods like invasion and enslavement. Because of the innocuousness and efficiency of the methods of neocolonialism, the neocolonial relationship is obfuscated and made confusing to the general public, who do not see it operating. It also make geopolitical conflicts more confusing, and can make a power defending against a proxy war look like an aggressor. Furthermore, China is bourgeois, but they are bourgeois in the traditional sense that they actually export capital and help develop the global south, which is why global south nations are choosing to ally with them over the imperial core. Having a traditional imperialist relationship turns out to be less parasitic than having an ultra-imperialist relationship in the same way that being an indentured servant is better than being a slave. Traditional imperialism makes the nations of the periphery indentured servants to the imperial core. Ultra-imperialism constantly resets the clock and arrests development, effectively making them slaves to the imperial core, because their level of development can't catch up enough to throw off the shackles of the imperial relationship and its fundamental wage disparity, even though their development nominally continues. this is the source of all the confused argument over multipolarity/unipolarity, whether such and such nation is bourgeois or not. The difference between comprador and national bourgeoisie now matters more than ever. Also, the climate iPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
39 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Go ahead.


I was hoping you'd do it lad or lass
I'm trying to settle down and get to sleep after a hard days work and am old and getting long in the tooth


>No one mentioned
I did. I'm steering this conversation now.
>Get a grip
I did. I'm steering this conversation now.


File: 1683829704397.jpg (510.62 KB, 2124x1336, catholics.jpg)

is this supposed to be an argument?


Do you wanna argue

File: 1683657153010-0.jpg (17.64 KB, 275x388, worstbookever.jpg)

File: 1683657153010-1.pdf (15.46 KB, 197x255, GEDpatent.pdf)


This utopian garbage by P.F Skinner (Yes, THAT Skinner, for whom the Skinner Box is named after) has no right to be called a socialist novel and anyone who says it is is delusional.

For starters, the book is objectively terrible from a literary standpoint (like most Utopian novels honestly, it's a shit genre). Every chapter is dedicated to some aspect of the Walden Two "Utopia" and consists of Frazier, P.F Skinner's self insert character in the novel, explaining why Walden Two is so epic and based and wonderful in X aspect to bland and unoriginal to a small cast of forgettable characters visiting Walden Two for no reason other than to be ranted at by Frazier apparently.

Walden Two's "Utopia" is ran by a professional caste of Planners (unelected, naturally, not even held in check by a Party of any kind) set apart from the usual workers who run and plan everything and use Radical Behaviorism (essentially mind control through selected use of pleasure and pain) to alter the needs, wants, and desires of its citizens to conform better to society's needs. It's funny how the book is structured to make this seem like a good thing. Many chapters go to great lengths to explain why Walden Two is a haven for art, culture, shorter working hours, better working conditions, etc, in order to justify this behavioral altering. The chapter on education shows hungry children made to sit in front of food for hours at a time without eating it in order to build "patience". One can only imagine the child abuse going on behind the scenes to make this sort of lunacy possible. Walden Two is the sort of book that is in favor of beating your children.

Towards the end of the book it's revealed that Frazier is a complete egomaniac who personally runs and plans much of Walden Two (But um, actualleh that's totally OK b/c Walden Two has a 4 hour work week!!!!). He compares himself to Jesus Christ and his fellow Planners as his disciples.

Walden Two takes the liberal argument "hurr durr, muh human nature means ppl too greedy for socialist utopia" and responds with "You're correct, people are greedy and evil! Let's MIND CONTROL people into being selfless!" instead of refuting the initial argument as liberal bullshit.

All attempts at implementing Walden Two IRL are either hippie communes that have long since abandoned Skinner's philosophy (as they should) or dystopian torture nightmares that take Frazier's egomania in the original novel to the extrPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
9 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Walden 1 was better


What convinced you not to give up on Marixsm ? Capital ?


noooo don't give up on marxism, you know so much about german idealism nooooooo
lol, lmao


the fact that he is dumb as fuck, probably. he begins by complaining that, because a guy went and commodified child abuse, these utopian fantasies are the inevitable future of society. class struggle? material interests and conditions? politics? forget about all of that, what changes reality are our hecking ideas! the world would be so different if everyone read <utopian fantasy #162>!


>The most notable modern-day Walden Two inspired project is the Judge Rotenburg Center founded by Matthew Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Israel) which tortures autistic children with their patented Graduated Electronic Decelerator whenever they act out (or scream in pain when being shocked, or fail to reply when greeted, or break some other minor rule). This Matthew Israel guy studied Behaviorism under P.F Skinner, read & loved Walden Two as his favorite novel, and literally has a Disney Villain backstory where he realized he can control people through pain and founds a school to continue doing just that.
This guy is complete fucking scum. Being sent to a place like that is one of my biggest nightmares. Institutions are honestly worse than prison because at least most prison sentences end. I want to force him to play a piano with the threat of being electroshocked the second he stops.

Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / 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