[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / 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: 3 + 1 =

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

| Catalog | Home

 No.18068[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

This video is titled The Gay Body Image Crisis by James Somerton, seemingly its a video essay about gay people's body image issues, but in actuality its just bizarre venting against fit people through ahistorical revisionism.

The main narrative presented throughout this essay is that recreational exercise. physical fitness, and bodybuilding were invented by the Nazis, based on antique statues and these were then bought to the US by gay soldiers, where it shaped first the gay sub culture and later became the mainstream image among the heteros. There are a few obvious problems with these statements.
So modern fitness training in the US started about a hundred years before the Nazi party, In addition, the bronze era of bodybuilding, began with Sandow before the turn of the century: predating WW1, So Americans, gay or straight, didn't inspiration from the SS in regard to body image and exercise.
He also makes a claim that the BMI formula was specifically invited by white supremacist and used by Nazis to find an ideal solider bodytype, so again the BMI also predates the Nazis and while the tables were developed after WW2, and they were based on mortality studies, so the normal weight category was the one with the lowestmortality rate, not the one closest to a SS-Supersoldier
The absolute most ridiculous claim he makes is that he states Ernst Röhm was killed because he was fat and hence didn't fit the image of the ideal man, while the party politics surrounding the so called Röhm coup are not even mentioned. Somerton leaves out the fact that one of Röhms greatest rivals, one who talked Hitler into killing him, was Hermann Göring – a man just as fat as Röhm. Seriously, of course this was about power and politics, not body image.

So at the end of the video Somerton, based on these misleading historical narratives, try's to shame people for being into fit people because that's what "Hitler thought was perfect." like the bodies in the clips he uses are not that uncommon in many young men, that's the bodytype of most fit healthy young men and that can be found in any race of men, I mean the whole bodypositivity, HEAS and fat acceptance movement was always ripe with body-shaming and open scorne of thinner people, that is nothing new. But the politicization of a certain body type, its identification with a political ideology, is. concerning to say the least
like guess who also heavily idealized the muscular body in their propaganda,Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
127 posts and 22 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


majority of breadtuber vidoes could be cut in half or even quarter length, if they didn't focus on the pointless theatrics and insert unrelated tangents about pop-culture shit


Wow this is accurate. It goes along a step further where beauty is determined on facial features, not an attribute you can control exactly. Being fat or being fit is for the most part, controllable and requires effort.


>Today it is the working class that are fat.
Go take a look at the U.S. Congress and claim they’re working class


>petite-bourgeois fuck own a yacht or something.
The petite-bourgeois are not owning a fucking yacht. They’re your typical small business owners that are often poorer than welders.
The people who own yachts ARE the problem. They run the country and the world, it’s their fault. That’s the whole point in revolutionary socialism.


>That’s the whole point in revolutionary socialism.
i thought the point was dismantling capital and class division not focusing on rich fucks

File: 1626398984365.jpg (149.39 KB, 600x389, Thread.jpg)


Things to share: Movies, documentaries and mainly books.
Anything related to socialism, anarchy, communism and so on.

>Absolute beginner material




>More Marx and Engels


Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
73 posts and 66 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Anyone got books from Kojeve or Losurdo for download?



Stirner's Unique and Its Property (the best translation) as both epub and pdf.



Goodbye comrade. Thank you and good luck o7


Found this off 4chan

>Leftist Movies 1-4

>Just leftist related movies and documentaries apparently.

Leftist Movies 1:

Leftist Movies 2:

Leftist Movies 3:

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


Hello I'm kind of a baby socialist. I understand the core concepts of how capitalists exploit workers, surplus value, labor theory of value and the general idea of capitalist exploitation in third world countries. However, if I try digging into anything beyond that my brain goes blank. Even if say, I'll read Mao's little red book and come out with a basic idea of what he was talking about, I'll immediately lose it the next day. It's really frustrating and difficult to get myself to read more knowing I'll just forget everything overnight at worst or in a couple of days at best.
In general, what questions should I be asking? How to approach a new topic that might seem intimidating or complex for a poopbrain like me?
8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Here are my tips

- Read actively. Think along with what you are reading. For that make highlights and notes. Think about the applications of what you are reading. Question what you are reading. Try to support the author's arguments.
- Write a short one sentence summary of the paragraph you've just read. Starting from the third paragraph of a chapter write a one sentence summary of every paragraph that came prior. Then write another one sentence summary to the current chapter.


I use the zettelkasten method. You really have to work for it for the system to payoff, but it is worth it.


Good advice in this thread.
I usually only read books once and without notetaking, but often pause and stare into the distance for a few minutes to process everything. If you don't take notes, you need to prove to yourself you have understood the important parts of the book and how other parts relate to them consciously. When you will find yourself struggling with a specific concept, just think longer or look up what others have to say about it.
Notes are unavoidable for doing actual work on the basis of what you are reading though. Technically the essays i wrote in highschool were embellished notes on how a specific book relates to my thesis.


This is very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Yeah, learning entails a set period of focused work (i.e. trying to understand) and another period of not thinking about the matter, and just letting yourself "digest" the knowledge. The proof you have learned is that after you digested the knowledge you can recall it as you desire. This, of course, may take a few tries, depending on the subject.


>You really have to work for it for the system to payoff, but it is worth it.
Is it? I've tried starting a zettelkasten multiple times but the process seems way more tedious than it is useful, compared to taking notes normally. What did you get out of it in the long term?

File: 1682752276713.png (1.73 MB, 1500x1500, American Dialectics.png)


Lets examine these two men, or more specifically, the way they were viewed and the eras they represent.

Washington - Is supposed to represent the true founding of the US. This aristocratic figure, who through war, created this nation. A Napoleonic figure, in the sense that he led the war personally, and was the one who led the nation personally. His era represents a time where the states were in majority control. When the constitution was most respected. And of course, in some circles, what the US represented and should represent. A WASP nation. A Christian nation.

Lincoln - A man who represents the savior of this nation. This unlikely figure who rose from out of nowhere, and had the wherewithal to be able to keep it together. He represents the beginning of the centralization of the US. What's interesting about him was that he technically represents the beginning what the real nation of the US. Whereas before, they were the United States of America, now its the United States of America, with the US identity finally developing. A strangely Napoleonic move, if I do say so. And lastly, of course, the man who was able to overcome the US's original sin. Slavery.

Now for their detractors, its easy. Some will look at Washington (and Lincoln for that matter) as good for nothing racists. Washington so more because of his slaves. While others (reactoids) will look at Lincoln and curse him for causing the end of the US by allowing the Negro the same rights as Whites.

Now lots of these views are all great man theory. And they don't truly show who they were. They were complex humans, with strange morals. Washington hated slavery, but he kept his slaves. Lincoln detested slavery, but said he wanted ship black people back to Africa. This was pre civil war, but nonetheless, shows that these people aren't as simple as "good American guy" or "evil yakubian devil". But its interesting to see how different political tendencies viewed these two men and what they represented over the years. I would say the image in OP is the best example of what I mean. You have these two opposing forces, choosing two pivotal figures in US history, each representing different values. There is a clear reason for that and why still to this day, you will have reactionary forces calling on the memory of Washington over Lincoln. The left side less so, but still supporting similar ideas. John Brown, RePost too long. Click here to view the full text.
2 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Washington was an enlightenment lib who didn't like the influence of church on state even if he was a practicing Anglican
This is what the real Founding Fathers were like


based chalmers


i mean let's be real. the reason the 1939 american nazis liked washington is because he owned slaves, and the reason the 1938 American communists liked Lincoln is because he is perceived as having freed the slaves


Was America truly founded on Hitlerism?


How can you argue Washington was a symbol of wasp identity in the 30s when the bund was flying banners of him lol “let’s say, you’re retarded”


Since this is a subject that has been making the rounds in the public discourse again, let‘s make a general that debunks anti-semitic conspiracy theories. Post literature, videos, infographs, memes, whatever. Unfortunately, I don‘t have anything on my own, but I will make this thread to get this going.
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It is suspicious sounding that Jews are overrepresented in certain fields, that's not that unreasonable to think.


I wish I was that mountain


>Anyone that might listen to fascist will never listen to an actual rational argument
That's why fascists intentionally try to trick people into thinking they are reasonable.


Fascists, Islamists, Communists, black, white and asian all of whom came to the same conclusion


Is it? In the US, Indians are overrepresented among doctors and tech workers and iirc actually earn more as a group than Jews do. This is interesting because Jews used to be vilified partially because of their overrepresentation in medicine (Eustace Mullins, a postwar Nazi who was in contact with Ezra Pound and helped birth modern conspiracy culture, even wrote a book about this). But Indian Americans have never been seen in the same way as Jews by far right movements here. If they're given any thought at all then they're not conniving infiltrators who use their blood ties to take over society, they're dirty inferior brown people who couldn't take over a "white" society if they wanted to. The same thing is true for Nigerian Americans. Wealthy, overrepresented in certain fields, seen by Nazis as subhumans rather than crafty infiltrators anyway.

It was the case for Jewish overrepresentation in the early USSR too. I don't have the data, probably someone will, but if the tables I've seen are true then Poles and Lithuanians were also overrepresented among the Bolsheviks, as you'd expect them to be in a religiously and racially chauvinistic empire. Central Asians probably would have been overrepresented too had they been more economically developed and culturally europeanized. But again, no Nazis see Lithuanians or Poles in the same way they see Jews. Lithuanians weren't much of anything and Poles were Slavic subhumans (conveniently forgotten by postwar Nazis who prefer a universalized "white race" with the ethnic differences papered over to German chauvinism).

This isn't true either. The Italian Fascists pre-Axis didn't hate Jews and Jews were actually overrepresented in the PNF, ᴉuᴉlossnW had a Jewish mistress even. Which by your logic should mean you have to dismiss them as Jewish puppets. Probably the difference comes down to the fact that Jews in Italy had been assimilated into Italian life for a much longer time than in Germany but in any case the Italians didn't care until the alliance with Germany made them implement some of the same racial laws. Mosley (who was backed by Italian money) did talk about the Jews but was far milder towards them than the Germans (not to say he wasn't bigoted towards them). Arnold Leese even called him a kosher Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1681908388294.jfif (12.75 KB, 460x276, th.jfif)


What does leftypol think of GA Cohen? And can someone explain what his criticism of John Rawls was? I read some of his works and it seems like he was a cool dude.
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>although were he less Stalinist it would have been preferable.
Are you talking about his economic views?


He gets mentioned here time and time again here for a reason.


Analytical marxists are a mixed bag. GA cohen is one of the better ones


>although were he less Stalinist
what does this even mean?


nix this i was mistaken

File: 1681480613129.png (691.58 KB, 1200x900, ClipboardImage.png)


I'm completely fed up using MSM retarded media outlets to stay up to date on either breaking news or general trends and events going on. I use guardian every day to get current events but its obnoxious to read that slop after a while. Id rather use blogs and alternative sources of news from people who have a bit less bias, slant, private interests, or total ideological retardation.


steal newsanon sites, snoop around them and look for links to other news sources, mronline has a feed of tons of external sources u can lurk to gather various global as well as independent and also leftist news sites

use RSS. I have about 50 sites i get updates from, for various interests. This is the scale you need, so you can get multiple perspectives and get keyed into big stories. Also most of these update infrequently because theyre relatively independent and small.

Oh btw Telesur is probably my main news on random normal stuff. It's biased, but I like its bias, so it seems pretty normal and non-ideological to me. It covers main news stories that you'd see on NBC or smth, but also things that don't make the patriotic news, as well as critical viewpoints rather than the unwavering trust MSM has in their state department "anonymous sources" and so on.

Don't stop rooting out bias tho. E.g. I have a love-hate relationship with Jacobin, Globetrotter, and The Real News Network. They will have well written pieces, but much bias, generally in very niche ways. Usually I read them only in order to pull out pieces of info or the gist of the actual news theyre reporting on, rather than the meaning and analysis the author gives it. Keep in mind also that many writers write for one news outlet. In independent news, there is less editorial censorship and thus more diverse viewpoints. I remember one news outlet that i found from an article critiquing a right-wing astroturf attempt to discredit the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, and twist the events (protestors vs vigilante thugs, type thing) - and then 10 more stories following the exact script laid out by that article on the same news site, mostly by one author. That was kind of a trip.


>use RSS
Use a feed reader to aggregate updates from RSS feeds, Atom feeds and etc. You can do it for most news sites, most blog sites, on nitter (privacy-focused alternate front-end site for twitter.com), invidious (alt.front-end for YouTube) and all kinds of sites, all showing updates in one spot and without all the junk.
If you pick the right one, or if you use an online RSS Generator website, you can even generate feeds from websites that don't even supply them. That way, you can be notified if this thread gets a reply without even opening your web browser!

File: 1680855569838.jpg (35.04 KB, 1280x720, da duke.jpg)


Is there any difference to how a (well-studied) Marxist, a democratic socialist and an anarcho-communist will each define "socialism"? Is there any contradiction in their definitions?

How would each of them feel about the typical Wikipedia summary?
>Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a range of economic and social systems, which are characterised by social ownership of the means of production,as opposed to private ownership.


Communists define socialism as when the poor people rise up and declass the rich.

Democratic socialists define socialism as raising taxes and giving the slaves a little more air condition.

Anarchocommunists define socialism as some magical fairyland.


>the fairy land that both the Spaniards and Diggers both accomplished before overthrown by other powers


The wikipedia definition is actually not too bad for an all-encompassing definition. This would include things like utopian socialism after all. Marxists would specify it's the mode of production (as would anarcho-communists) and that it's something that will emerge in a revolutionary rupture out of capitalism. Democratic socialists (distinct from social democrats) would say that socialism can be implemented through a series of gradual reforms until society is no longer recognizable as capitalist. Anarcho-communists would say you can and should abolish capitalism here and now and do it from the bottom up by directly seizing the means of production and from there reclaiming society for the working masses. So at a fundamental level there are pretty distinct approaches to the concept that are hard to reconcile.

Ma'am, this is /edu/.


>Communists define socialism as when the poor people rise up and declass the rich
What the fuck is wrong with you


Thanks comrade.

Can I get some feedback on this paragraph, in reference to the Wikipedia definition:
>This definition is very broad. This is because various types of socialist theory have different views on the specifics. For one example, a Marxist will understand socialism as a stage of societal and economic development following the capitalist mode of production and preceding communist society, not as an envisioned ideal utopia, but instead as whatever systems emerge from real attempts to surpass an existing capitalist society. Conversely, a utopian socialist will describe socialism as an imagined system which has achieved ideals such as a worker-controlled economy or various types of social equality. The utopian sees socialism as a specific system which a society can voluntarily establish, whereas a Marxist irreconcilably sees it as the material result emerging from the revolutionary rupture of an existing capitalist society. Another example of a fundamental contradiction is how an anarchist socialist will see socialism as a system that must be achieved from the bottom upwards through revolution, while a democratic socialist (not to be confused with social democrats) believes it can be achieved from the top downwards through government reform.

Target audience is average Joe Liquor; American.

File: 1671636169084.png (2.52 MB, 972x1562, ClipboardImage.png)


So I read The Rape of Nanking a couple weeks ago and something that kinda bothered me, that it wasn't only slightly alluded to in the book, was the mindset of the preparators

From what I've gathered, Prior to 1895, Japan as a whole pretty much had an inferiority complex towards China. China had won every single war with Japan up until that point (if you exclude that time the Mongols tried to invade with collaborating Chinese troops.) the fact that Chinese philosophies, culture, architecture etc heavily influenced Japan in question was well known. Many of Japan's late 20th century generals and even the more nationalistic ones in the 20th had great admiration for things such as Chinese poetry and literature. They couldn't get around the fact that China was essentially Japan's big brother in cultural and military terms for the vast majority of the two's existence.
However, after the first sino-jap war, in which the jap navy completely crushed the Qing navy, the illusion of Qing China being the superior older brother to Japan was completely dissolved in the eyes of the world. Japanese officers witnessed firsthand the miserably poor and awful starvation-tier conditions Chinese civilians lived under in the late stages of the Qing Dynasty. All their respect and apprehension of what they perceived to be a mysteriously powerful China.
so the fact that Japan had emerged as the dominant Eastern power after 2,000 years of Chinese dominance went straight to their fucking heads.(to say the least)
so the biggest reason is that the Japanese soldier was intentionally brainwashed and hammered into a fearless bloodthirsty wild animal by his superiors. Japanese officers in general were largely raised in sheltered, isolated military academies and believed in total racial holy war in which the entire population should die before surrender and had a strange form of contempt for their own civilian population because they weren't soldiers. (better to die as a shattered jewel; one hundred million shattered jewels.) The enlisted ranks were starved, humiliated and beaten to a pulp, sometimes even to death by their officers for even the smallest mistakes and infractions. they were bombarded with totalitarian propaganda from their first day out of their mothers' womb that they were the chosen heavenly master race, all their enemies were demonic insects with no exceptions, and that their only purpose in life was to slaughter and then die themselves as an expendablePost too long. Click here to view the full text.


Any books that go into detail how the Japanese were indoctrinated to think this way?


dan carlins hardcore history supernova in the east is pretty good/informative


File: 1661230517492.png (1.56 MB, 1060x1315, Strawman Marx.png)


I'm in a pretty big dilemma.

My boyfriend claims he is interested in Marxism, yet has an incredibly negative outlook. He believes there will never be a revolution, all narratives of a grand redemption are a lie. He's also swallowed the western Buddhist bullshit (mixed with absurdism) full force; basically, he believes human existence is inevitably empty and absurd and that any attempts at building something bigger and better than ourselves is a mistake. He has a history of depression so that definitely informs his views as well.

He's also a huge fan of Zizek, whom I despise.

The two of us read books together, mostly on religion (Buddhism obviously) and psychology. I'm looking for Marxist texts that we could read together that would shake him out of (or at least question) his bullshit. Namely, I'm looking for books that have both 1. a generally positive outlook on communist revolution or building the communist project, 2. present a strong case for Marxism against rival/bourgeois ideologies, and 3. is philosophical.

Any suggestions would be great.
92 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


You need to unfuck his understanding of philosophy first, and he's not going to jump into Capital (who would without being somewhat convinced of its use first) so that leaves other philosophers and history books. Similarly there's not point throwing any serious Marxist philosopher like Althusser at him because he hasn't read Capital, it'll just go over his head. That leaves:

Nietzsche or D&G. Deleuze is the safer bet. You can also just say fuck it and start with the greeks, skip Plato, read the illiad and then Aristotle.

A soft history book written by a Marxist could be good light reading, like Howard Zinn or TJ Clark for Art History.


Oh if I were to recommend a "Marxist" book it'd be Capitalist Realism, it's kinda retarded but its a good polemic against western mental health and Fisher is a good writer.


> capacity for cooperation
I tend to meme this shit hard, but if you want an actual corollary to > survival of the fittest look no further than everyone's favorite communist fanfiction author Kropotkin. He spent years in fucking Siberia showing that cooperation is just as important as competition in nature.

Don't read the bread book though, its fanfic tier.


How will reading Deleuze unfuck him?


wtf do those stirner and kim quotes have to do with each other lol

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