/edu/ - Education

>>20448
Also here, history of the Soviets/Bolsheviks between 1917 and 1924. Not perfect but a fairly decent set of books

>>20449
Famine of 1932 some basic reading, the first pdf is the most important.

>>20450
Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan (I used to talk regularly with his son).
And Anne Louise Strong's dismissal of the claim of "Dictatorship"

Pdf 3 is also related to the 1932 famine.

Does anyone have any good sources on War Communism? I just want to learn the philosophy behind it and how it was implemented, and its faults and successes.

Economic History of the USSR provides a good overview of the entire period.

>>20480
Yeah reasonable entry reads, but Theses is actually included at the end of that (it's where it was originally published).

>>20489
start with the moderns

>>20472
This is pretty good intro to the Dialectical Materialist and Historical Materialist philosophies of Marx/Engels

>>20489
Start with Hammurabi

>>20489
start with the sumerians

What? Orientalism is about cultural depictions in the west
Thanks for letting us know you're an ethnonationalist I guess

>>12201
I disagreed with it, cause like it or not those ethnolouges are probably the few accurate accounts of my people, there are some bias but I have read them and they were oddly tolerate and the internetion was for understadning
Said was just to far up his own ass to see that

>>12203
nah, you're just a liberal and low iq..

>>12200
because most firstworlders here have the same disease, they don't give a shit about marxism or actual politics in general, they just use it as a tool to hate themselves and their surroundings. why do you think "rich kid guilt" and "idpol" are a topic here but the auto workers strike isn't?
take a random subject and try to come up with the most stupid, incongruent and straight up incorrect take that you can. now wrap it in some cheap "west bad, east good" rhetoric and post it here. as a fellow esl you can probably recognize native and non-native speakers. evaluate the reactions yourself, they won't surprise you

filtered

>>18736
The professional managerial class duh

>>18742
kys

>>18675
The Bolsheviks were nerds and fags, and needed to be removed by Chad Stalin and his true working class Stalin and his inner circle

>>18736
the urban petit-bourgeoisie and some of the peasantry

How do we purge the left of this notion that class is some kind of essence embodied within people rather than a social relation they are trapped within? Bolsheviks didn't hate peasants or proletarians, they wanted to move on beyond peasantry to a more developed form of production relations. They were opposed to peasantry and proletarianization i.e. the structure, the institution of these class structures. They wanted to free the peasants and proles (the people) from these oppressive class positions, put instead in a classes position of simply a worker, common to everyone in society.

>>9701
This is what he does, he reads articles on stream and he reads them well. What a weak piece of "evidence".

Lots of cope in this thread. Why is this in /edu/?

>>9903
It started out as a relevant thread and then got derailed.

>>9701
The accused person in question does not have many opinions in common with the Infrared Collective except interest in conservative philosophy, which is not very abnormal, even on the far left. Marcuse and Adorno spoke positively of those thinkers, for example. And a germ theory of ideology is a silly sort of cancel culture, that if prosecuted to the end totally would warrant the cancellation of Marx himself.

>>4513
> Post capitalism and we gain no pleasure from our fake relationships with pets, dogs will just go extinct
<Ignoring historicity of animals/human cohabitation
Man, going back through these old threads is like a fever trip. I cant believe I was duped by such a pseud view point

>>20530
Checked. I liked No Longer Human when I read it a few years ago. I haven't read anything else by him though.

OBLOMOV

Maybe you're like that because you want to be like that.

>>20528
Well, Goethe's The Sorrow of Young Werther was very influential in it's time. Check out the wiki page on it.

>>20532
Oblomov is a beautiful novel I wouldn't be opposed to reading again. I recommend it any anons reading this.
>>20534
Meme answer. I read that one in high school (of my own choice, not assigned reading). If you can't sympathize with or relate to Werther, it becomes very dull reading, which was the case for me.

If one considers Nazi Germany socialist for using dirigisme during a war, then one must consider the Allied powers just as if not more so; therefore, the word "socialism" loses all practical meaning.

>>20514
I remember hearing once that Hitler supposedly claimed in a dinner that the result of the five year plans Stalin introduced created an industrial goliath "greater than even the Reichswerke Hermann Göring."

Now, presuming this is real it's not entirely out of the ordinary and reflects the frankly bizarre relationship Fascism had with the USSR; it was equal parts realpolitik and also the arbitrary whims of the various Fascist dictators. ᴉuᴉlossnW, for example, claimed that Stalin had essentially created "Russian Fascism" or "National Bolshevism" during their initial years trading with one another. Funny enough I think ᴉuᴉlossnW even claimed that Stalin's own purge of his political enemies was not all that different from his, the difference was that Stalin being the Russian "Leader" was thus influenced by some "Mongol Spirit" and was reflected in him ordering mass executions, whereas Italians used the more "refined" and "civilized" method of forcing individuals to drink castor oil and shit out their innards in order to publicly humiliate them.

It should be noted that Fascists tried to apply at least some kind of bizarre "Fascist Analysis" to Stalin. For example, I believe it was Ribbentrop who excitedly claimed that, in fact, Stalin was a nationalist who was going to build a "Great Russia" of sorts. He elaborated (or maybe it was Hitler himself) that there was in fact a wedge within the Communist movement that on one side had Stalin as some sort of "modern day Genghis Khan" (the context in which it was in implied that was a positive thing) who would expand Russia's power and territory, versus Trotskyist "Internationalists" who sought to ferment global revolution and were part of some international Jewish Conspiracy. Essentially they saw "Socialism in One Country" as not altogether contradictory with what Fascists wanted, and Fascists themselves liked to think they were "pragmatists" who could take bits and pieces from liberalism or socialism to "make it work."

Hitler's own opinion on Stalin, while colored by the fact that he was on meth and would vasscillate wildly between one statement or another, was that himself, ᴉuᴉlossnW, and Stalin were the three most historically significant figures of the 20th century. Which, I mean, given the level of power Stalin was perceived as having within the USSR, makes sense from a Fascist perspectivePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>Stalin and Hitler were the same
We’ve known this

Hitler praised everything from Islam to the British Empire to the America's westward expansion. He was, like many modern fascists, a fanboy for everything perceived to be strong/masculine with no regard for ideological consistency or coherence.

Stalin was BASED. Stalin's "dictatorship" was exaggerated by CIA. Stalin rejected his own cult of personality and viewed it as a relic of Russian peasant backwardness, but the party forced it on him anyways. Stalin wanted to form an anti-fascist alliance with the capitalist states of Europe, but they rejected his olive branch, because they were thirsty for the genocide of slavs, jews, roma, and the death of socialism in general. They allowed hitler to commit the holocaust to own stalin, and then at the last minute, when stalin bought time with the M-R pact, while fighting fascist Finland, those same capitalist states created a myth that Stalin and Hitler were best friends. Nothing is more devious, more reactionary, than the myth that Stalin and Hitler are twin dictators. You might as well be a holocaust denier and a nazi if you suggest this, so blind do you have to be to history.

>>19231
>One can give more over a lifetime than they can give in onetime sacrifice of their life usually
Do you just assume that to conscious egoists life has so little value that sacrificing it isn't a loss for them at all? You're thinking of the self-interest in purely market terms. Self-interest is never limited to a mere accumulation of capital, it has no limits.

People are already egoistic.

<But the one who acts from love of filthy profit indeed does it on his own behalf, since in any case there is nothing that one does not do for his own sake, among other things, everything done for the glory of God; but because he seeks profit, he is a slave of profit, not beyond profit; he is one who belongs to profit, to the moneybag, not to himself; he is not his own. Doesn’t a person whom the passion of greed rules follow this master’s orders, and if one time a weak good-naturedness creeps over him, doesn’t this appear as an exceptional case of precisely the same sort as when devout believers are sometimes abandoned by their Lord’s guidance and beguiled by the wiles of the “devil?” So a greedy person is not a self-owned person, but a slave, and he can do nothing for his own sake, without at the same time doing it for his master’s sake—precisely like the God-fearing person.

>>19231
>but the capitalists decide to buy you out for more than you'd ever get under communism, doesn't it logically self-interestedly make sense to sell out?
Again, there are other desires people pursue. And they're not limited to the profit. But you can do whatever you want, there is no "holy book" of egoism. Some people may prioritize things other than profit and that's still a parfectly egoistic behavior.

>>19083
>spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today?
What's the point of that? To be an exploiting cunt?

Because the issue with Capitalism is not a moral failing of individuals(that porkies are inherently bad) but that they must partake in economic exploitation in order to exist; otherwise no profit would be made. Likewise, as constant capital accumulates(i.e machinery and other resources to increase labor productivity), you create more products for the proletariat to consume, but employ less wage-laborers who would be the buyers of such profits, causing decreasing profit rates eventually leading to crisis.

You could have the most compassionate humans in the world running this system(Marx's arguments in Capital already assume that things are being paid for at value and not below it) and it would still end in crisis eventually under its own economic laws. That's why it's not moralist.

Capitalism is inefficient.
The exploitation of the "needy" is inefficient
The abolition of these inefficiencies means more resources for the vast majority of people.
More resources for everyone means more resources for each individual. Including you, the reader.