[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ GET / ref / booru]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Password (For file deletion.)

New Announcement: IRC<=>Matrix bridge #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new every Monday : /meta/

| Catalog | Home

File: 1608528062908.jpg (248.91 KB, 934x900, stalin3.jpg)


Do you prefer physical or digital books /edu/?
27 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Physical but cause Coronalol, digital so I can use Sci-hub



Though if the apocalypse happens I might regret that


physical always.


I can't read online. I print out PDFs sometimes though instead of buying.


Either digital copies or hardcover physical books.

Paperbacks are pure degeneracy and counter-revolutionairy ;)

File: 1608528060192.jpg (121.23 KB, 857x741, leftjak.jpg)


I recently finished reading Capital Volumes 1 and 2 for the first time (took me around 3 weeks) and I feel like I only got around 50-70% of it, is this normal?
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


I think its pretty normal especially when you read as quick as you dont worry about it read some secondary literature or something else and come back to capital later


Nice! Look forward to your post on volume 3 if you decide to read it.


Capital is something you can go back through. How much other marxist theory did you read prior to starting Capital?


>took me around 3 weeks
you read too fast. since you read so fast just re-read them and take notes this time.


I've read many of the main ML texts, off the top off my head:

Socialism Utopian and Scientific
Value, Price and Profit
Principles of Communism
Marxism and the National Question
State and Rev
Left Wing Communism
The Civil War in France
Wage Labour and Capital
Right of Nations to Self-Determination
On Contradiction
Anarchism or Socialism


What is philosophy today? The predominant answer of contemporary scientists is: its time is over. Even the most basic philosophical problems are increasingly becoming scientific ones: the ultimate ontological questions concerning reality (Does our universe have a limit in space and time? Is it caught in determinism, or is there a place for genuine contingency in it?) are today questions addressed by quantum cosmology; the ultimate anthropological questions (Are we free, i.e., do we have free will? etc.) are addressed by evolutionary brain science; even theology is allotted its place within brain science (which aims at translating spiritual and mystical experiences into neuronal processes). At most, what remains of philosophy are epistemological reflections on the process of scientific discoveries.

In today’s antideconstructionist turn, there are, however, many attempts to return to a realist ontology, with all the usual caveats (it’s not really a return, because it’s a new ontology of radical contingency, etc.). Perhaps the main precursor of this return to ontology is Louis Althusser’s “aleatoric materialism.” In his two great manuscripts published posthumously, Initiation à la philosophie pour les non-philosophes (1976) and Être marxiste en philosophie (1978), Althusser (among other things) outlines a specific theory of philosophy which overlaps neither with his early “theoreticist” concept of philosophy as “theory of theoretical practice” nor with his later notion of philosophy as “class struggle in theory”; while closer to the second notion, it serves as a kind of mediator between the two. Althusser’s starting point is the omnipresence of ideology, of ideological abstractions which always structure our approach to everyday life and reality; this ideology has two levels, the “spontaneous” everyday texture of implicit meanings, and the organized religion or mythology which initiated a systematic system of these meanings. Then, in ancient Greece, something new and unexpected happened: the rise of science in the guise of mathematics. Mathematics deals with pure, abstract numbers deprived of all mythic reference, it is a game of axioms and rule in which no cosmic meaning resonates, there are no sacred, lucky or damned numbers. Precisely as such, mathematics is subversive; it threatens the universe of cosmic meaning, its homogeneity and stability.

The true break happens here, not between mythic ideology and philosophy but Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


The irony of the history of philosophy is that the line of philosophers who struggle against the sophists’ temptation finishes with Hegel, the “last philosopher” who, in a way, is also the ultimate sophist, asserting self-referential play with no external support of its truth: for Hegel, there is truth, but it is immanent to the symbolic process—the truth is measured not by an external standard, but by the “pragmatic contradiction,” the inner (in)consistency of the discursive process, by the gap between the enunciated content and its position of enunciation.

Is not the way Althusser relates to philosophy one of the clearest cases of the gap that separates the position of enunciation from the enunciated (content)? At the level of the enunciated content, he is all modesty: he strongly opposes the idealist philosophical pretension to grasp the structure of the entire universe, to “know it all,” to reveal the absolute truth (or the truth of the Absolute). Against this idealist pretension, he praises accepting limits, openness to contingent encounters, etc., which characterize the materialist undercurrent from Epicurus through Spinoza up to Heidegger (although one might add here that it is difficult to imagine a more “arrogant” philosopher than Spinoza, whose Ethics claims to reveal the inner working of God-Nature—if nothing else, it can be shown that here Spinoza is much more “arrogant” than Hegel).

>Idealist philosophers speak for everyone and in everyone’s stead. They think, in fact, that they are in possession of the Truth about everything. Materialist philosophers are much less talkative: they know how to shut up and listen to people. They do not think that they are privy to the Truth about everything. They know that they can become philosophers only gradually, modestly, and that their philosophy will come to them from outside. So they shut up and listen.

However, in what Althusser actually does when talking about philosophy, his “process of enunciation,” his approach to philosophy, we can easily discern the exact opposite of what he characterizes as a materialist approach: brutally simplified universal statements which pretend to define the universal key features of philosophy, with no modest provisos. Philosophy as such is class struggle in theory, the eternal battle of two lines, “idealist” and “materialist”; it functions as an empty repetition of the line of demarcation idealism/materialism whichPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


For Lacan, modern science is defined by two concomitant foreclosures: the foreclosure of the subject and the foreclosure of truth as cause. A scientific text is enounced from a desubjectivized “empty” location, it allows for no references to its subject of enunciation, it is supposed to deliver the impersonal truth which can be repeatedly demonstrated, “anyone can see and say it,” i.e., the truth should be in no way affected by its place of enunciation. We can already see the link with the Cartesian cogito: is not the “empty” enunciator of scientific statements the subject of thought reduced to a vanishing punctuality, deprived of all its properties? This same feature also accounts for the foreclosure of truth as cause: when I commit a slip of the tongue and say something other than what I wanted to say, and this other message tells a truth about me that I am often not ready to recognize, then one can also say that in my slips the truth itself spoke, subverting what I wanted to say. There is truth (a truth about my desire) in such slips, even if they contain factual inexactitude—to take an extremely simple example, when the moderator of a debate, instead of saying “I am thereby opening the session!” says “I am thereby closing the session!” he obviously indicates that he is bored and considers the debate worthless. “Truth” (of my subjective position) is the cause of such slips; when it operates, the subject is directly inscribed into its speech, disturbing the smooth flow of “objective” knowledge.

How, then, can Lacan claim that the subject of psychoanalysis—the divided subject, the subject traversed by negativity—is the subject of modern science (and the Cartesian cogito)? Is it not that, by foreclosing truth and subject, modern science also ignores negativity? Is science not a radical attempt to construct a (literally) truthless discourse of knowledge? Modern science breaks with the traditional universe held together by a deeper meaning (like a harmony of cosmic principles—yin and yang, etc.), a universe which forms a teleologically ordered Whole of a multiplicity of hierarchically ordered spheres, a Whole in which everything serves a higher purpose. In the philosophical tradition, the major vestige of the traditional view is Aristotle: Aristotelian Reason is organic-teleological, in clear contrast to the radical contingency of modern science. No wonder today’s Catholic Church attacks Darwinism as “irrational” in comparison with the Aristotelian Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


The return of the traditional order in capitalism is thus not simply an indication that the logic of science is somehow constrained in capitalism, it is an indication that this containment is immanent to the universe of modern science, implied by the foreclosure of the subject. To put it bluntly: science cannot stand completely on its own, it cannot account for itself (no matter how much positivist accounts try to do so), i.e., the universality of science is based on an exception.

When and how, then, will politics be synchronized with modern science? It is not that the universe of modern science should directly impose itself onto the sphere of politics, so that social life will be regulated by the insights based on the cognitivist/biogenetic naturalization of human life (the tech-gnostic vision of society regulated by the digital big Other). It is simply that the subject engaged in politics should no longer be conceived as the liberal free agent pursuing its interests but as the subject of modern science, the Cartesian cogito, which, as Lacan said, is the subject of psychoanalysis. Therein lies the problem: can we imagine an emancipatory politics whose agent is the empty Cartesian subject? Jacques-Alain Miller’s answer is that the domain of politics is by definition the domain of imaginary and symbolic collective identifications, so that all that psychoanalysis can do is to retain a healthy cynical distance toward the sphere of politics—psychoanalysis cannot ground a specific form of political engagement. The wager of the Communist hypothesis is, on the contrary, that there is a politics based on the empty Cartesian subject: the political name of the empty Cartesian subject is a proletarian, an agent reduced to the empty point of substanceless subjectivity. A politics of radical universal emancipation can be grounded only on the proletarian experience.


OP Here, I cobbled together excerpts from zizek in an attempt at something like an entry point into his project. Something that connected the three different realms of hegel, marx, and freud. With any luck it generated some interest and/or understanding in you. It was based on this talk http://zizekpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/surplus-value-surplus-enjoyment-surplus-knowledgepart1.mp3 and came from his book "incontinence of the void"


Whoops here's the book. Although I'm not sure I'd recommend it as a starting point for zizek. That's part of how the whole idea for this thread came about.
While it's not a book, this short pdf he writes about different varieties of surplus might be better
This starts through an introduction of object a. Which is a good thing to know about. But offers little in the way of a contextual introduction. That's what I like about this as a starting point, it starts with some relevant philosophical history.

It's a real struggle, where to begin with zizek. I thought about posting this to /leftypol/ but considering that the focus on this isn't explicitly on politics, and that this board is more likely to have a background in some of the more advanced concepts required to read higher level zizek, figured this was better.

Feedback, questions, etc.. welcome.

File: 1608528056175.jpg (49.47 KB, 550x367, here-we-are.jpg)


this is bunkerchan
anybody knows how people build a bunker
can you make a diy bunker by yourself
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>who has the keys for bunkers like these?
>Is there someone employed by municipalities that administer bunkers?
Does it even matter?




File: 1608528058349.pdf (18.92 MB, nwss.pdf)

Nuclear War Survival Skills is supposed to be the best civil defense manual out there. PDF attached.


>Live in a house with a large basement
>wall's should be Three standard bricks / paver's thick and go up either till the ceiling if the celiling itself is concrete / brick / stone etc or fully enclose the top with more bricks / paver's if the roof of you're basement is anything weaker then that
>Should be large enough to have a bed / bag for each person whose residence is at the dwelling food and water and anti EMP shielded electronics


An apartment building with a subbasement should be good enough, and most 60s era buildings usually had an area that was designed to be used as a fallout shelter, and even though most public fallout shelters have been decommissioned and the supplies have expired and been thrown away and the room repurposed, the rooms or areas themselves are usually still there and their thick walls will protect you from radiation, you just have to bring your own supplies.


Quote from the Soviet film "The Great Citizen" (1937):
"Oh, twenty years after a GOOD WAR, get out and take a look at the Soviet Union - composed of lets say thirty or forty republics."

On January 1, 1937 as part of the so-called USSR there were only 11 republics, implying that that USSR has planned to annex at least 20 European states during WW2. Communist propaganda also portrayed total war as something "good".

After the war the propaganda has drastically changed, now claiming that USSR is the "Bastion of Peace" (СССР оплот МИРА). But there is a catch, since in Russian language both "peace" and "world" have the same word "mir" (МИР). So when a Russian says "we need mir", he can mean botch "we need peace" and "we need the whole world".
1 post and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



What the fuck does this has to do with cinema history?


Nikita, please take your meds


I've been meaning to look more into the history of Russian and Japanese cinema. Does anyone have reading recommendations on Sergei Eisenstein or Edogawa Ranpo?


>I've been meaning to look more into the history of Russian and Japanese cinema
>reading recommendations
Study their movies and read what they wrote themself. Eisenstein wrote tons of theory. Eisenstein is just a small fish in a big pound of revolutionary filmakers at the time.
But you need a bit of general cinematic culture tho, to say the least

File: 1608528052099.jpg (841.69 KB, 709x986, life.jpg)


/Leftypol/ didn't bite, let's see if /edu/ acctually might read something.

>Read capital and complimentary theory.

>No! Really, READ capital and complimentary theory.
>No, not like that!
>Ok basically read this quote down below by fucking Karl Marx.
>And at least read the text on point 1 down below.
> To understand why your current party isn't even being shut down or disturbed by the Porky Police.
>You are in your current state, totally harmless.
>Let's not keep it that way.

"It is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be. Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner." - Karl Marx

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


bump, props cus scientific socialism.


Michael Parenti Videos in youtube


Huh OP that's Robert Kurz in the pic, have you read him?



This thread should have been called "Critique of labor" or "Critique of the value form".
Bump nonetheless.

File: 1608528052529.png (196.98 KB, 389x416, 0.png)


recommend me books of underground socialist/anarchist movements, files and biographies of people who were involved.


Check'd, Nazi.

Bonnot Gang were just a bunch of gangsters and murderers.


the unseen by nanni balestrini


can anyone recomend books about asian (korea and japan) and western eruopean far left movements in the 70s and 80s


File: 1608528049845.jpg (4.38 MB, 4798x3183, gettyimages-567613523.jpg)


Britbong here,

As a brit, I believe it's necessary to educate myself on the history of the previously vast British empire to understand how the modern Britan evolved from that.

If anyone has any good resources on this, especially the Empire's exploits in India, Africa, China and Ireland, please leave them below.
Bonus points if they are Marxist works.


I read Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis when I was just becoming a leftist and it was some hard hitting stuff for me.


This looks fantastic, thank you for the recommendation!

(The epub you attached is corrupted, the chapters are blank.)


To add to the other Anon's post, End of Empire is a pretty good overview of the end of the british empire, and while not terribly detailed in any particular area, it gives a pretty thorough overview of the bush conflicts and dirty wars that made up the Empire's death rattle after the Second World War


Who would be the author for that?


Brian Lapping

The Decline and Fall of the British Empire by Piers Brendon might be better though, covers from Yorktown to the end

File: 1608528049130.png (461.62 KB, 718x396, tito insanity.png)


Yugoslavia was the only "eastern bloc" country that was almost entirely liberated by the domestic communsit led anti-fascist coalition.
They wanted to follow the Soviet model, but due to some ComInform (ex Comintern) tensions, Stalin excluded them and after 1948 they strated to look for their own path in building socialism and they came up with self-management - the workers voted in the managers, voted on employing new people, what the created value will be used on etc.
However, they never really found a good way to trade goods between companies so they re-implemented the market where goods between companies and between companies and consumers were traded.
They also had strong relationship with various 2nd and 3rd world countries and helped them out a lot (they worked on importan construction projects in Iraq, Syria, Egypt etc. etc.), and many foreign students came to study in Yugoslavia (people from Congo, Sudan, Algeria, Iraq etc. etc.)
In the 70s they borrowed money from the World bank which fucked them at the end of the 70s and start of the 80s (debt crisis) which gave rise to ugly nationalism which eventually destroyed the country and re-introduced a wild capitalism.
11 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Because citizens of Yugoslavia never had a "Yugoslav" national identity. The regime in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia pushed very hard for a unified Yugoslav state and nation, but failed miserably. Post war socialist Yugoslavia was from the start a federal state in which Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Macedonia were federal states. And Kosovo, while not a federal state, had the status of an autonomous region.

A Slovenian writer once said in 1913: by blood we are brothers, by language we are cousins, but by culture, which develops over centuries, we are further apart than a Slovenian peasant is from a (German) peasant in Tirol (Austrian region).


>A Slovenian writer once said in 1913: by blood we are brothers, by language we are cousins, but by culture, which develops over centuries, we are further apart than a Slovenian peasant is from a (German) peasant in Tirol (Austrian region).
Typical Slovenian. I love how dead on Yugo stereotypes are. That's why the jokes are funny, cause they're all true.



Also it's funny how "typical Slovenian" comes from presumably a Croat or Serbian - your guys really are crazy nationalist fanatics


>muh mitteleuropa


uneven development caused diverging consciousness; "yugoslavization" is a thing, and you can see it today even moreso with the euroregion policy.
my impression was that the serbs were the most vested in the yugoslav identity and considered themselves yugoslavs until the ouster of milosevic and even some time after that.


My problem focuses on history and humanities, but I guess it could apply to other subjects. How do you guys "use" sources? How should leftists approach primary and secondary sources when studying or debating? How should we approach anticommunist ones? How do you make sure sources are correct? For example: Say you have 2 books on the Russian revolution, the first one is more left wing and the second is more anticommunist. How do you prove who's right and wrong? What do you do if the two books contradict each other? Sorry if that's too many questions, but I have a lot of doubts when it comes to learning from books and using them for debates.


>How do you guys "use" sources?
By quoting them in the text, referring to them, and then listing them in the bibliography. The key here is to be true to the sources. It is bad historic writing to use a source that does not say what you want it to say, but pretend like it does.

>How should leftists approach primary and secondary sources when studying or debating?


>How should we approach anticommunist ones?

Even more critically.

>How do you make sure sources are correct?

You don't. You can never know something for sure, but corroborating sources are usually a good sign. When reading historical works you have to be aware that a lot of it is conjecture. Not made up, but kind of pieced together to make sense, often by generalising what we know of the time. Like for example you can say a particular Consul in 50 CE Rome had a bath in his house without having evidence of that Consul having a bath, but having evidence that rich people in Consuls in Rome in 50 CE generally had a bath.

>Say you have 2 books on the Russian revolution, the first one is more left wing and the second is more anticommunist. How do you prove who's right and wrong?

You don't "prove" anything, but you can do two things: 1) attack the book you disagree with, which can be anything from attacking the sources, criticising the way the author uses sources, criticise the author himself (ad hominem, despite its bad rep is a legit argument, e.g. Ancient aliens guy has no business speaking about aliens cause he has a bachelor in communication, not history or something relevant); 2) find sources that corroborate an opposing view.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Much appreciated, comrade!

Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ GET / ref / booru]
[ 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