/edu/ - Education

>>12782
What pills?

>>12942
gay pills

>>12771
Technically true, but it means something to other people. That matters.

This is the current most bumped thread on the education board
Let that sink in

>>12952
Neat

>>18042
>Capital has sadly been removed from Marxists.org for copyright claims
uh, no it hasn't
>>18064
shortest communist meme

>>18065
We know from further up the thread comrade >>18047

One edition they were holding has been
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/index.htm
Come the revolution I will greatly enjoy electrocuting Lawrence & Wishart by the testicles Inshallah

>>18064
there's a bunch of form feed characters ( U+000C). cleaned up txt (tr -d '\014') attached
>>18066
I see. I think Marx' PhD thesis is also not on there for similar reasons

>>18066
a lot of the stuff removed by lowrinse and fishfart can still be found on the archives

>>18067
thanks comrade

>>18213
Literally nobody outside your fbi.gov.org pseudo-friend circle gives a shit.
Save it for there and spare us.

>>18213
cringe

from what I remember of the threads about moscow trials, I had been convinced they were legit, and had all the necessary proofs through cross examination of testimonies and a few docs.


>>18207
>>18214
if the topic doesnt interest you just fuck off elsewhere maybe ? go touch grass for example

>>18213
its funny cuz every trot org will accuse slightly different leninists of the exact same shit ion even fw tukhachevsky like that Im just sick and tired of minor sectarian issues being treated seriously

>>18206
Interesting article here:

https://stalinistcivilization.substack.com/p/killing-tukhachevsky
>Tukhachevsky persists in the historical imagination as a deeply fascinating character. The “Red Napoleon” who never was, a brilliant military thinker whose life ended in abrupt fashion at the hands of the NKVD. The execution of Tukhachevsky and his allies has traditionally been characterized as a carefully orchestrated campaign of lethal repression carried out to ensure Stalin’s absolute power. This Cold War era narrative, which has largely been discredited with the opening of Soviet archives, has been used to show how Stalin’s ostensible megalomania sabotaged his own army’s prospects on the eve of war. On the other end, many contemporary Marxist-Leninists, adhering to the view of Stalin’s Soviet state, justify the execution of Tukhachevsky on the grounds that he was the ringleader of a fascist plot.

>In contrast to both of these theories, I draw on the work of various historians to argue that the execution of Tukhachevsky was the outcome of a factional power-struggle between two competing visions over the strategic direction of the Red Army. Tukhachevsky’s notorious personal power ambitions and his embittered military-strategic opposition to Stalin’s officer, Voroshilov, were perceived as a source of internal disunity capable of a producing a crisis that could potentially derail the war effort. Historian Vladmir Rogovin, in reference to the Stalin-era purges, stressed the importance of needing “to separate the fantastic and absurd charges from the evidence of the defendants' genuine anti-Stalinist activity” (Rogovin, 1998, p. 482). This requires going beyond Stalin’s psychology and the sensationalism of the Moscow Show Trials to find the power-struggle and oppositional politics at the heart of this matter.

>>18668
I suspect if you go read through the primary texts you'll find that the denizens of the republic by and large viewed themselves as searching for truth in dialogue with others like socrates than picking produce from the market place of ideas

To the extent you may be correct it would have been from the fringe gawkers only engaging in the movement through consumption

Ah I believe we may be onto something here on the genealogy of the pomo burger brainrot

>Ah I am an intellectual I read journals publishing letters from the republic picking and choosing truth like I am shopping for a fancy

Here I suspect we have the ur postmodernist cockroach shuttling around feeding off scraps in the dark

>>18669
>republic by and large viewed themselves as searching for truth in dialogue with others like socrates than picking produce from the market place of ideas

whats the difference

>>18666
>Jefferson already have the idea of a republic of letters in the 18th century
The "republic of letters" isn't equivalent to the "marketplace of ideas," and the concept (and term) predated Jefferson by centuries.
>Hayek's theory of knowledge is a totally different thing which says that tacit knowledge is distributed throughout society and that the market and price signals are a way of communicating that knowledge.
That would be the middle period Hayek, more under the influence of Michael Polanyi. For the later Hayek (in "The Fatal Conceit", this summary makes the similarities clearer:
<Strangely for a doctrine that started out so concerned about respect for the inviolate individual and his or her subjectivity, the late Hayek rendered his system internally coherent by admitting that some knowledge did not really persist at the level of the individual mind, for the most part, but was processed and invested with meaning at the suprapersonal level. In a catch phrase, since so much that people actually knew was inaccessible to them, the only entity that really was capable of judging and validating human knowledge was The Market. The key turning point, as Hayek informs us in The Fatal Conceit, was his essay “Competition as a Discovery Procedure” (1968):
>[Epistemology is governed by] competition as a procedure for the discovery of such facts as, without resort to it, would not be known to anyone…. The knowledge of which we speak consists rather of a capacity to find out the particular circumstances, which becomes effective only if the possessors of this knowledge are informed by the market which kinds of things or services are wanted, and how urgently they are wanted… . Knowledge that is used [in a market] is that of all its members. Ends that it serves are the separate ends of all those individuals, in all their variety and contrariness.10
<No longer was knowledge being treated as an elusive thing by Hayek, scattered about in an inconvenient matter; in this version, not only is much human knowledge unable to be retrieved from within by the individual in question but, indeed, there exists a species of knowledge not “known” by any individual human being at all. Here we are cosseted in the Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>18661
>>18662
Talk about how schizo it is to call every non-Abrahamicuck a single word, rather than engaging in labelbrain & associationist arguments about the postmodernism boogeyman.

>>18670
>whats the difference
A republic isn't a marketplace, for one. The former is a political notion, with each member having an equal vote and the ability to change the system in substance. A marketplace doesn't suppose such an equality or even a voice in how this market functions, and the consumers exercise influence only on the vendors who operate within it. While the "republic of letters" implies the ability to enact changes in the form and content of the political system, the "marketplace of ideas" implies a more limited control over content and no direct control over the form.

>Are workers unions easily incorporated by capitalism and reduced to mild reformism which just keeps capitalism alive?
Only up to a point. There are limits to this, which are becoming apparent in the more developed capitalist countries.
Once you are unable to meet labor's demands or to pervert unions for capital's interests, things start to get spicy.
>Why then is there such a large support from radlibs here for unions when they do not have any real revolutionary potential by themselves?
Why is there such support for reading books or arming the workers when neither of those have reveolutionary potential by themselves?
Because revolutionary potential is a confluence of multiple factors, among them being the level of organization of the working class(es) to which unions are a major contributor.
>What's a better alternative, or actual revolutionary unions?
Don't think in terms of "alternatives" here. Life is not a video game where you pick the based option and things work out.
What should happen is that the tools that currently exist are put to their best use (and building up unions is an important step in most of the world at this time), and reconfiguring existing tools into more suitable ones (radicalizing and militarizing unions) and/or building necessary tools that don't yet exist (various types of communist and workers' organizations that are nonexistent, gutted, meaningless, or phony diversions).

>>18032
>Because revolutionary potential is a confluence of multiple factors, among them being the level of organization of the working class(es) to which unions are a major contributor

Well Camatte was covering how the proletarian identity is reflexively given a privileged position by communists automatically. The problem with workers unions under capitalism they are very easy to subvert the real negating power they have. You toss a few disgruntled workers a few extra dollars per hour and they are satisfied with the current state of society as is. They are in a domesticated to accept scraps rather than continuing to use the discontent to undermine capitalism. Namely that their end goals are to just earn more and better working conditions under capitalism and not really to overthrow it in any way

>>18032
>reconfiguring existing tools into more suitable ones (radicalizing and militarizing unions)
How would this happen? And how would you get to a point where normie unions are accepting of this shift?

>>18033
This kind of thing only works if the proles lack the class consciousness to understand that they can get a lot more for themselves and others if they don't just accept those small bribes. That's why it's a confluence of multiple factors. In this case the combination of organized workers and theoretical understanding acts as a defense against this kind of subversion. Which is why part of the task is to make the unions more radical and more literate. It's not enough to have greater organization (which means greater command of workers' already-existing power) – you also need sufficient understanding to wield that power effectively.
>They are in a domesticated to accept scraps rather than continuing to use the discontent to undermine capitalism.
Only so long as the scraps are sufficient to sustain a reasonable quality of life, which is quickly no longer the case in the imperial core thanks to neoliberalism, which is a consequence of both a progressing "corruption" of the bourgeois state away from more rational economics toward narrow, short term profitability and a natural tendency of the system as the rate of profit falls.

>>18034
Depends on the scenario. Ideally you'd have union leadership pushing for that since that would be most efficient and effective. Alternatively you could form a revolutionary faction within a union that starts with something as simple as hosting reading groups focused on labor organizing history and tactics, because that's of very direct interest to the union as a whole and would be a lot more likely to spread within it. The more the union membership understands of theory the more effective it will be, and the greater the incentive to read more. If a union is operating in that mode it is already "doing Marxism" in the philosophical sense of applying materialist theory and praxis. From there it's not as hard as you might think to introduce communism.

>>18644
>What he's saying is that people misunderstand class and think it's like an in-born quality instead of your economic situation that can change

Nobody is saying that or said that in Soviet Russia.

That being said, the bourgeoisie will not just give up their position. You have to beat them without mercy.

>>18649
The bourgeoisie weren't disenfranchised
Maybe some individuals were, but not the whole class

>>18651
And even this meager policy was repealed in the 30s anyways

>>18651
Yes they were lol, anyone using hired labour was banned from voting and other privileges.

>>18653
Nope, also they were still able to press for concessions like the NEP, and they were still able to manage their capital with a few stipulations, something that gave them realer power than the state
The Bolsheviks' criteria for disenfranchisement was stupid. It mainly targeted "idlers", so if a bourgeois worked directly for their company, or better yet became an administrator in the Soviet state, they were exempt
Only some financial and rentier bourgeois were affected because they were "idle parasites", not because they were bourgeois

>>18636
The role of Indian communists in both analysis and struggle against caste-ism is not studied enough in the west IMO. It's different but there is something to learn from it. Race in the U.S. is like a caste system.

>Caste really became rigid and fossilised in the medieval era. The colonial system under the British rule both further rigidised the caste-system as well as opened up ways for its weakening. The contradictory processes of limited and colonial industrialisation and semi-capitalist development loosened the caste-bonds, and at the same time created new castes, bondings and rigidities. Factories and mills objectively weakened caste as a structure. The growth of the market including the labour-market, money-commodity exchange and the far greater movement of men and material (roads, railways, etc.) violated caste-barriers. As S.A. Dange was fond of saying, one never knew in whose plate one was eating in an eating-place or which castes and hands in a factory handled the threads in a factory.

>The British colonial system needed the caste-system, at the same time, as a source of cheap, even bonded labour. The disintegrating caste hierarchy was sought to be kept alive as forms of movement of labour. New caste practices came up eulogising the ideology of casteism and ‘glorious’ histories of each one of the castes were written. It has to be realised that casteism is basically a product of colonialism.

>The recruitment of urban labourers, factory hands and even educated personnel took the form of the transfer and migration of people of the same caste, village, district, and language groups to towns, mills and businesses. These castes were basically the most depressed ones. In the rural areas the oppression of the lowermost ‘castes’ (by birth) was most virulent; their members were thus ‘liberated’ by industrialisation and urbanisation, often resulting in the preservation even increase in caste-consciousness.

>Caste began to break up but casteism gained strength.
https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv12n1/caste.htm

>>18637
I'm not sure that i agree that caste systems are exclusive to the indian subcontinent. I cant think of anything that describes, for example, the american jim crow era policies of segregation and banned miscegenation, as anything but a caste system. I think caste is more pervasive than just india, which actually might be why socialism has so much difficulty describing social issues outside of class analysis.

For if existent things, as objects of vision and of hearing and of the senses in general, are by definition externally existent, and if these visible things are apprehensible by sight and audible by hearing, and not vice versa, how, in this case, can these things be indicated to another person? For the means by which we indicate is speech, and speech is not identical with the really subsistent things; therefore we do not indicate to our neighbor the existent things but speech, which is other than what subsists. Thus, just as the visible things will not become audible, and vice versa, so too, since the existent subsists externally, it will not become identical with our speech; and not being speech, it cannot be revealed to another person.
Speech, moreover, is formed from the impressions caused by external objects, that is to say, objects of sense; for from the occurrence of flavor there is produced in us the speech uttered concerning this quality, and by the incidence of color speech respecting color. And if this be so, it is not speech that serves to reveal the external object, but the external object that proves to be explanatory of speech. Moreover, it is not possible to assert that speech subsists in the same fashion as things visible and audible, so that the subsisting and existent things can be indicated by it as by a thing subsisting and existent. For, he says, even if speech subsists, yet it differs from the rest of subsisting things, and visible bodies differ very greatly from spoken words; for the visible object is perceptible by one sense-organ and speech by another. Therefore speech does not serve to indicate the great majority of subsisting things, even as they themselves do not reveal each other’s nature.
But even if they are known, how could anyone reveal them to someone else? For how could anyone express what they have seen in speech or, how could it become clear to the hearer, if he has not seen it? For just as sight does not recognize sounds, so, likewise, hearing does not recognize colors, but only sounds; moreover, the speaker speaks, but he does not speak a color or a thing. So, when someone has no conception, how could he conceive it through someone else’s words, or through some sign which is other than that thing, unless he sees it, if it is a color, or he hears it, if it is a sound? For, firstly, nobody speaks a sound or a color, but only a word; so that it is not possible to think a color but only to see it; nor to think a sPost too long. Click here to view the full text.