[ 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.)
Required: 2 + 2 =

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

| Catalog | Home

File: 1687880879635-0.png (198.95 KB, 850x400, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1687880879635-1.png (714.32 KB, 578x900, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1687880879635-2.png (60.93 KB, 278x104, ClipboardImage.png)


<Nearly all self-proclaimed Marxists are frauds who haven’t even read Marx, let alone understand him. They use the label Marxism, despite knowing nothing about it, as a pseudo-intellectual obfuscation for their liberal ideology.

To begin, what is Marxism?
>Marxism is not a theory of equality. It is not a diagnosis of injustice, nor is it a specific prescription of how to remedy society’s ills. Marxism is a method for acquiring knowledge about the laws governing the historical development of societies. Marxism thus regards itself as a type of science. Most people think of science as something purely descriptive.
<But the reason Marx’s contemporaries called him Prometheus is because he bequeathed a science that did not just describe reality, but participated in its development. This makes Marxism totally contrary to modern science.
>Modern science places knowledge above its object. To know, means to strip something naked to consciousness and turn it into a utility for the knowing subject. He who knows an object, can control, master, and alter an object. But the ‘object’ known by Marxism is none other than human society itself. And the paradox lies in the obvious fact that society is not just an object, but also a subject. Marxists (subjects) are themselves part of the very object they make knowable.
<To complicate matters further, Marx does not claim knowledge of society alone can transform society. Instead, he proves that society is already coming to know and transform itself materially in the form of the then growing proletarian class. Most people think Marx is ‘Promethean’ because he wanted his ideas popularized. But the REAL reason was because he had the courage of declaring the return of knowledge back to being itself, and human beings in particular. He created a science that ceased to be above its object.
>For Marx, the knowledge of historical laws arrived at by consciousness, was being reflected in history itself. Knowledge of humanity does not dominate humanity, but reveals that it was there, and part of it all along. “Communism is the riddle of history solved.”

Why the need for class consciousness?
<This is where people misunderPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
15 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Doesn't matter, when he isn't even a nazi theorist. On the other hand, I can tell you who DIDN'T join the Nazi party but WAS a fascist in essence: Bordiga. His thought was part of the same historical zeitgeist as fascism and its actual intellectuals. The difference is that Heidegger made an error - Bordiga was in essence fascist. Bordiga was actually, historically, A PART of the zeitgeist of fascism as a member of the disillusioned socialist generation reacting to WWI.
What the fuck are you even talking about you actual retard LMFAO
>Anyone studying philosophy studies Heidegger. The Russian communists have discourse with Dugin. Marx was a Hegelian.
Marx broke with philosophy and dismissed it as nothing more than religion rendered into thought and a bourgeois science like any other. Marx's relationship with Hegel is much more complex than "Marx was a Hegelian", Hegel was to Marx the apogee of philosophy, and his break with Hegel ('turning him on his head' – bringing him from the realm of philosophy back to the real world) was his break with philosophy in general. The Russian communists are a complete joke and Dugin is an actual straight-up fascist, you might as well read Schmitt (whom he rips off) as well as Spengler, Gentile (a Hegelian!), de Benoist and all the others. It's much more palatable for your kind, and a much better use of time than trying to fit Marx into academic philosophy when more than a century of so-called thinkers failed to do so lmao


>political support invalidates a thinker

For me, allying with Hitler means I throw all of your books into a bin then piss on it.

>Who is doing this? Are they in the room with you right now or in your walls?

>Martin Heidegger inadvertently lays the foundation for a complete rediscovery of Marx, emancipating Western thought from its metaphysical shackles and opening the way for a truly consistent materialist outlook.

this is what I meant


File: 1687890589318.png (66.76 KB, 602x283, ClipboardImage.png)

>Bordiga was in essence fascist. Bordiga was actually, historically, A PART of the zeitgeist of fascism as a member of the disillusioned socialist generation reacting to WWI.

bitch what the fuck are you smoking pass that shit to me right now, I dont care about him im talking about ML


>>Communist progress is measured in terms of renunciation and resignation, where a revolution finally reaches its limit. This limit alone defines it as progressive, lasting, objective, and part of the immortal history of mankind - for it defines the finitude of civilization itself. Upon realizing the limits of Hegelian absolute knowledge, Marx came upon the proletariat as the solution, the reconciliation, and the wisdom grounding the lofty heights attained by the mind. Upon realizing the limits of European social democracy, Lenin came upon the Bolshevik party, and the strategy of the joint dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. Upon realizing the limits of the geographic spread of revolution, Stalin came upon the theory of Socialism in One Country, and for the first time, Communism acquired a concrete, positive mode of development, and civilization, practically aware of its ground in being. Nothing better epitomizes this aesthetic (ontological sensibility) of renunciation than socialist realism, which drew from impressionism the somber, yet cathartic art of 'settling reality back into place'. All that suffices to grasp the ontological vision of Marxism-Leninism, is to appreciate the transition from the Soviet avant-garde to socialist realism. Upon realizing the limits of the cultural revolution, Deng Xiaoping initiated the reform and opening up, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, which has given Communism an unprecedented vitality, dynamism, and flexibility in the guidance of economic development.
Your formatting is borderline unreadable so my eyes skipped over most of your posts, but they landed on this paragraph and I have to say, it is one of the worst things I've read in my life. Every sentence worse than the last. I hoped to Christ it was an AI prompt, but I googled it just to be sure and found out it was none other than Mr. Two-holes himself. Is this really Hazlet thought?
OP, if you're reading this: if you read all this shit and thought "Mmm-hmm, yeah, that sounds very good" completely genuinely, then please disconnect your internet and never speak again. Your biggest contribution to communism, like all hazlets, would be to commit suicide. If you're not willing to go that far, then voluntary exile away from society would be the best thing. Please. Please.


>so triggered that Deng saved communism
Stay mad dog

File: 1687898076924.png (40.8 KB, 600x700, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.19083[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

How can Marxism be considered anything other than a moralist aka altruistic philosophy?

What is the self-interest in helping the needy?

How is it in anyone's self-interest to try to overthrow the system and create an egalitarian society vs spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today?
148 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>One can give more over a lifetime than they can give in onetime sacrifice of their life usually
Do you just assume that to conscious egoists life has so little value that sacrificing it isn't a loss for them at all? You're thinking of the self-interest in purely market terms. Self-interest is never limited to a mere accumulation of capital, it has no limits.

People are already egoistic.

<But the one who acts from love of filthy profit indeed does it on his own behalf, since in any case there is nothing that one does not do for his own sake, among other things, everything done for the glory of God; but because he seeks profit, he is a slave of profit, not beyond profit; he is one who belongs to profit, to the moneybag, not to himself; he is not his own. Doesn’t a person whom the passion of greed rules follow this master’s orders, and if one time a weak good-naturedness creeps over him, doesn’t this appear as an exceptional case of precisely the same sort as when devout believers are sometimes abandoned by their Lord’s guidance and beguiled by the wiles of the “devil?” So a greedy person is not a self-owned person, but a slave, and he can do nothing for his own sake, without at the same time doing it for his master’s sake—precisely like the God-fearing person.


>but the capitalists decide to buy you out for more than you'd ever get under communism, doesn't it logically self-interestedly make sense to sell out?
Again, there are other desires people pursue. And they're not limited to the profit. But you can do whatever you want, there is no "holy book" of egoism. Some people may prioritize things other than profit and that's still a parfectly egoistic behavior.


>spending their efforts trying to rise in the unjust hierarchical system we live under today?
What's the point of that? To be an exploiting cunt?


Because the issue with Capitalism is not a moral failing of individuals(that porkies are inherently bad) but that they must partake in economic exploitation in order to exist; otherwise no profit would be made. Likewise, as constant capital accumulates(i.e machinery and other resources to increase labor productivity), you create more products for the proletariat to consume, but employ less wage-laborers who would be the buyers of such profits, causing decreasing profit rates eventually leading to crisis.

You could have the most compassionate humans in the world running this system(Marx's arguments in Capital already assume that things are being paid for at value and not below it) and it would still end in crisis eventually under its own economic laws. That's why it's not moralist.


Capitalism is inefficient.
The exploitation of the "needy" is inefficient
The abolition of these inefficiencies means more resources for the vast majority of people.
More resources for everyone means more resources for each individual. Including you, the reader.

File: 1690931088778.jpg (89.82 KB, 736x581, ruderallandscape.jpg)


General thread for the discussion of the ecology of disturbed sites with no more direct human oversight. Think overgrown fields,dilapidated parking lots,young forests,abandoned canals and vegetation overtaking urban decay. of course if someone wants to bring up the historical,anthropological and urbanist perspectives that would be cool too(yeah we multidisciplinary in this bitch). I'll probably bump the thread with charts and maybe some common ruderal species near me which might be relevant to some anons.

Here is a more thorough definition from natureserve:

>Ruderal vegetation is defined as "vegetation found on human-disturbed sites, with no apparent recent historical natural analogs, and whose current composition and structure (1) is not a function of continuous cultivation by humans and (2) includes a broadly distinctive characteristic species combination, whether tree, shrub or herb dominated. The vegetation is often comprised of invasive species, whether exotic or native, that have expanded in extent and abundance due to the human disturbances" (Faber-Langendoen et al. 2014). This definition includes both the "ruderal communities" and "invasive communities" of Grossman et al. (1998), but excludes their "modified/managed communities", which are now treated informally as managed variants of natural types.

>These ruderal ecosystems are sometimes referred to as "novel" or "emerging" ecosystems (Hobbs et al. 2006, Belnap et al. 2012). The vegetation is often comprised of invasive species, whether exotic or native, that have expanded in extent and abundance due to human disturbances, whether from abandonment of sites with cultural vegetation (e.g., abandoned farmland, orchards, plantations), or from extensive alteration and degradation of more natural vegetation. In many landscapes, ruderal ecosystems occupy large areas–sometimes more than any other category of communities–and can provide important biodiversity functions.

>For a ruderal type to be defined based on invasive plant species, it must contain a new set of diagnostic species in the region and have essentially removed the diagnostic species of existing native types. That is, invasive species overwhelmingly dominate a stand (e.g., >90% cover), and native diagnostic species are largely to completely absent, or replaced by new, often "weedy" native species. Setting a hig
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
23 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


On another unrelated note, there's a book by George F Peterken called Natural Woodland: Ecology and Conservation in Northern Temperate Regions which is absolutely fascinating, and which discusses the eclogy of both secondary and "virgin" woodland (the remnants of the fabled Wildwood, such as they still exist) in Europe and the US. I couldn't find if on Lib gen or Z lib, but I found a book he wrote more recently which looks interesting.
Oliver Rackham was a good writer on British woodland ecology too. I've attached one of his books that I've read.


In part 3, I don't really get why he's concerned with those pasture trees, or whatever they were called, disappearing. They don't occur naturally inside forests.


Maybe we should have a general ecology thread instead of derailing this one.


I mean they're good posts so I don't really care but maybe I'll start an ecology general later today and see if the mods can just merge this thread into it


There's an app for this too called iNaturalist that this channel mentioned. It shows you species indigenous to your area and even has community features to join people in projects to restore indigenous ecosystems.

File: 1693497549400.jpeg (102.29 KB, 649x365, vegggan.jpeg)


Is VEGANISM a good thing?

>A vegan diet is based on plants (such as vegetables, grains, nuts and fruits) and foods made from plants. Vegans do not eat foods that come from animals, including dairy products and eggs.

There is veganism for health reasons, for environmental reasons (meat production causes more carbon emissions than plants), and for ethical reasons (animal cruelty). IMO from a marxist perspective the environmental reasons are the most compelling since decarbonization will need to be planned and this probably will include a reduction in the production of animal products.

However veganism is also widely mocked and associated with liberal hipsters.

what is the proper materialist take on VEGANISM??
15 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Veganism was extremely popular among proto-fascists and traditionalists in the early 20th century.


The simple fact is that if you want to protect civilization, you have to make it as efficient as possible. and the most efficient animals are herbivores. Civilization is already herbivore (agriculture) but we waste a significant ammount of plant matter farmign stupid ass meat which is an energy sink.


Veganism is necessary. More than half of the megafauna left on Earth (animals that weight more than 40 kg) are farm animals. That is insane. It destroys entire ecosystems and make us dependable on a few species of animals that are grown close to each other in horrible conditions that make pandemics more likely. Those pandemics can (AND WILL) decimate farm animal populations and create hunger.
We have been artifically selecting plants for thousands of years to have more proteins, be more energetic, have fat and more. We should seize that opportunity.


Veganism is utopian nonsense. See vegan gains. I doubt all of the funny moments are here, but this is what a radical vegan looks like.



political veganism is reactionary
that said, there are many good reasons to move toward vegan industry, primarily climate ones and also shortening the working week


Nuclear Atomic Science Thread
General thread for discussing, studying, engineering and understanding Nuclear/Atomic/Thermonuclear and other related or comparative energy releases or sources. Both nuclear weapons and nuclear powerplants apply. Post photos, illustrations, text, documents, blueprints, articles and studies related to the topic. Limited memes also permissible.
Posadists… make sure to take meds before posting.

Chernobyl thread >>>/hobby/9068
List of US Nuclear Manuals and regulatory instructions: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1536/
Nuclear Energy in Space https://archive.ph/ei3Jg

List of Soviet scientists and officers responsible for the USSR's nuclear technology in alphabetical order:

Nuclear Fusion vs Fission: https://archive.is/Qlgoy
What is an Atomic Reactor: https://archive.ph/1W1jO
What is a Nuclear Bomb: https://archive.is/H29Hl
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
7 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


that's like asking what length is a piece of string, it depends entirely on design, exact fault, conditions, etc


I'm just wondering if a reactor is close to meltdown, can it be stopped safely without making the reactor unusable after? Can the resulting critical mass be reversed? As a general theoretical possibility, not necessarily.


that's what control rods are for anon. and a host of other control mechanisms


File: 1693499012630.png (564.51 KB, 706x349, ClipboardImage.png)

>that's what control rods are for anon. and a host of other control mechanisms
OK thanks, I was just listening to a hypothetical situation and trying to think if it was possible to reverse it.


File: 1693519524796.jpg (77.92 KB, 740x534, optimize.jpg)

>The Japanese government is releasing contaminated water from Fukushima into the open ocean
>Based on predictive models the wastewater will reach Western Seaboard of the USA

>Japan says it's safe for food and water consumption

>The plan has the backing of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which says the release is similar to the disposal of waste water at other plants around the world.
>"Releasing into the ocean is done elsewhere. It's not something new. There is no scandal here," IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said in 2021.
<There is no scandal here, totally safe, believe us!
>Scientists argue that the elements remaining in the water are only harmful to humans in large doses. With dilution the treated water poses no scientifically detectable risk, they say.
>While the tritium is radioactive, it has a half-life of around 12 years, meaning it will disappear from the environment over a period of decades rather than centuries.
<Be happy, instead of your childrens' children also suffering possible radiation poisoning and the planet suffering for centuries, instead it'll just be you and your generation of people and just the remainder of this century that suffers the impacts, What JOY!
As if Earth and we weren't suffering enough. Japanese literally eat dolphins and Bluefin Tuna which have incredibly high levels of heavy metals because of their position in the food web causing magnification through bioaccumulation in trophic transfer. They also consume Fugu and live octopus, so their standard of "safe consumption" seems to have a low bar.

>muh international committees

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


An excellent documentary on the murder of a hero from comrade Roo
Hopefully he does a documentary on Gaddhafi next



A cryptic new language Tutnese has been the talk of the town among the FBA community. Unfortunately there aren't many books about Tutnese that are not long out of print, and borderline grifter Nasheed has promoted Tutnese strongly but refuses to release the goods. Dump PDFs of relevant information here so that more folks can have the opportunity to pick up Tutnese freely.


from doing a quick Google search, it looks like a pig-latin-esque language game.


bump because why not


I feel like one of the biggest obstacles to understanding Marx's most crucial works is that he writes for an audience that he assumes already knows a ton of context, which makes sense considering his own context as a journalist for revolutionary workers on the streets themselves. It still makes those writings confusing to anyone that isn't an academic that has the privilege of having absorbed context. So, what are some good history books that can fill in that gap?

Some specific topics:
—English political economy from Adam Smith to the repeal of the Corn Laws
—Early communist party (Cabet, Blanqui, League of the Just, Communist Correspondence Committee, etc.)
—1848 Revolutions and aftermath
—Napoleon III's coup
—Paris Commune
—First International activities and drama
—General 19th century European history

I found this on the Paris Commune a while ago, pretty decent: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mitchell-abidor-voices-of-the-paris-commune
32 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.




Got this biography of Marx that might be useful. It's going for context around Marx developing his ideas.


>I asked for advice once to see if there was some common reading guide and I got called a retard and told the book was the reading guide
yeah these stinky NEET anons think everyone is jobless and childless like them. Like these motherfuckers don't understand that the only chance I have to read Marx is on a treadmill thursday night


File: 1693193897484.png (70.55 KB, 488x160, ClipboardImage.png)

2 years too late but what do you mean by "common reading guide"? If you mean an order of reading, the Marx/Engels reader is already that. Using this https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Marx-Engels-Reader.pdf as a reference, there also seem to be some annotations giving context.


Are you a comrade working on something for school or uni that utilizes math or physics?
Need help on a problem?
Developing a new mathematical theory of marxism?

Post here and ill try to help.

Love & Solidarity
16 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Any opinions of experimentalists on the supposed high Tc SC? Kinda sounds too good to be true


I've identified a need in my region for a product.
It would be assembled from parts imported from China presumably. Who would know what kind of parts specifically and could foresee obvious pitfalls? A mechanical or process engineer or something, or some kind of consultant?


protip: if the question doesn't say to prove something, it's most likely because you can't do so and it wants you to argue against the conclusion


Exercise 2.4.103

Am I dumb? mx''+kx=0, m=5000, x(0)=0.1, x'(0)=1, the general solution is known to be A*cos(ot)+B*sin(ot) where o=sqrt(k/m).

But if I try to solve this, I get A=0.1, and B=1/o. So k=m/B² but I only know m, both B and k are unknown? What am I missing?


bump >>20179

File: 1693104889056-0.png (279.87 KB, 512x336, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1693104889056-1.png (224.88 KB, 600x396, ClipboardImage.png)


Bourgeois economists embraced labor theory of value (which originated from Adam Smith of all people) until Marx. Marx got bourgeois economists to abandon the labor theory of value because he took it to its logical conclusion of the proletarian revolution against the bourgeois class dictatorship. As a result of bourgeois economists abandoning the labor theory of value in order to distance mainstream economics from Marx's conclusions, they began to embrace quackery like marginal utility theory and the subjective theory of value.

Enough background. Let me get to the point. I was wondering, are there any books that outline the differences in vocabulary used by bourgeois economists before and after Marx? They did a lot of linguistic obfuscation after Marx, and it might be helpful to get a breakdown of that, because it's hard to even tell what bourgeois economists are talking about sometimes if your vocabulary is already marxist, or vice-versa, if you learned "mainstream" economics first and then pick up Marx 2nd. Sometimes it can feel like you're speaking two different languages, because the technical glossaries of each approach to viewing the world differ so much.

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