[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / 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.)

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

| Catalog | Home

File: 1608528044560.jpg (69.34 KB, 1280x720, maxresfefsdefault.jpg)


Anyone have a PDF of Charles Fourier's "The Hierarchies of Cuckoldry and Bankruptcy"? I need it because reasons.
5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Some anon scanned it.


Here: >>>/edu/1734



Bright minds, dark attitudes: The association of cognitive ability with right-wing ideological attitudes and prejudice:
A meta-analytic review

Evidence of right wing attitudes and political beliefs associated with a low cognitive ability and a hypothesis of low cognitive ability encouraging right wing beliefs and negative response to inter-group contact as a means of conserving limited mental resources.



File: 1629913312084.jpg (43.41 KB, 369x500, s-l500.jpg)


im interested in learning about physics and i am absolutely new to the subject, and if anyone could recommend any books related to physics that would be great! thank you:)
13 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


The guy is deranged, even Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica makes more sense than him.




>For example take the kinetic energy equation. The modern one in bourgeois science books (E=1/2mv^2) exaggerates the importance of velocity. Applying this model to the work environment creates the guise that in order to produce a larger output, more velocity is required ie. the workers have to work faster to maximize the transfer of energy and productivity. Thus the porky indoctrinates the masses with this to increase his rate of profit
this is by far the most deranged thing i have read since i stopped visiting /sci/


These sound really cool but I did not watch them yet: https://theoreticalminimum.com/


Is any of Engels' math in Anti-Dühring wrong, or outdated (wrong to a lesser extent)? I showed my STEMlord friend some of these quotes and they didn't understand what they meant:

>It is for example a contradiction that a root of A should be a power of A, and yet A^(1/2) = square root of A.

> It is a contradiction that a negative quantity should be the square of anything, for every negative quantity multiplied by itself gives a positive square. The square root of minus one is therefore not only a contradiction, but even an absurd contradiction, a real absurdity. And yet the square root of minus one is in many cases a necessary result of correct mathematical operations. Furthermore, where would mathematics — lower or higher — be, if it were prohibited from operation with square root of minus one?

>We have already noted that one of the basic principles of higher mathematics is the contradiction that in certain circumstances straight lines and curves may be the same. It also gets up this other contradiction: that lines which intersect each other before our eyes nevertheless, only five or six centimetres from their point of intersection, can be shown to be parallel, that is, that they will never meet even if extended to infinity. And yet, working with these and with even far greater contradictions, it attains results which are not only correct but also quite unattainable for lower mathematics.
14 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>Or does it not make sense to give a counter-example that involves i because of what you said in your post (excluding them)?
This. i was invented to resolve the contradiction.

>What does "gives a positive square" mean?

The square is the number B you get by multiplying the number A by itself. The square of 2 is 4. Etc.
It's often mixed up with square root, which is the reverse - the number B you must multiply by itself to get the number A. The square root of 4 is 2.
It just so happens that both the square and square root of 1 are also 1, because 1 is the identity quantity. I think this may be part of the confusion.
A "positive square" means a positive number you get from multiplying two numbers together. Unless you include i (and by extension the complex numbers), you can only have a positive square, because a negative times a negative cancels to being a positive.

>If it's because you exclude them, I think that makes much more sense to me but that would seem to suggest that i is really a concept invented to "hide" this contradiction that exists at the simple level of maths.

It's only a "contradiction" because the system was constructed assuming that this was impossible. Basically, the assumption that because we don't know any "real" number that can be squared and give a negative, there is no such thing. But the fact that you can express the idea of a square root of a negative makes it possible to make a mathematical construct representing that. Once you have that much you can extend the math. The fact that complex numbers are pretty widely applicable IRL means that the "contradiction" was more like a limit on the original model.


this thread has nothing really to do with engels and everything with people not understanding high school math


>STEM lord
>Doesn't understand
lemme guess… the E in stem?


Good thing you didn't explain Engels' maths or answer any of the questions I raised. Wanna explain >>5004 ?


I don't get the first and the last quotes, they seem nonsense.

The second is trickery, like dialectics itself. Engels is technically wrong there, but if we are charitable we can claim he is just sloppy and forgot to mention the positive case. It would go like this:
1. We want to find a number such that squaring it (multiplying it with itself) is negative.
2. Squaring a positive number is positive. (Engels fails to mention this.)
3. Squaring a negative number is positive.
4. This is the "contradiction", that we are looking for a number that does not exist.
5. Now we arrive at the "dialectical" movement that preserves the previous points while abolishing the contradiction: instead of just considering positive and negative numbers, we introduce a new number "i", which is neither positive nor negative and magically solves our problem.

File: 1628047524399.png (353.67 KB, 480x480, ClipboardImage.png)


What the fuck with this:

>The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

Am I missing something?

The paradox of intolerance is fucking retarded concept and popper could've figured this out if he just exercised the almonds.

Here's the real deal. There is no "intolerance of intolerence" or other stupid word games, there is only intolerance to injustices. This is a re-branded "muh authoritarianism" bullshit. Either there is justice or you implement it by force. Otherwise you're letting injustice exist.

Every time I hear Popper's name, it's always in some ultra-lib cunty context. How is this pseud taken seriously?
10 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


That's an insanely based quote. I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about the paper.


This. What does "tolerance" even mean? And what, you're going to "tolerate" other people? At that point aren't you admitting that you don't like them but you've decided you'll just put up with them? It's such a liberal idea of how to look at other people, harboring some secret, seething hatred but tolerating other people instead of being in open conflict with them.


>But frankly I don't care about any of this, tolerance is fucking retarded because people have used the word so much they've forgotten what it means and that it isn't all that positive a meaning anyhow. It's a liberal delusion that's a perfect tool for Porky to split the working class with idpol and the inevitable clashing between minority sects.
We should do a genealogical analysis of terms used by liberals.

Oh shit anon, sorry. Only saw your comment now.

But either way, it's a good introduction and explanation of historical materialism. It talks about what the author (and me) considers to be the correct interpretation of Marxist historiography, and points outs that Popper's argument is actually invalid as it misinterprets it. But he himself doesn't actually consider hismat to be true, because, as he states:

>[…]although limited in scope, the above outline of Marx central theory suggests that it is by far a more complex theory than that which Russell makes of it. However, a defense of one particular reading of a theory over another should not entail an endorsement of the theory in question. I may agree that the correct reading of Kant commits him to a `two world’ epistemological theory, yet, strongly disagree with regards to the validity of Kant’s transcendental idealism.

And presents Max Weber's interpretation of history, the one that talks about the importance of psychology and protestant ethics to the development of capitalism, as opposed to the changes in modes of production, which themselves provoke class struggle.

But even then, he still finds shortcomings in Weber's theory and muses at the amount of evidence supporting Historical Materialism.

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


So, what about Popper's Falsifiability idea?


Popper is a fucking pseud


looking for some leftist (or at least lefty friendly) books on the history of the Afghanistan war. I often find that a lot of these types of leftist history books demand a working knowledge of the topic, which I only barely have.

File: 1627851069995.jpg (27.02 KB, 500x523, Darkwell_3.jpg)


this site good for leftist newbies who want to learn about socialism.
This pdf explains Socialism for dummies. I found it to be very informative.



>>6679 (me)
I will translate it and give it to some kids


absolutely fantastic

thanks op

File: 1627846991034.jpeg (247.84 KB, 800x1224, the_wealth_of_nations.jpeg)


I am going to tackle An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith to advance my understanding of the classical tradition of political economy of which marxist political economy is an extension.
The german political economist and translator of the Wealth of Nations Peter Thal writes in this regard
>Smith’s work lives on in the proletarian political economics; yes only here his true scientific elements have found a lasting monument
I am currently looking for an equivalent to David Harvey's Companion to Marx's Capital which helped me a lot to better understand Marx howsoever it's important to read Harvey critically

tl;dr: ITT we share secondary literature with regard to Adam Smith and his magnum opus the Wealth of Nations.
in german or english
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


let us enjoy our autism
since you read 8 chapters of Vol 2 why not read the first chapter on Smith which is Ch 10? IIRC its all about smith confusing constant capital which later develops into Marx calling him foolish for thinking all revenue can be resolved into v+saccelerationAcceleration


i think i am gonna read chapter 10 and 19 of Vol.2 before before I start with WoN


bump for classical economics


File: 1628160538248.pdf (4.67 MB, 186x300, pre-marxian-economy.pdf)

Pdf related, this book is a must read for anyone interested in classical Political Economy and Marx's predecessors/influences. Also, if you're looking for some of Marx's notes on The Wealth of Nations and Smith, check here:



File: 1627443472375.jpg (218.54 KB, 805x1200, Socialist Family.jpg)


Does anyone have some books which explains the way in which the Soviet economy worked? I am looking specifically at how prices and quantities of goods were adjusted to correspond the demands and needs of the people. Although 1929-1953 is nice, I am more interested in the post-Stalin era of 1961-1985. You can also post how plans worked for other countries such as East Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia, etc.

I am also searching for technical books which explains in detail how the planning process operates in modern China and how this process relate to the economy and private markets in general.

These books can be pro or anti Soviet style planning, although I'd obviously prefer some books which are advocating for such economic models.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


I meant >>>/leftypol/405443 of course


File: 1627479923265.jpg (96.96 KB, 800x800, 68358327.jpg)

I use this thread as an opportunity to post my new USSR econ reading list:

Allen, R.C. (2009). Farm to factory : a reinterpretation of the Soviet industrial revolution. Princeton University Press.
Chattopadhyay, P. (1994). The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience: Essay in the Critique of Political Economy. Praeger.
Costello, M. (1977). Workers’ Participation in the Soviet Union. Central Books.
Davies, R.W. (1998). Soviet economic development from Lenin to Khrushchev. Cambridge University Press.
Harrison, M. (2002). Accounting for War Soviet: Production, Employment, and the Defence Burden, 1940–1945. Cambridge University Press.
Nove, A. (1990). An Economic History of the USSR. Penguin Books.
Resnick, S.A. and Wolff, R.D. (2002). Class Theory and History: Capitalism and Communism in the USSR. Routledge.
Davies, R.W. The Industrialization of Soviet Russia, Volume 1-7. Harvard University Press.



Nice list. I'm not OP, but I'd been looking for something like this. I've heard of only a couple of these books, so having a list like this is helpful. Thanks!


Ismail has uploaded quite a few books on soviet planning and soviet economics, use the search box



helped to bomb nazis by allies as well

File: 1627223538185.png (1.97 MB, 2550x6000, cambodia.png)


Did the Cambodian Genocide happen? Is picrel true or full of shit? If it happened, was it justified? Was Chomsky right to deny it at the time? Will this OP reach 200 chars? So many questions, so few answers.


I can't speak of Pol Pot's "achievements" and whether he's worth defending or not, but Michael Vickery is legit and anticommunists have certainly inflated the death toll while trying to whitewash the damage they themselves caused in Indochina.


Where is it possible to find modern and materialist history of things?
Why everytime i search for something I always have to to through pile of positivist brainlets?
I want a library full of Materialist Analysis of history. Why i cannot find out history of the Mongol Empire and Lamaism without reading through some micky mouse shit about
>lmao they chinks they think like dat
>lmao das tradition mane
>lmao religion says x therfore y happen
why there is no fucking historian who explain the material basis of these thoughts of tradition in the first place? No wonder people are geographically and historically illiterate
5 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I'm also interested in this


Thank you



Dead board


bumping on /edu/, maybe it will get more responses here

Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / 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