[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ GET / ref / booru]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Password (For file deletion.)

New Announcement: IRC<=>Matrix bridge #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new every Monday : /meta/

| Catalog | Home

File: 1608528163324.jpg (14.65 KB, 250x396, Althusser[1].jpg)


why do leftists generally dislike Althusser?
26 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


he's unironically a great mathematician and programmer. I just find it annoying when people shill him on anything philosophy related.



Can a mod or someone reach out to him and have him do an AMA here on a pinned thread? That would be cool


Zizek is a fucking joke and the fact that you cite him favorably in a thread like this speaks volumes.


Oh really? Compared to a non-theorist blogger? Zizek has serious work other than cultural takes.


You're a silly person and I'm ending this here.

File: 1608528163862.jpg (866.36 KB, 1100x1635, Catalyst_v4n1-promo_cover.jpg)


3 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



end of pdf dump


What is "catalyst"?


Jacobin’s theory journal.


Anyone got any more of the more recent ones?

File: 1608528162327.gif (2.91 MB, 500x200, untitled-15.gif)


Inspired by my reading of the book, Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn
How do we know myths, stories, magic, etc. are not real? Assuming what we know scientifically is true, how does this negate myth, legend, etc? Why are dinosaurs not simultaneously animals and also monsters when they fit what we would have called monsters? Why are overriding social systems not tantamount to a spirit or God when they control our actions and shape our life histories even if they don't act consciously? Are they not what we'd call an egregor, i.e., a presence brought into existence by the actions and beliefs of a large number of people? Is our Sun not a God when it is responsible for all life on Earth? Is the biosphere not some sort of Earth spirit when it encompasses all living things yet influences each individually and can be destroyed through harming the Natural (non-human) World. Are spirits not the electrical currents moving through your brain? Do we not tell history as a story?

In the beginning there was nothing but the One, then the One expanded into the Everything, as the Everything continued to expand soon the beating hearts of the Everything, the Stars began to form from the energy of the Beginning, the stars coalesced into huge interstellar communities, galaxies; in the nuclear core of the stars more building elements were created, and from the stars came the planets; in the deep seas of one planet around one star life formed out of the energy of the planet's iron core, over the course of billions of years life arose in complexity in a way matching the Everything until finally from Life emerged the Someone, a complex arrangement of the Everything capable of consciously perceiving itself.

Why isn't our understanding of the Universe, even being scientifically true, a myth? Myths were once truths, after all.
18 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.”


Perhaps, perhaps not


>Stories of magic and Myth are usually based
-Sage (2020)


God fragmented itself into numerous pieces so it could be able to die. We are what's left in the process of this decaying God.


>this graph is totally right lol
ok igno

File: 1608528152394-0.jpg (287.46 KB, 732x1024, 8df3c00570.jpg)

 No.2083[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

So some of you may have read the quite popular pdf where Rafiq dunks on eco fetishism, in that thread he references a previous thread where he had spent a lot of time focusing in on eco-fetishism, however this thread has been lost from Revleft. It's available on internet archives but to preserve it I've made this in the style of the previous popular pdf. Hope you guys enjoy!

This thread could serve to discuss this work if anyone ever dedicates the time to read it, or we could debate the place of ecology in modern day Marxism. To provoke discussion: does nature have any value outside how it immediately serves human interests?
96 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Holy fug.


However, Haz did say that he didn't know who Ismail was, so perhaps not. That was an offhand comment which could be inaccurate though.
Also he is not that old, so he'd have to be a child genius probably to be Rafiq under disguise.


Haz did say he knew a significant amount of Hegel in highschool while roasting Anal Water. It's possible he started early with his studies which may line up with the point you made.


rafiq already knew of leftypol and had been a part of leftist forums since ~2008, he wrote a 500+ page book just to own some dudes on revleft - he also disagreed with heidegger. the traits mentioned are shared by most marxists who started out with zizek.


Rafiq wasn't a pseud who tried to obfuscate because he didn't know what the theory of value was. Their philosophies arent anywhere near each other either. Haz when pressed reveals he doesn't know shit and says you have to do idealist leap of faiths and "believe in the people" when it comes to truth. As already pointed out its Heidegger shit. The reason Rafiq was aggressive was because he knew what he wanted to get across and was tired of repeating himself. Read any of his posts and you get a clear explanation and position on whatever topic.
Haz just screams and yells because he doesn't know how to explain shit he just read once and doesn't understand. He would call Rafiq an Anglo for actually knowing something instead of pretending with big words. And hopefully Rafiq would shoot him and push the body in a ditch.


I don't want to leave the house, do any work or anything at all. I would rather lay in bed all day and do heroin. In a socialist society, what happens when I simply refuse to work at all? Do I get housed and fed, or do I starve?
8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Feel free to have an argument hedonist.


you go to rehab


my take is that in socialism, if you don't work you get like your basic subsistence met, like you don't starve, but that's it, you don't get to enjoy the good things in life without doing some work


"He who does not work, does not eat" - Lenin


Really it depends on the level of productive forces/abundance in the society. Compare "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution" with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I think, for example, in a socialist (lower-phase communism) Germany, you would be provided with a house and food, but probably not much more than that. In a sufficiently abundant higher-phase communism, I'm sure you could be afforded some luxury goods, depending on the level of abundance. People who don't wish to work (where what counts as work is much broader than modern-day capitalism) would be rare. The reason why "forced labour" existed in the USSR was simply because the society was poor and needed to develop quickly, etc.

File: 1608528149892.jpg (91.53 KB, 1280x720, math.jpg)


So now I really started to want to really understand math and learn more concepts that I didn't learn because I never really liked it very much but now I am more interested in it. What are some resources or basic principles that I can use to understand math better?


this thing + is used to put stuff together
that thing is used to take stuff away from something else


There's nothing to understand, maths is arbitrary.


you can use khan academy. I believe they give out free lectures and practice problems.
if you haven’t learned calculus start with that and go onto calculus 2 after. then learn multivariable calculus and linear algebra, and then differential equations. once you do that you’re at a level where you can start learning undergraduate stuff, for which most people recommend looking at the springer “undergraduate texts in mathematics” book series. I can’t say anything about it though since I’m not at that level, but you can probably find the books themselves for free on libgen.is


File: 1608528163101.jpg (114.61 KB, 1920x1080, conicsections.jpg)

take a a Mathematics proofs class (also called Set theory), you don't need to be actually that good at arithmetic to understand higher math, all you need to be able to do is manipulate equations and add fractions, its mostly applied philosophy

I am a mathematician who got C's all through calculus


what kind of math are you interested in? Abstract stuff? Topology? Applied stuff? Geometry?

I recently got some students into math through working through "The Nature of Code" book/tutorials in the programming language Processing. It was a cool sort of hands on way to interact with different equations that help us define/understand natural phenomena. Creating particle simulators and cool art and all that shit. The "nature of code" is more on the physics end of things but there is a lot of cool visual stuff you can do with geometry and vectors in Processing.


According to Gulag Archipelago, torture, rape, and killing of peasants and political dissidents was common practice in soviet gulags. Was this really the case?
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


The irony is that Stalin's paranoia about the fragility of the communist project is what made the project so fragile.


Considering that it lasted more than 2x his life-time and was the second world superpower of its time… nope.


Considering that people starved in the 30s and eventually it failed… yep.


Considering natural and regular famines were eliminated (along with homelessness, illiteracy, etc.) and only came back after US neoliberal sabotage… nope.

The Soviet Union wasn't perfect, but if you compare it with most third world government then AND now, it was surprisingly functional and much better. Are people who criticize the Soviet Union all rich cunts from the third world and fist world middle upper class? Nigga, they're kidnapping our sisters and daughters and selling them, we're getting shot at on the regular, either by "clean cops", regular dirty cops, drug dealers, by petty thieves who are usually kids, by politicians who don't like "activists", we're getting run over by cars, dying from shitty food (because healthy food is expensive), overwork, stress, anxiety, lack of access to medicine and medics. All these things did not exist for the majority of the people in the soviet union for the vast majority of its existence.

Yeah maybe Stalin was a paranoid cunt and a totalitarian leader, but ffs, the quality of life was much much better than it is now for MOST OF US. Fucking privileged pricks, I swear.


> a better critique of the soviet gulags and other abuses under the Soviet system, without falling to anti-communist propaganda, I recommend The Revolution Betrayed by Leon Trotsky.
LOL the same Trotsky who referred to Stalin as an uncultured beast… push off

File: 1608528145110.jpg (41.21 KB, 450x363, Capitalism1.jpg)


In Section VI of Wages Price and Profit, Marx explains that prices approximate the true value of a commodity, but only over time as supply and demand average out. Having established this, he goes on to argue against the fallacy that profit is obtained by selling commodities above their value:

>If then, speaking broadly, and embracing somewhat longer periods, all descriptions of commodities sell at their respective values, it is nonsense to suppose that profit, not in individual cases, but that the constant and usual profits of different trades spring from surcharging the prices of commodities, or selling them at a price over and above their value. The absurdity of this notion becomes evident if it is generalized. What a man would constantly win as a seller he would as constantly lose as a purchaser. It would not do to say that there are men who are buyers without being sellers, or consumers without being producers. What these people pay to the producers, they must first get from them for nothing. If a man first takes your money and afterwards returns that money in buying your commodities, you will never enrich yourselves by selling your commodities too dear to that same man. This sort of transaction might diminish a loss, but would never help in realizing a profit.

Marx's argument against a fallacy rampant in the present day seems like it would be incredibly useful to learn, I cannot for the life of me parse what he is talking about. Thus, instead of ignoring this aside I come to /edu/'s help in making sense of it. To break it down:

&ltWhat a man would constantly win as a seller he would as constantly lose as a purchaser.
If every transaction in capitalism can be understood abstractly as buyers and sellers entering a marketplace - representing supply and demand by changes in stalls, shoppers, and salesmen, for instance - then each transaction with an arbitrary percentage of profit x applied would even out. This is what I assumed this sentence to mean at first. But even if this were the case, could each successive capitalist in the line from raw material to finished product not add a surplus onto the successively increasing true value of the increasingly complex commodity? Marx might say that the competition between capitalists (ignoring supply and demand, which self-cancel) would force this arbitrary "profit" to increasingly diminish to almost nothing if it were to ever exisPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


you faggots really don't know the answer to this? this is considered one of the easiest marxist works and you don't get it? back to /leftypol/ then.


The reason no-one answered is precisely because its so easy, idiot.


It's a dead board man;
I don't know what you were expecting

File: 1608528144417.png (437.26 KB, 920x644, sudetenland.png)


I want to learn more about the dogmatism that surrounds Stalin in socialism by looking at the actual historical evidence. I know there are books by Grover Furr that discuss this subject. but I want to additionally know what are some books with direct counter-arguments to Grover Furr's claims, and which of Grover Furr's books I should read first.
any suggestions?
pic unrelated.
11 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Oh and one more thing: What's suspicious to me is that while they call Furr an irrelevant crank, the academic history community has gone out of their way to excessively debunk Holocaust deniers like Irving. With Furr, they don't do this, which gives the indication that there is probably some meat to his arguments.


He was the asshole of the group. He didn't have a firm line and shifted often to the position that was to be favored by the majority. His first concern was to secure power for himself and then everything else was to be done.
He also kinda turned marxism-leninism into a creed, not to be further developed.


However this is to say, the "opposition" was no real alternative, as they were a bunch of armchair fags loving to endlessly debate, yet not doing anything proper. They wouldn't have industrialized the country in time and probably would be annihilated by nazi Germany. They were dengists before Deng (especially Bukharin).


However again, Trotsky was calling for more power to the industry already at the end of 1922, when NEP went into full force and he was against a huge compromise with the peasantry.
Trotsky established the victorious Red Army, he could perhaps also be competent in dealing with Nazis - maybe even more so and would avoid catastrophic defeats in Minsk, Kyiv, Leningrad …


I recall Grover Furr early in his research went in expecting some of the liberal propaganda to be true and was shocked at how it was mostly made up and that gave him his conviction that it's all bullshit

You can hear the shock in his voice when he says it, like he was reliving that moment of truth

File: 1608528143018.jpeg (32.45 KB, 400x367, Phil-book.jpeg)


I've been doing a bit of reading on the economic aspects of Marxism, however it occurred to me that I don't know where to start with the more philosophical aspects. I've seen people post Stalin's, "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" and I've occasionally been recommended some works by Bukharin, however I really don't know what order would be best to understand concepts such as dialectical materialism or the base and superstructure or ideology, and so on. Could one of you anons help me figure out how exactly I should educate myself on such topics?
22 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Frankfurt School
>No Benjamin or Lukacs


I don't think Benjamin or Lukács was part of the Frankfurt School. Then again, Debord wasn't either, so idk.


Lukacs was simultaneously an intellectual forefather and early critic of the franky boys, and Benjamin's debates with Adorno are well documented.


File: 1626114803152.jpeg (25.44 KB, 400x602, images (95).jpeg)

Wiki said Lukacs 'repudiated' History and Class Consciousness, whatever that means, which doesnt make me so enthusiastic to read it.christian_communismChristian Communism



It's one of the most important philosophical book of the marxian tradition. Love it or hate it, but def. unavoidable.

The repudiation come after the harsh criticizm his book take from the Comintern at the time (if I rermember right, espc. from Zinoviev and Bukharin). It nonetheless make Lucaks take a more "orthodox leninist" turn, that culminates in his "ontology of the social being".iwwIWW

Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ GET / ref / booru]
[ 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