/edu/ - Education

Post video recordings of lectures and announcements for online lectures.
No right-wing lecture type Jordan Peterson, this isn't 4chan
And let's focus this thread on only Marxists lectures
Previous thread >>6087

When it comes to the study of ancient economic history, one is faced with serious difficulties as a beginner. The usual textbooks normally cover the "histoire événementielle", i.e., the succession of notable historical events and actors (the surface of history), while the works that do cover ancient socioeconomic history are hard to find or outdated, such as Finley's famous book.

Does anyone here have some knowledge in the matter? Can anyone recommend a study process or bibliography? Should one first read the basic textbooks of histoire événementielle and later on deepen the matter or skip directly to the socioeconomic outlook?

I am very lost in this matter and I don't know where to begin, and I'm sure a lot of people are in the same situation in here. And I believe it is very important to have, at least, a broad outlook on the progression of economic history until capitalism, to maybe deepen more specifically in modern history and economics, but with a general view of what came before and the evolution of the present mode of production.

Do you have any resources for someone to learn more about Marxian economics? I don't want to read books; I'd prefer things like lectures and documentaries because it's much easier for me to listen to something, and I'm not much of a reader. Maybe I'll read something down the line

Going through historical records over what actually happened in most wars (both recent and ancient) is making me frustrated over how insultingly weak, passive aggressive, incompetent, and cowardly the vast majority of people and men in general are. Apparently something like 80%+ of all pre gunpowder age battles revolved entirely around intimidating the opponent and only attacking once the enemy was fleeing and had their backs exposed. If that shit wasn’t dishonourable enough, some armours including Persian helmets or Viking berserker armour were specifically designed to make Persians appear taller and Vikings more scrappy to deter opponents rather than anything rooted in battlefield function. The same could be said about most ornamented armour which only tells me that nearly every motherfucker in history have spent generations dicksucking themselves off with meaningless trophies and amateur displays of strength before running and freaking out the moment actual battles occur. In terms of actual fighting, if it wasn’t against already surrendering fleeing opponents, civilian casualties—especially against unarmed, weakened, and defensless civilians—were usually the most common targets of both conquerors and pre socialist revolutionaries effectively rendering any actual fights between warriors as almost nonexistent in preindustrial warfare.

If that cowardly and weak shit isn’t dishonourable enough, just look at the shit going on after the introduction of gunpowder.

Mass casualties among soldiers due to exposure to disease, self inflicted psychological trauma, and tripping related accidents from the napoleonic era to the world wars; reliance on the threat (not the use) of WMDs (of course against defensless civilians because who would approach their opponents up close) to win wars; military leaders somehow getting even weaker and more disconnected from their soldiers as military sophistication improved; the list of things you can make fun of just keep going on.

Vietnam against France was probably the only time where things improved a bit with how easy it was to respect soldiers. It was by this point where stress inoculation as a concept was introduced to military training which meant you had soldiers fighting the way you’d initially imagine against armed and readied opponents instead of picking fights with literal children and adults on the brink of starvation. Does this mean that all wars afterwards suddenly became way more honorablePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

I recently finished Harry Braverman's "Labor and Monopoly Capital" and I am interested in if there's any good work on management science (and particularly from a left perspective).

Manufactured Enemies, Managed Wars: From the Cold War to the War on Terror

By the late 2000s, the curtain had been pulled back on America’s “perpetual enemy machine.” The Cold War, the War on Terror, and even cultural products like *Metal Gear Solid* all reveal the same pattern: empires manufacture threats in order to sustain war economies. The names change — communists, terrorists, rogue states — but the structure remains constant.

—

## Supplying the Enemy: Jordan and Sutton

Major George Racey Jordan, stationed at Great Falls during World War II, kept meticulous diaries of shipments moving to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease. Among the cargo: uranium, heavy water, and precision instruments for nuclear development. Jordan later testified that Washington “deliberately built up the Soviet atomic arsenal.”

Historian Anthony C. Sutton confirmed the broader picture: Western corporations built the Soviet industrial base. “The United States government was, in effect, financing its own enemy,” Sutton wrote in *National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union* (1973). Ford Motor built the Gorky plant, Standard Oil supplied fuel, and General Electric exported electrical infrastructure.

—

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

ITT post information about the history and anthropology of the New World. A lot of new anthropological work has been done in this field in recent decades that has not yet entered public consciousness.

I want to learn more about the peasant class (and landless laborers?) during the classical and medieval period.

I'm especially interested in moments of rebellion, be it successful or not and atypical moments. Like I'm curious about groups that lived somewhat autonomously without being beholden to a king or emperor.(if those even existed)

Recommend me some books, audio, YouTube series,.. whatever format is good tbh, doesn't have to be very specific as I want to understand the general picture.

Is it possible or feasible for a paramilitary group to build a crude nuclear truck bomb? Or is that just fantasies of Ted Kachinszki-type shizos and fearmongerinng by pro-deep state porkies?

Are there any papers or something on the industrialization of the periphery since the 50s or so?

I think the suppressed but gradual industrialization of the periphery could explain a lot about current geopolitics.