[ 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: 1656051972576.jpg (113.23 KB, 767x1280, facist-fitness.jpg)



The article talks about how far-right groups use self-improvement to recruit people into their own ranks by associating positive change with Fascism.

As a former Fascist, this is basically how I got into the ideology and stayed because I had experienced genuine positive change in my life and I thought that this was somehow the miracle of Fascism.

Which made me wonder, what are left wingers opinion on fitness in general? What are their ways of combating the above issue I just mentioned?
22 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Doing cardio eating healthy and having a normal bmi
Bodybuilding is not healthy for the body


if you want to build some muscle mass to be strong or for asthetic reasons thats no problem but do it in a healthy way



You should be able to see your abs in good lighting.


man liberals love giving fascists attention and publicity


File: 1677637775494.jpg (579.86 KB, 1080x1440, 1677637397296.jpg)


Guy in pic rel (the swoletariat/the_gay_boy_show) is perfect for this thread who is incredibly awesome and makes awesome shit like this vid https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iRUEMe2pe88


What is the value of either of their works of thought under capitalism? What is their intellectual value to studious communists today?

4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


platonic philosophy was actually akin to eastern philosophy in the sense it was an attempt to make a coherent edifice of the various pagan mythologies like what 'theology' is understood as today.


Plato is fantastic for exposing people to critical thinking. All his dialogues are relatively short compared to shit like Hegel or Deleuze or even Aristotle. The form of said dialogues are just that, dialogues, so those who are exposed to constant television and movies and other simulacra media can understand the flow and structure of the writing. The content itself is less important. Plato is baby's first philosophy and newbie gains. It's a rapid pace of examining the world in a way outside of the norm. Most of them never go anywhere because
Even with that taken into consideration, the content of his ideas do subsequently create the building blocks for future philosophers, and as the guy quoting Deleuze in the other thread said
>the power and authority of philosophy comes from it's history.


Idealism is a philosophical view that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual in nature and that the material world is derived from non-material entities. Plato is considered the father of idealism because he was one of the first to develop and articulate an idealist worldview, arguing that the physical world is a flawed and temporary reflection of the eternal and perfect world of ideas.


<But Aristotle points out that money is not truly an end in itself, but rather a pure means. We only want money because of the things we can do with it. And this, I point out, is an area where Aristotle is out of date. He can’t imagine living a life for the sake of stockpiling as much money as possible, much less orienting an entire society around it. We can.


Even under capitalism money is only a means to capital accumulation, and most capital isn't "liquid"/tied up in financial instruments

File: 1675337272635.png (924.58 KB, 825x623, haka324u2j9dd2.png)


What are the best books that give a historical look of how worker strikes are organized?
I need some directions and strategies to possibly organize my colleagues.


I am a union organizer. Try crossposting on /leftypol/ for more responses.

For directions and strategies I would not look deep into strike history at the expense of reading organizing manuals, unless you are already organized into a union. Read at least one organizing manual cover-to-cover before you try to organize a strike or a union.

Good, easy to read union organizing material is found in the IWW organizing manual, and the EWOC organizing guide attached. If you have a local IWW branch please contact them as they will likely give you a comprehensive training for free if you join.

William Z Foster, the best chairman in the history of the CPUSA and the organizer of the 1919 steel strike and the trade union education league, wrote an organizing manual that was resurrected by new york communists to successfully organize an amazon warehouse: https://www.marxists.org/archive/foster/1936/10/organizing-methods-steel-industry/index.htm

The best modern organizing guide is Labor Notes' "Secrets of a Successful Organizer" and is $15. https://labornotes.org/secrets - This is a guide on how to organize your coworkers and is overlaps rank-and-file movement organizing in existing union workplaces with new union organizing.

The attached "labor law for the rank-and-filer" will inform you about how to use the National Labor Relations Act (USA) to shield yourself and your coworkers from getting fired for union and strike activity (Feds can order reinstatement with backpay). If you plan a direct action including a strike, you should read the corresponding section from this book.

For strikes - study the failure of the 1919 steel strike and 1919 Seattle general strike, success of sit-in strikes in Detroit auto and retail sectors two decades later. Rely on your coworkers to run the strike, not union bureaucrats. Do not do for your coworkers what they can do themselves.
Strike overview:
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


here's this



I'm sure some of you have tried their hand in writing down their own ideas regarding philosophy, politics, economics or science. In that case I think it would be dope if we shared them here and perhaps we can have an exchange of honest criticism and support. Feel free to post whatever you have written here and give people a tl;dr of what your writing is about.
5 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I remember a long time ago seeing a chart that described knowledge acquisition in education. That k-12 and undergrad made up a small middle circle. That graduate school expanded the circle very little except made a mound on one portion of the circle. A doctorate then pushed up right against the edge of all human knowledge in regard to the specific field and your thesis is a teeny tiny pimple on the edge.

When one participates in a law journal they have to do hours of research into whether a given topic idea was already written.

When one briefs an appeal, they have to research what the law is, and whether there are any cases similar enough in fact and law to apply to the given situation. If there isn't anything on point, the lawyer must then concoct a unique argument against the given fact scenario. This is much like the little pimple on the circle, the appellate court decision is unique, but only in a very small and particular way.

If you think your research has lead you to find that there is lacking information regarding modern praxis, then it looks like you have a rabbit hole to go down. To find the historical make up of praxis, to see what is already out there about modern praxis, and to synthesize a modern approach if one hasn't yet been fully articulated. Or perhaps even a guide to the modern landscape. Who knows!


I was planning on doing the same, I came home with a bunch of interesting ideas I was going to read about, make some notes on and think of a plan to truly get into.

Then I got drunk and now I'm just wallowing in my own rot.

Can always try again tomorrow. Good luck to you friend.


Write drunk manifesto. Edit in the morning.


i 100% agree but somehow i'm not depressed by it…
I think it's kind of exhilarating. Marx said that the scientific process was in concretizing abstractions, and that's exactly what our job is now. There is a huge overgrowth of literature and information out there, and it takes a huge amount of labor to go through it all. Just keep your own personal notes, quotes, lists of shit you've read, summaries, etc. and hopefully someday there will be something to do with it all, to share with others. To me this is a great prospect, because all of the reading I do anyways, now has a somewhere to "go", outside of me, I guess waiting for a future place to be categorized and put out into the world, to help others discover what is already known, theorized, etc. and also to help separate the bullshit from the quality finds, so that the labor doesn't need to be repeated so many times. We can rapidly accelerate our collective theoretical knowledge if we coordinate it by all putting in and sharing notes. Build the collective mind anon


>intellectual work.
me no think

File: 1677258556687-0.jpg (111.41 KB, 927x780, the_retarded_map.jpg)


1) The so-called Cossack hetmanate was far bigger in 1654 (In 1654 they became a protectorate of russian tsar, that's why it is brought up here). See the pic no. 2

2) Russian empire did not recognize the concept of Ukraine, ukrainian nation or ukrainian language. For them it was Malorossiya. And every new territory gained was annexed to Russian empire, not gifted to someone, lmao. There wasn't even autonomous Malorossiya inside the empire the new territories could have joined. It's complete nonsense.

3) Lenin wasn't giving any territories as a gift. Initially, there were Odessa Soviet Republic and Donetsk - Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic, and they were later occupied by Germany and Austria-Hungary. In order to create a united front against germans the II All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets decided that all soviet republics on the territory of Ukraine will create one Ukrainian republic and after the liberation this was confirmed by the III All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets. It wasn't a decision of heckin dictator Lenin but a decision that was carried out by local deputies.

4) Western Ukraine joining the USSR in 1939 would be a gift only of the ukrainians were completely passive. Which isn't true. The anti- polish resistance existed and of course ukrainians fought in the Red Army.

In case of Transcarpathian Ukraine we can't talk about a gift at all. There literally was a referendum in 1945, whether to stay in Czechoslovakia or to join the USSR.

5) Crimea wasn't a "gift from Khruschev", because Khruschev wasn't in position to decide about that at the time. It was decided by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The reason was simple: the territory is closer both economically and territorially to Ukraine and it would be easier for Ukraine to help Crimea with post war recovery. The decision was supported by Malenkov, Molotov and Kaganovich, the future "Anti-Party Group", so no, evil revisionist Cornman isn't at fault here.

Tl,dr: This map is based on russian nationalist myths about how evil communist dictators were drawing borders as they wanted.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1677261132341.png (393.41 KB, 1280x720, Bez-imeni-1.png)

the original picture


1. They are talking about the zaporozhian sich. As we all know, that was an ukrainian area inside Cossack hetmanate. Cossack ≠ ukrainian.
2. If the territory is majority ukrainian, historically ukrainian, governed locally by ukrainians, speaks and acts ukrainian, is recognized as the ukrainian heartland and exist in the same place as zaporozhia, you could easily call it a predecessor to modern ukraine as they do in ukrainian schoolbooks.
3. They were talking about lenin-era goverment, not some great man.
4. It's not annexed if they have internal dissent and/or they fought in the war?
5. They were talking about goverments again. Wikipedia says administration was handed because of "the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR". Who has denied this?
This doesn't even take a minute to read uygga why add this
Pic says so in the way that one would exclaim "this welfare is a gift from the goverment". Meant ironically and to annoy mildly since everyone knows they have much better reasons to do so than goodwill.


>1. They are talking about the zaporozhian sich.
Then that doesn't make sense, lol. Why only the Zaporizhya was the supposed original Ukraine?

>If the territory is majority ukrainian, historically ukrainian, governed locally by ukrainians, speaks and acts ukrainian, is recognized as the ukrainian heartland

You apparently don't know anything about the time, lol. For the Russian Empire there were no Ukrainians, only Russians. The "Malorussian dialect" wasn't an official language. Only the "Great Russian" was allowed in the official spheres. No autonomous Malorossiya existed inside the Russian empire. These territories were supossed to be completely russified.

>. They were talking about Lenin-era goverment, not some great man.

<by Vladimir Lenin in 1922
Where do you see some government mentioned, lol? Also the decision about joining Ukrainian SSR wasn't done by some "Lenin government" but by the local bolsheviks themselves

>4. It's not annexed if they have internal dissent and/or they fought in the war?

It kinda changes the context, doesn't it? "Annexed by Stalin" can mean that Stalin was stealing territories from Poland and Czechoslovakia for those ungrateful Ukrainians.

>5. They were talking about goverments again

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


1. Because it is where they were mostly concentrated, and it's not as if the cossack state was anywhere near ukrainian
2. Doesn't matter what the official line was, ukrainians existed and where they lived and died didn't change because of it. There, during the feudal times these local rulers had much say in local affairs so it is stupid to compare them to modern autonomous areas. Ukrainians did rise to official positions in some positions in these local goverments. And of course malorossiyan isn't a dialect because it isn't even a language to begin with.
3. When I say that "Trump banned xiaomi" I don't mean he personally went ahead and banned them for no reason.
4. No, I was asking how it matters if the ukrainians fought in the war. Would a reward not be a gift? Was stalin punishing them by annexing it to their control?
5. Look how I used stalin in the above sentence, it's more convenient to say. What are you saying this for? You said "The reason was simple: the territory is closer both economically and territorially to Ukraine and it would be easier for Ukraine to help Crimea with post war recovery", meaning that people were denying this alongside the decision being made by a state organ.
>And yes, there literally are people that "Khruschev gifted Crimea to Ukraine".
Has nothing to do with the reason for administrative change.
>It's irony
One that speaks so much about context should have figured this out. Do you think they meant lenin personally gave out some of *his* territory because nobody mentioned anything existing outside of him? Or did they mean it like an article reading "official mike johnson fails to get bill passed" where they personify the entire party and it's agenda to one face?


>1. Because it is where they were mostly concentrated, and it's not as if the cossack state was anywhere near ukrainian
Then it makes sense even less because Zaporizhiyan Sich wasn't anywhere near Ukrainian as well (also the modern understanding of Russians and Ukrainains didn't exist at the time). But for the sake of argument I can accept it.

> Doesn't matter what the official line was, ukrainians existed and where they lived and died didn't change because of it.

I am not sure why are you telling me this. If you are trying to say that Ukrainians deserve these territories because they were important part of the society of the Russian Empire, that they fought in the army too, then, yeah, good, ok, I can take that. But if you are trying to say here that Russian Empire wasn't a chauvinistic shithole, then either get Lenin-pilled or piss off.

> it is stupid to compare them to modern autonomous areas.

I can compare it to Finland or Bukhara which enjoyed far more autonomy inside the Empire than Ukraine every did. Not to mention that by the end of 19th century there wasn't anything resembling Ukrainian/ Malorossiyan autonomy at all, because the tsars were actively surpressing it. (I was kinda wrong by saying that there was never anything like Ukrainian/Maloross autonomy inside the empire, it's better to say initially there was one but was soon liquidated)

>And of course malorossiyan isn't a dialect because it isn't even a language to begin with.

That's not my terminology, that's terminology of Lomonosov and V.V. Dal'. And yes, it's not a dialect, it's called Ukrainian language.

>3. When I say that "Trump banned xiaomi" I don't mean he personally went ahead and banned them for no reason.

lmao, ok
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


I’m looking for books on the history of anarchism in France and the United States.

I’m especially looking for texts on individualist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism in France/the US, between 1860-1920s.

I know I know, vague.


<This is the story of the infamous Bonnot Gang: the most notorious French anarchists ever, and the inventors of the motorized get-away

<The history of labor in the United States is a story of almost continuous violence. In Dynamite, Louis Adamic recounts one century of that history in vivid, carefully researched detail. Covering both well- and lesser-known events—from the riots of immigrant workers in the second quarter of the nineteenth century to the formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)—he gives precise, and often brutal, meaning to the term "class war."


Got anything about American individualist anarchism since that was the first school of anarchist thought to arrive in America?


The Manifesto of the Sixteen


Kek, no.


All of Benjamin Tucker's works are good imo
Josiah Warren's manifesto is good as is Equitable Commerce, although it takes a slight turn from individualist anarchism iirc
steve p andrews Love, Marriage and Divorce, and the Sovereignty of the Individual is good
Walker's philosophy of egoism is the most based American anarchist piece of writing imo pre 20th century
as for actual histories idk i think bob black or maybe hakim bey wrote one lol

File: 1675631942027.jpg (16.66 KB, 255x389, Grundrisse_Karl_Marx.jpg)


so marx meant to write 6 volumes of capital but never finished, i'm interested in what the later volumes would have said. so is grundrisse a sort of summary of what all 6 volumes? if not what would be
6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


marxists.org has the Progress edition
MECW is on libgen, pulled the PDF's for you


International Publishers should still have them all in stock; they might give you a discount if you bulk buy and ask.



So Grundrisse is just Capital Vol. 0, meaning there are 5 volumes of capital.


Thankee :)

File: 1648482515343.jpg (59.29 KB, 657x527, 1635023423044.jpg)


I have the impression that psychology is a field that is heavily influenced by the societal structure we live in and what culture we have, to deduce that some behavior is inappropriate, an illness, a deficit, or on the other side of the spectrum healthy, a sign of maturity, desirable.
Do you guys have any literature on that?
9 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Socialism as an idea is derived precisely from the arisen contradictions beholden & intrinsic to capitalism; if there are psychological findings which contradict the ideological propositions of capitalism, such findings are technically still *derived from* a capitalist context and will thusly still be partially tainted in their formative structuration by capitalist ideology. There is no wholly neutral or detoxed finding which could otherwise emerge from psychology under the particular societal mode which contextualizes its epistemological basis.


Honestly, Kaczynski touches on this a little bit in Industrial Society and It's Future. If you're open to reading a wild schizo's thoughts on psychology and sociology, it may match your perspective on the field.


Mental illness is real. It's what society considers normal. Aspergers havers are the only mentally healthy ones, but since they're the minority, they're ironically labeled as mentally ill.


gtfo varg


Published just last year.

File: 1675869294713.gif (21.26 KB, 412x200, social-studies.gif)


Hi /edu/ I'm a teacher who has been tasked with creating a social studies curriculum for a college. Students are aged 18-23 and the college is located in a relatively poor global south country.

I'm looking for suggestions on interesting, informative, assumption-challenging, ore even just straight up cool articles that I could add to the course. Most of the social studies or sociology textbooks out there are written for a western or abstract global audience, so stuff that might appeal to a global south country would be appreciated. The level would be around first year or pre-undergraduate.

[please don't infodump tonnes of books on socialism from the early 1900s or stuff that is too complex :)]


Probably not exactly what you're looking for but to bump


Are you a sociology professor or PhD or whatever or why are you teaching university students sociology?


If you're from LATAM maybe you can do an excerpt of Open Veins of Latin America.


Could you give an outline on what topics the course covers?

https://archive.org/details/MarxEngelsCollectedWorksVolume10MKarlMarx/Marx %26 Engels Collected Works Volume 24_ M - Karl Marx/page/n139 is an article Engels wrote about the German alcohol distilling industry. It discusses a concrete example of class dynamics within a societal context, concerning the large-scale investment of the land aristocracy into distilleries and the resulting proliferation of low-quality alcohol across Europe.


File: 1675176010761.png (371.02 KB, 612x612, dont-talk-to-me-unless.png)


What recent historical events are super important to know about or really interesting but the younger generation doesn't? Ideally stuff that isn't just relevant to one small region of the world.


Oh no I put the apostrophe in the wrong place(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)


Literal Nazi and burger cooperation in the 2014 coup in the ukraine


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