/edu/ - Education

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

>>2051
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.

>>2056
The irony is that Stalin's paranoia about the fragility of the communist project is what made the project so fragile.

>>2309
Considering that it lasted more than 2x his life-time and was the second world superpower of its time… nope.

>>2316
Considering that people starved in the 30s and eventually it failed… yep.

>>2339
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.

>>2054
> 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

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.

>>2357
The reason no-one answered is precisely because its so easy, idiot.

>>2357
It's a dead board man;
I don't know what you were expecting

>>4420
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.

>>4422
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).

>>4423
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 …

>>4420
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

>>6365
I don't think Benjamin or Lukács was part of the Frankfurt School. Then again, Debord wasn't either, so idk.

>>6366
Lukacs was simultaneously an intellectual forefather and early critic of the franky boys, and Benjamin's debates with Adorno are well documented.

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

>>6406

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

Like the Gilded Age?

>>1851
this one is quite good

>>2287
forgot link
https://youtu.be/ySnk-f2ThpE

>>1835
WTF, you don't read at least 100 pages of information everyday? Repent, sinners. No wonder the civilization has decayed so much. Cease all the unnecessary normie activity everyday, instead focus on attain wizardhood

>>1835
skimming

>>2031
Given that he wrote notes on the side of the page often, I would reckon otherwise.

>>1835
You probably read an equivalent amount of content on your screen every day

>>1854
I think this is one of those rare brain conditions that is actually a positive benefit. My ex was diagnosed with it, but I can't remember the name of it.

>>1822
This thread addresses Leninism primarily cunt.

bump

What is to be done as class-conscious proletarians of the developed countries if Revolution can only arise from developing nations, and those populations do not desire our adventurist migration there?

>>1821
>The increased profits enable these companies to pay higher wages to their employees "at home" (that is, in the developed world)

has anybody verified this using data if possible? doesn't this imply that as places like China become more 'developed' and wages rise, wages will balance out between the developed/developing world and perhaps agitate the proletariat in developed countries to revolution?

>>1815
Yes, look at your own map, most blue countries/regions are descended from Europe: Canada, US, Argentina, Europe, Russia, Australia. China and Japan are outliers, if anything it proves that one can train for the test, and that is what they do, they literally train how to take these standardised tests. Both China and Japan have cultures where academic success is respected and something that people strive for, so of course those countries will have higher test AVERAGES, because there are simply more of them who do well.

IQ is a bit meh. Of course, there are various aspects to what is considered intelligence; so even if you have good measures for the aspects, it's somewhat arbitrary how you weight them. Extremely bad results can tell you whether somebody is disabled. We know IQ tests aren't perfect, the weighting issue aside. There are programs for solving IQ tests, yet this doesn't give us a general simulation of human intelligence.

The way IQ talk is used in political discussion – as a cause, not as both cause and effect – is asinine. If you are malnourished and live in a polluted area, you get brain-damage from that, no matter how great your genetic potential is.

There is some correlation between very good IQ results and doing well in school. But it doesn't make sense to obsess over two people being ten or fifteen points apart. IQ test results are NOT stable over life, that's a big lie that I suspect people tell who know better and who want to score above the herd. You can definitely practice for these tests and improve by twenty to thirty points. I don't think you can get from 80 to 150 though.

>>1810
Your argument about test-making and solving assumes a symmetry that isn't there. I can create a vocabulary test against a dictionary without having perfect memory about what's in the dictionary myself. I can set a higher time-limit for myself as a test-maker than I allow for the test-taker and I can allow myself to use certain tools that I don't allow the test-takers to use. I can make very hard puzzles about shoving pieces around by going backwards from the solution, that doesn't mean I can solve puzzles of similar complexity myself. It's easier to multiply prime numbers than to be shown the result of that multiplication and having to find the prime numbers from that.

>>1810
>IQ was designed in the same way, European (white) males are taken to be the standard against which others are tested.
I’m not incredibly pro IQ or anything but this is such a bullshit argument. IQ was created by the school board to identify students with learning disabilities.

>>3036
>IQ was created by the school board to identify students with learning disabilities.
The original IQ test as created by Binet, yes, it was meant to identify children with learning disabilities. But then the Americans took it, and created the Stanford-Binet scale, among others. That is the IQ test we talk about and know today.

I'm not talking out of my ass, I got my info from pic related. It's a good book and you should read it.

>Your argument about test-making and solving assumes a symmetry that isn't there.
My point is that the test (actually, in the beginning there were two tests, for literate and illiterate people, it's actually a very interesting story, but I digress) was designed in a way that it presented people with problems and then timed them on how fast they're able to complete the tasks, if at all. Now, why would the test-creator assign tasks that he himself cannot solve?

The original IQ test asked things about days of the week, about American culture, asked them about radio, etc. basically, it tested white, middle-class intelligence. Poor whites also did poorly on the tests. The test didn't test "intelligence", but integration into American society, it asked questions that the test-makers knew the answer to.

And I ask again, how can someone ask a question they themselves can't answer and then judge someone on the validity of that answer?

>>3042
>how can someone ask a question they themselves can't answer and then judge someone on the validity of that answer?
That question was already answered ITT, you are just too dumb to get it :/

Li Zehou’s “History of Classical Chinese Thought” is from from a Marxist (albeit also vaguely small-n nationalist) perspective and people may find it useful
https://b-ok.cc/book/5576067/51bb02
I have personally found Karyn Lai’s “Introduction to Chinese Philosophy,” while not Marxist, accessible and interesting
https://b-ok.cc/book/730929/dc0ae1
The social context of these matters but is interesting and not at all Strange and Inscrutable to westerners really - Western philosophical revivals also tended to happen in the midst of periods of interminable interstate wars etc

>>1775
>Hegel even said he studied Chinese and Indian philosophy and found nothing except meaningless superficiality.
p rich coming from Hegel lmao

This just underlines the need for the project outlined in the OP here: >>216
>We should make a general history guide for an overview on leftists history movements/people/thinkers that type of thing

Taoism used/use a dialectical method

Hegel was basically importing eastern dialectics and applying a few changes.