/edu/ - Education

>>17860
Because its a science, physics has much more complicated definitions for things like charge, gravity and acceleration than commonly used.

>>17891
tank you anon

>>17893
Theres also this one by the same author about Historical Materialism, they are both great reads.

>>17871
>It appears that in Giordano Bruno, for example, there are many examples of such a new conception; Marx and Engels knew about Bruno. They knew about him and there remain traces of Bruno’s works in their notes.
bruno was based

>>17871
the source of this text btw seems to be Antonio Gramsci - The Modern Prince and Other Writings

>>13064
>y in 1941 they are not only supporting confescation of upper, middle and lower peasantry's land and grain, but are actively burning down whole villages, turning them from neutrality to anti-communism.
i mean isn't the peasantry usually anti-communist because
1) they're not proles
2) they have different class interests
3) they are often beholden to traditionalist ideas like monarchy and loyalty to one's betters?

The question of the peasantry versus the proletariat goes back to the first international .

>>15427
there's no peasantry left in Europe so this question has resolved itself there

>>10699
its actually kind of a psyop that promotes individualist main character syndrome

>thousand faces
>wow hes just like me!

>>12915
>wow they just like me
But isn't that the opposite of individualist delusion or syndrome?

I've heard that his series, "the Masks of God" was pretty good. I think socialists forget how important self-actualization is.
>How will communism create a society in which my life has meaning?
It's a fair question and one that should be asked of each society.

>How will capitalism create a society where my life has meaning?
In capitalist society, the meaning of life is making money to stay ahead and not lose your social status, access to basic necessities, etc. (Not very compelling.)

Can communism be your bliss? Is it easier to find self-actualization in a society where workers have rights? Where people have healthcare and are better able to achieve their basic needs?

>>

There's a good video essay about how monomyth is just an ignorance tool and has links with white-supremacy rhetorics.
https://youtu.be/Q9zR4lWyVN8

>>10703
Lucas was inspired by the kurosawa film "hidden fortress," hero with a thousand faces, buddhism, christianity, and Dune.

>>13662
But it seems non-genuine. He's already amusing himself with the strawman attack from Lenin.
But yes, I will answer anyway.

The first man to make a real rebuttal was Herman Gorter, a party-oriented council communist from the Netherlands. Within the councilcom tendency more rebuttals appeared afterwards, but I think they were of lesser quality, as with time their positions degenerated and came closer to anarchism. Gorter was a party-oriented Marxist communist, whose only "mistake" was to doubt Lenin's claim that the bolshevik model was copy-paste:able from the successful semi-feudal peripheral conditions where it succeeded, directly to the urbanized, advanced capitalist conditions in western Europe at the time.
>Open Letter to Comrade Lenin
https://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter.htm

When I get the time I will highlight important passages in this letter, because I think the arguments, til this day, are solid and has held up the past century of historical scrutiny.

>>13664
That was the one. Thanks.

>>13664
LWC is a book more often brought up than read, but it's even more of a shame that the people who do read it rarely check out the full conversation by reading the responses to it. Gorter's response is really completely reasonable, I was really taken aback reading it after being accustomed to the strawman in Lenin's book.
Bordiga also wrote a giant response to the book later on, and it's like 90 pages of him saying how much he is in favor of it, which makes it all the more hilarious that LWC is typically brought up as a gotcha against the "leftcoms" in the Italian tradition.

>>13663
>owning tankies
lol fuck off

>>15424
404: Argument not found

>>17230
>Remember in the mid 2010s when Zizek used to talk about how the new trend in politics is ethnocentrism mixed with neoliberalism

Zizek was correct for his time but as we know, the owl flies at dusk. He was grasping a political moment that was already over by the time he theorized about it. What we're witnessing now is the slow agonising death of neoliberalism, and the current mix of idpol perfectly complements the siege mentality as the state intervenes to circulate capital.

If things aren't growing economically, each marginalised community feels that they have to scrape the barrel to maintain their equity, and it leads them to see the state as the vehicle that butters their bread and "enfranchises" their wellbeing. It is a problem that has been inherited from the New Left, and I'm glad that socialists are waking up to the miseducation.

Keep talking about this topic. Some great points in this thread.

>>17229
Back when Jason made quality content.

Self diagnosing myself as not autistic because I cannot relate to a lot of the shit you guys post.

>>17234
Such as?

To me modernism basically means the Zietgiest of the British empire. Post-Modernism means "rejects the anglo model". The idea that it is about grand narratives is a liberal perspective, like how liberals call communists "idealist" because "its just human nature" and "thats the way the world works". Its a reactionary defense of the grand narrative of Whig history and bourgeoisie progress.

Its tied up in the idea that WWII and fascism are directly outgrowths of capitalism and imperialism. The "modernist" model says that freedom and democracy defeated the fascists and America is number one because they are so good. Post-modernists reject this and their starting point is that "modernity" is a farce that is upheld by exploitation, that is pretty much their only commonality. That is why "post-modernists" are secret "cultural marxists", because they are "ideological" and cant accept the true "end of history". Saying that they reject grand narratives is people coping with their precise rejection of imperialist narratives.

Many of them are leftists and their criticism of Marxism-Leninism is an immanent critique of it that accepts its premises, its a type of critical support, not a rejection. Their goal is to integrate the scientific advances in the fields of social science, like psychology, advertising and propaganda, into the established theory of Marx and Lenin. This leads some of them to focus on particular parts that deal with their own subfields, and they adapt to that in a variety of ways depending on their individual education and politics. You can't really say "all post-modernists do X" because it is basically anyone who disagreed with American hegemony during the post war period and not a specific thing.


I think one should separate clearly between being a fellow traveler, and supporting the Soviet Union as a sovereign entity, and being a supporter of Stalinism as an interpretation of Marxism. Even Trotskyites, who derided the Soviet Union as a form of "state capitalism" nevertheless supported the socialist experiment there (which might have been reformed from inside). Frankfurt School theory was born in the revolutionary melee and had to at least give indications that it was on the side of the International and the world proletariat, even as it made biting criticisms of the state bureaucracy, authoritarianism and philosophical positivism.

>>9610
>Rejection of grand narratives being a grand narrative in itself is a meaningless aphorism
Different anon weighing in on this.
I think this is largely correct tho, even if it's formulated as a dumb logic-bro gotcha. I would leave out the word "grand" and stick with the unmodified "narrative" and call it good.
My experience debating postmodernists is that they can dismiss everything I say by declaring it as a narrative, so therefor i should be able to dismiss what they say as a narrative as well. You can't declare narrative competition but put yours beyond question. That would be idealist, because nobody would accept that premise. If you can feel my scorn in these words, it's because post-modern philosophy is read without taking the material conditions into account. There was a devaluation of soft sciences in the 50s 60s and 70s and a big prestige gain in hard sciences, this lead to petty academic disputes being encoded into the theoretical structure. If you have ever wondered about the strange language style in post modern philosophy, it's aping tech-bro slang from the 50s, who got way more funding than the sociology department.

>So, although Marx never explicitly word-for-word acknowledged the interrelations of societal subjectivity
Marx's views on subjectivity are uncharacteristically idealist for good old Karl. He thought that there was a dialectic between objective and subjective, but that is wrong. Subjectivity is the result of people being subjected to class domination. It comes from people being subjects to royal fiefdoms or subjects in a bourgeois legal sense. The common sense understanding of subjectivity would be better framed as having a unique personal bias. Subjectivity is not personal, it's the imposition of a systemic bias, that makes people into subjects.

Objectivity is the attempt at removing all biases by various means like measurements like in science or the quest for universal truths in philosophy, it's not limited to eliminating only subjective biases from analysis.

>>9612
>To me modernism basically means the Zietgiest of the British empire
No modernism was a revolt against the premodern remnants that was still prePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>9615
I still disagree with this aphorism for the reasons I stated above. Just as I disagree with that Anon's reply entirely. He also thinks Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse are postmodernists, when none of them are (let alone the FOUNDERS thereof), and are just Frankfurt continentals. He's deeply confused, possibly from /pol/.

Even if we take your 'narrative as narrative' deference from modification, this is still a problem, because it's denying the context from which post-modernism stakes the specificities of its rejection. Post-modernism, in its rejection of (grand) narrativity, is a kind of socio-phenomenally mediated ontological skepticism, which is itself contingent by way of the internal process of its mediation, and as such, it cannot be axiomatic* nor prescribed as an ultimate social end or absolute* (* *which is what is meant when speaking in reference of 'Grand Narratives'), since the ever-presence of its possibility of self negation subsists via its self-destabilizing processual temporality (and so, it, that is, the rejection itself, can therefore be dethroned and de-standardized, and it never realizes any kind of necessary standardization of itself, all without recourse to any axiomatic necessitation in its functionality).

Now, a grand narrative is a 'category' (all things are, in some reducible sense, categorical), in that (and insofar as) it belongs to 'being a category', but the concept of 'category' is not, in itself, a grand narrative. That is, the definition, or essence of what a category is, formally, is not 'grand narrative' (i.e a cat is an animal but the formal concept of all that is animal is not 'cat').

What's more, from your reply I can gleam that you're an analytic cockshott anglo kinda' guy, since your misinterpreting the usage of the word subjectivity. When I'm referring to subjectivity, in an idealist sense or not, I mean 'subjectivity' as a shorthand taken from the history of continental philosophy ranging from antiquity and beyond, to mean cogito or personal ontology; I'm not thinking of subjectivity as if it means the subjecting thereof. The imposition of any kind of systemic bias relates to the personal, this doesn't mean a wholesale negation of the existence of the personal, and there is an a priori 'personal', the foundational sense of interrelation to the world regardless of all else. Conversely, objectivPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>9618
(me)
*you're

>>6051
What is to be done with critical theory, or whatever it is that they now teach in academic circles? The intelligentsia have made ideological pariahs and superstars like Zizek, who write screeds about current technology or media, while tying it into some strange misreading of Marx or some charlatans like Lacan, Lyotard, Deleuze, Guattari, Bataille, Foucault, or whoever else. It's strange that anyone reads this stuff, but I have wondered whether its intended purpose is to obfuscate Marxist analysis or to even co-opt various revolutionary factions on campuses.

>>13682
>from stories of amazonian women removing their breasts
Aren't Amazons a myth that Greek men came up with as a representation of everything they didn't want to see in women

>>13684
In philosophy you can use anything you want as a metaphor. Even if it's not true, it's true in spirit

>>13684
The name Amazon (a-mazon, "without breast", basically calling them "titless") is almost certainly an archetype of women giving up femininity to be like men. The degree to which it's inspired by some real culture or real people is less important than the values they represent for ancient Greeks. So in that sense it's a useful point to discuss because it is revealing about attitudes toward women.

>>13685
this is why I hate idealism

Did lenin write this 😳

>>13676
not OP but pretty sure it is gramsci

>>13676
no. all posts with more than 128 words are literal chatgpt output

>>13668
>>13672
>to assert that reality would exist even if man did not exist is either to state a metaphor or to fall into a form of mysticism
Your are literally making a metaphor that he argued about.
He says reality does not exist.

>>13678
I was just asking because it's so much metaphysical pseudery

>>17756
if you think animal farm is fascist literature you're too far gone to warrent my ear

>>17847
Depends how you define "normal" I suppose. Maybe "typical" would be a better term.

I think there's some misunderstanding at least. I'm not saying anyone who was lonely or weird or otherwise "abnormal" is destined to become Hitler-like; if I was, well then I'd be condemning myself too. After all, I had a slightly similar childhood: strained relationship with my father, not too many friends growing up, not many long term relationships, so on.

I guess what I'm saying, is I think that there are certain milestones one can accomplish to have a broadly "healthy" (as in, pro-social) development. Having a strong relationship with both parents for example. Having a network of friends and acquaintances to socialize with. Having a lover. Sustained employment. All of these contribute towards making a person that's part of a greater social body.

As for why that is, I think its because when people don't have the company of others, they end up retreating to the company of their own mind. Now this isn't always a bad thing; plenty of Holy Men lived as hermits and there's a kind of intellectualism that can come from being alone with your thoughts. But when that isolation is seemingly forced on you (even if it's by your own inaction) then it can drive a person mad.

Take, for example, Hitler's hatred of Jews. I think the most shocking thing about it was how nihilistic it was. The awful truth about genocidal Nazism, is that it seems to have come about for no reason. I've tried researching it before, and I don't think there's a single negative encounter Hitler ever had with a Jew prior to the Holocaust. His first crush was Jewish. The doctor who treated his mother, for free mind you, was Jewish. His commanding officer during the war was Jewish. As silly as it is to think some Jew once cut Hitler off in traffic and so he decided he was going to commit genocide, it's almost baffling that Jews were the one people who showed this strange social recluse any kindness, and he responded with mass murder.

It wasn't even a lack of gratitude. Hitler made special exceptions for his old commanding officer and his mother's doctor. He could be personally gracious, but to the Jewish people as a whole, he was a monster.

How'd he square the circle of Jews being nothing but kind to him and his desire to kill them allPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>17850
>I guess what I'm saying, is I think that there are certain milestones one can accomplish to have a broadly "healthy" (as in, pro-social) development. Having a strong relationship with both parents for example. Having a network of friends and acquaintances to socialize with. Having a lover. Sustained employment. All of these contribute towards making a person that's part of a greater social body.
Hahaha you'd have a lot in common with Nazi propaganda thinking this spooked sentimental bs
>Now this isn't always a bad thing; plenty of Holy Men lived as hermits and there's a kind of intellectualism that can come from being alone with your thoughts.
Ah yes, Holy Men are the height of intellectualism
>How'd he square the circle of Jews being nothing but kind to him and his desire to kill them all? If I had to guess, its because he was in this introvert's world for far too long.
Have you considered maybe there were larger political and social things happening which he became a representative face for due to no particular reason? That's not a thing that a self-proclaimed communist would consider?

>>17851
This kind of post is the exact kind of vulgar "materialism" endemic to people who get their Marxism from Memes and YouTube summaries than actually reading Marx.

The social environment classes and people engage in of course lends itself towards developing reactionary or progressive ideals. Do you even know what spooks mean?

Fascist movements were the natural outgrowth of liberal European nation-states, a fact which disturbs liberals to this day, and which causes them to try to depict it as "irrational" or "totalitarian" and to "psychoanalyze" it. The fascists were managers of the decay of liberalism in the face of proletarian-centric mass movements like Social-Democracy and Communism, agents of Jacobin terror to put an end to these implacable threats to liberal status quo.