[ 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: 1675337272635.png (924.58 KB, 825x623, haka324u2j9dd2.png)


What are the best books that give a historical look of how worker strikes are organized?
I need some directions and strategies to possibly organize my colleagues.


I am a union organizer. Try crossposting on /leftypol/ for more responses.

For directions and strategies I would not look deep into strike history at the expense of reading organizing manuals, unless you are already organized into a union. Read at least one organizing manual cover-to-cover before you try to organize a strike or a union.

Good, easy to read union organizing material is found in the IWW organizing manual, and the EWOC organizing guide attached. If you have a local IWW branch please contact them as they will likely give you a comprehensive training for free if you join.

William Z Foster, the best chairman in the history of the CPUSA and the organizer of the 1919 steel strike and the trade union education league, wrote an organizing manual that was resurrected by new york communists to successfully organize an amazon warehouse: https://www.marxists.org/archive/foster/1936/10/organizing-methods-steel-industry/index.htm

The best modern organizing guide is Labor Notes' "Secrets of a Successful Organizer" and is $15. https://labornotes.org/secrets - This is a guide on how to organize your coworkers and is overlaps rank-and-file movement organizing in existing union workplaces with new union organizing.

The attached "labor law for the rank-and-filer" will inform you about how to use the National Labor Relations Act (USA) to shield yourself and your coworkers from getting fired for union and strike activity (Feds can order reinstatement with backpay). If you plan a direct action including a strike, you should read the corresponding section from this book.

For strikes - study the failure of the 1919 steel strike and 1919 Seattle general strike, success of sit-in strikes in Detroit auto and retail sectors two decades later. Rely on your coworkers to run the strike, not union bureaucrats. Do not do for your coworkers what they can do themselves.
Strike overview:
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


here's this



I'm sure some of you have tried their hand in writing down their own ideas regarding philosophy, politics, economics or science. In that case I think it would be dope if we shared them here and perhaps we can have an exchange of honest criticism and support. Feel free to post whatever you have written here and give people a tl;dr of what your writing is about.
5 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I remember a long time ago seeing a chart that described knowledge acquisition in education. That k-12 and undergrad made up a small middle circle. That graduate school expanded the circle very little except made a mound on one portion of the circle. A doctorate then pushed up right against the edge of all human knowledge in regard to the specific field and your thesis is a teeny tiny pimple on the edge.

When one participates in a law journal they have to do hours of research into whether a given topic idea was already written.

When one briefs an appeal, they have to research what the law is, and whether there are any cases similar enough in fact and law to apply to the given situation. If there isn't anything on point, the lawyer must then concoct a unique argument against the given fact scenario. This is much like the little pimple on the circle, the appellate court decision is unique, but only in a very small and particular way.

If you think your research has lead you to find that there is lacking information regarding modern praxis, then it looks like you have a rabbit hole to go down. To find the historical make up of praxis, to see what is already out there about modern praxis, and to synthesize a modern approach if one hasn't yet been fully articulated. Or perhaps even a guide to the modern landscape. Who knows!


I was planning on doing the same, I came home with a bunch of interesting ideas I was going to read about, make some notes on and think of a plan to truly get into.

Then I got drunk and now I'm just wallowing in my own rot.

Can always try again tomorrow. Good luck to you friend.


Write drunk manifesto. Edit in the morning.


i 100% agree but somehow i'm not depressed by it…
I think it's kind of exhilarating. Marx said that the scientific process was in concretizing abstractions, and that's exactly what our job is now. There is a huge overgrowth of literature and information out there, and it takes a huge amount of labor to go through it all. Just keep your own personal notes, quotes, lists of shit you've read, summaries, etc. and hopefully someday there will be something to do with it all, to share with others. To me this is a great prospect, because all of the reading I do anyways, now has a somewhere to "go", outside of me, I guess waiting for a future place to be categorized and put out into the world, to help others discover what is already known, theorized, etc. and also to help separate the bullshit from the quality finds, so that the labor doesn't need to be repeated so many times. We can rapidly accelerate our collective theoretical knowledge if we coordinate it by all putting in and sharing notes. Build the collective mind anon


>intellectual work.
me no think

File: 1677258556687-0.jpg (111.41 KB, 927x780, the_retarded_map.jpg)


1) The so-called Cossack hetmanate was far bigger in 1654 (In 1654 they became a protectorate of russian tsar, that's why it is brought up here). See the pic no. 2

2) Russian empire did not recognize the concept of Ukraine, ukrainian nation or ukrainian language. For them it was Malorossiya. And every new territory gained was annexed to Russian empire, not gifted to someone, lmao. There wasn't even autonomous Malorossiya inside the empire the new territories could have joined. It's complete nonsense.

3) Lenin wasn't giving any territories as a gift. Initially, there were Odessa Soviet Republic and Donetsk - Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic, and they were later occupied by Germany and Austria-Hungary. In order to create a united front against germans the II All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets decided that all soviet republics on the territory of Ukraine will create one Ukrainian republic and after the liberation this was confirmed by the III All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets. It wasn't a decision of heckin dictator Lenin but a decision that was carried out by local deputies.

4) Western Ukraine joining the USSR in 1939 would be a gift only of the ukrainians were completely passive. Which isn't true. The anti- polish resistance existed and of course ukrainians fought in the Red Army.

In case of Transcarpathian Ukraine we can't talk about a gift at all. There literally was a referendum in 1945, whether to stay in Czechoslovakia or to join the USSR.

5) Crimea wasn't a "gift from Khruschev", because Khruschev wasn't in position to decide about that at the time. It was decided by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The reason was simple: the territory is closer both economically and territorially to Ukraine and it would be easier for Ukraine to help Crimea with post war recovery. The decision was supported by Malenkov, Molotov and Kaganovich, the future "Anti-Party Group", so no, evil revisionist Cornman isn't at fault here.

Tl,dr: This map is based on russian nationalist myths about how evil communist dictators were drawing borders as they wanted.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1677261132341.png (393.41 KB, 1280x720, Bez-imeni-1.png)

the original picture


1. They are talking about the zaporozhian sich. As we all know, that was an ukrainian area inside Cossack hetmanate. Cossack ≠ ukrainian.
2. If the territory is majority ukrainian, historically ukrainian, governed locally by ukrainians, speaks and acts ukrainian, is recognized as the ukrainian heartland and exist in the same place as zaporozhia, you could easily call it a predecessor to modern ukraine as they do in ukrainian schoolbooks.
3. They were talking about lenin-era goverment, not some great man.
4. It's not annexed if they have internal dissent and/or they fought in the war?
5. They were talking about goverments again. Wikipedia says administration was handed because of "the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR". Who has denied this?
This doesn't even take a minute to read uygga why add this
Pic says so in the way that one would exclaim "this welfare is a gift from the goverment". Meant ironically and to annoy mildly since everyone knows they have much better reasons to do so than goodwill.


>1. They are talking about the zaporozhian sich.
Then that doesn't make sense, lol. Why only the Zaporizhya was the supposed original Ukraine?

>If the territory is majority ukrainian, historically ukrainian, governed locally by ukrainians, speaks and acts ukrainian, is recognized as the ukrainian heartland

You apparently don't know anything about the time, lol. For the Russian Empire there were no Ukrainians, only Russians. The "Malorussian dialect" wasn't an official language. Only the "Great Russian" was allowed in the official spheres. No autonomous Malorossiya existed inside the Russian empire. These territories were supossed to be completely russified.

>. They were talking about Lenin-era goverment, not some great man.

<by Vladimir Lenin in 1922
Where do you see some government mentioned, lol? Also the decision about joining Ukrainian SSR wasn't done by some "Lenin government" but by the local bolsheviks themselves

>4. It's not annexed if they have internal dissent and/or they fought in the war?

It kinda changes the context, doesn't it? "Annexed by Stalin" can mean that Stalin was stealing territories from Poland and Czechoslovakia for those ungrateful Ukrainians.

>5. They were talking about goverments again

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


1. Because it is where they were mostly concentrated, and it's not as if the cossack state was anywhere near ukrainian
2. Doesn't matter what the official line was, ukrainians existed and where they lived and died didn't change because of it. There, during the feudal times these local rulers had much say in local affairs so it is stupid to compare them to modern autonomous areas. Ukrainians did rise to official positions in some positions in these local goverments. And of course malorossiyan isn't a dialect because it isn't even a language to begin with.
3. When I say that "Trump banned xiaomi" I don't mean he personally went ahead and banned them for no reason.
4. No, I was asking how it matters if the ukrainians fought in the war. Would a reward not be a gift? Was stalin punishing them by annexing it to their control?
5. Look how I used stalin in the above sentence, it's more convenient to say. What are you saying this for? You said "The reason was simple: the territory is closer both economically and territorially to Ukraine and it would be easier for Ukraine to help Crimea with post war recovery", meaning that people were denying this alongside the decision being made by a state organ.
>And yes, there literally are people that "Khruschev gifted Crimea to Ukraine".
Has nothing to do with the reason for administrative change.
>It's irony
One that speaks so much about context should have figured this out. Do you think they meant lenin personally gave out some of *his* territory because nobody mentioned anything existing outside of him? Or did they mean it like an article reading "official mike johnson fails to get bill passed" where they personify the entire party and it's agenda to one face?


>1. Because it is where they were mostly concentrated, and it's not as if the cossack state was anywhere near ukrainian
Then it makes sense even less because Zaporizhiyan Sich wasn't anywhere near Ukrainian as well (also the modern understanding of Russians and Ukrainains didn't exist at the time). But for the sake of argument I can accept it.

> Doesn't matter what the official line was, ukrainians existed and where they lived and died didn't change because of it.

I am not sure why are you telling me this. If you are trying to say that Ukrainians deserve these territories because they were important part of the society of the Russian Empire, that they fought in the army too, then, yeah, good, ok, I can take that. But if you are trying to say here that Russian Empire wasn't a chauvinistic shithole, then either get Lenin-pilled or piss off.

> it is stupid to compare them to modern autonomous areas.

I can compare it to Finland or Bukhara which enjoyed far more autonomy inside the Empire than Ukraine every did. Not to mention that by the end of 19th century there wasn't anything resembling Ukrainian/ Malorossiyan autonomy at all, because the tsars were actively surpressing it. (I was kinda wrong by saying that there was never anything like Ukrainian/Maloross autonomy inside the empire, it's better to say initially there was one but was soon liquidated)

>And of course malorossiyan isn't a dialect because it isn't even a language to begin with.

That's not my terminology, that's terminology of Lomonosov and V.V. Dal'. And yes, it's not a dialect, it's called Ukrainian language.

>3. When I say that "Trump banned xiaomi" I don't mean he personally went ahead and banned them for no reason.

lmao, ok
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


I’m looking for books on the history of anarchism in France and the United States.

I’m especially looking for texts on individualist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism in France/the US, between 1860-1920s.

I know I know, vague.


<This is the story of the infamous Bonnot Gang: the most notorious French anarchists ever, and the inventors of the motorized get-away

<The history of labor in the United States is a story of almost continuous violence. In Dynamite, Louis Adamic recounts one century of that history in vivid, carefully researched detail. Covering both well- and lesser-known events—from the riots of immigrant workers in the second quarter of the nineteenth century to the formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)—he gives precise, and often brutal, meaning to the term "class war."


Got anything about American individualist anarchism since that was the first school of anarchist thought to arrive in America?


The Manifesto of the Sixteen


Kek, no.


All of Benjamin Tucker's works are good imo
Josiah Warren's manifesto is good as is Equitable Commerce, although it takes a slight turn from individualist anarchism iirc
steve p andrews Love, Marriage and Divorce, and the Sovereignty of the Individual is good
Walker's philosophy of egoism is the most based American anarchist piece of writing imo pre 20th century
as for actual histories idk i think bob black or maybe hakim bey wrote one lol

File: 1675631942027.jpg (16.66 KB, 255x389, Grundrisse_Karl_Marx.jpg)


so marx meant to write 6 volumes of capital but never finished, i'm interested in what the later volumes would have said. so is grundrisse a sort of summary of what all 6 volumes? if not what would be
6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


marxists.org has the Progress edition
MECW is on libgen, pulled the PDF's for you


International Publishers should still have them all in stock; they might give you a discount if you bulk buy and ask.



So Grundrisse is just Capital Vol. 0, meaning there are 5 volumes of capital.


Thankee :)


This is a video looking at the right-wing history channel WhatifAltHist, and the broader trends in historical studies that it represents.



Just say it's your channel bro

File: 1619942123710.png (68.81 KB, 1366x568, East Med 2.png)

 No.5576[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Post Copy pastas, videos and books which debunk common Fascist, Liberal talking points which are repeated often.
134 posts and 63 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Oh also
>blacks suffer from a high rate of single parenthood in america
<this is because of their genes bro
>whites suffer from a high rate of single parenthood in Europe
<this is because of the environment bro
Nice double standard.


>The point is that since the two races have different rates in 4 different environments then it's mostly environmental.
I'd say the shithole conditions of Africa just pull things out of proportions. Look at the difference in single motherhood rates within countries and that will give you much better estimate.
>So why do American whites suffer from less single motherhood than European whites even though both of the genetic and your personal environmental variables are in both places are the same?
Do they? At any rate it doesn't matter because none of my core arguments are disproven either way.
>The fact that I pointed out that the rates are inconsistent across races
What answer are you even expecting here? First off there are ethnic differences between whites in America and whites in Europe so you can't simply equate the two, second i already listed environmental factors that impact single motherhood and third the world is complex. "You said race matters but why then can't i reduce everything in life down to this one variable, clearly race is totally 100% meaningless". That's retarded. Bottom line is nature doesn't care about equality and blacks are more predisposed towards criminality. Tough luck.


Also addendum how the fuck can you say that America and Europe are the same environment? Fuck me that's dumb.


Could somebody debunk this video?


How can this impact be measured? Keeping in mind that emigrants to america are cream of the crop in their former country, and (American) blacks started retarded.

File: 1645843540784.jfif (193.18 KB, 822x537, azov.jfif)

 No.9906[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Thread dedicated to debunking western propaganda and information relating to the NATO encirclement of Russia, Ukrainian government's mistreatment of ethnic Russian minorities and support of fascist militias to do its bidding. Criticism of Russia and its occupation is welcomed aswell.
110 posts and 116 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1667190901887-0.png (590.55 KB, 842x875, Ukranazis_006.png)

File: 1667190901887-1.png (507.25 KB, 777x675, Ukranazis_009.png)

File: 1667190901887-2.png (446.75 KB, 819x826, Ukranazis_033.png)

File: 1667190901887-3.png (289.97 KB, 664x790, Ukranazis 63.png)

anyone have the full catalog of pic rels


3/4 of those are from this article


the 4th one is from some communist subreddit that probably doesn't exist anymore



Everyone knows about Bandera, But many people don't know about the other collaborators.

Роман Шухевич, Ярослав Стецько, Дмитро Паліїв, Тарас Бульба-Боровець, Андрій Мельник, Олекса Бабій, Іван Рогач, Олег Ольжич, Іван Кедюліч, Кость Гіммельраїч, Іван Климів-Легенда, Олександр Гасин, Ярослав-Михайло Старух, Юрій Полянський, Олександр Луцький, Василь Василяшко, Омелян Польовий, Петро Гудзоватий, Василь Сидор, Олексій Демський, Іван Гриньох, Дмитро Гах, Терентій Пігоцький, Олексій Химинець, Данило Рудак, Петро Хамчук, Василь Андрусяк, Степан Трохимчук, Петро Мельник, Микола Твердохліб, Дмитро Мирон. , Роман Сушко, Володимир Щигельський, Петро Самутін, Юрій Горліс-Горський, Омелян Грабець, Леонід Ступницький, Микола Якимчук, Улас Самчук, Степан Скрипник, Демид Бурко, Леонід Пархомович, Андрій Шукатка, Володимир Чав’як, Сергій Богдан, Костянтин. Петро, ​​Мартин Мізерний, Василь Івахів, Юрій Долішняк, Павло Вацик, Василь Скригунець, Олекса Шум, Роман Ризняк, Микола Арсенич, Ярослав Дякон, Степан Ленкавський, Володимир Кубійович, Віктор Курманович, Микола Угрин-Безрішний, Михайло Омелянович-Павленко, Йосип Сліпий, Аверкій Гончаренко, Василь Косюк, Михайло Мулик, Юрій Гарасимів, Любомир Макарушка, Теодор Барабаш, Володимир Депутат, Іван Ремболович, Мар’ян Лукасевич, Роман Рудий, Павло Шандрук, Йоусип Позичан. , Петро Дяченко, Дмитро Клячківський

Roman Shukhevych, Yaroslav Stetsko, Dmytro Paliiv, Taras Bulba-Borovets, Andryi Melnyk, Oleksa Babiy, Ivan Rohach, Oleg Olzhych, Ivan Kedyulich, Kost Himmel’raich, Ivan Klymiv-Legenda, Oleksandr Gasyn, Yaroslav-Mykhailo Starukh, Yuri Polyanskiy, Oleksandr Lutskyi, Vasyl Vasylyashko, Omelyan Polovyi, Petro Gudzovatiy , Vasyl Sydor, Oleksiy Demsky, Ivan Hrynokh, Dmytro Gakh, Terentiy Pihotskiy, Oleksiy Khymynets, Danylo Rudak, Petro Khamchuk, Vasyl Andrusyak, Stepan Trokhymchuk, Petro Melnyk, Mykola Tverdohlib, Dmytro Myron, Roman Sushko, Volodymyr Schygel’skiy, Petro Samutin, Yuriy Gorlis-Gorsky, Omelyan Hrabets, Leonid Stupnytskiy, Mykola Yakymchuk, Ulas Samchuk, Stepan Skrypnyk, Demid Burko, Leonid Parhomovych, Andriy Shukatka, Volodymyr Chav’yak, Serhei Bogdan, Kostiantyn Peter, Martin Mizernyi, Vasyl Ivakhiv, Yuri Dolishnyak, Pavlo Vatsyk, Vasyl Skrygunets, Oleksa Shum, Roman Ryznyak, Mykola Arsenych, Yaroslav Dyakon, Stepan Lenkavskiy, Volodymyr Kubiyovych, Viktor Kurmanovych, Mykola Ugryn-Bezrishniy, Mykhailo Omelyanovych-Pavlenko, Iosif Slipyi, Averkiy Goncharenko, Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


here's an article by Josh Shifrinson from 2016 that analyzes NATO's promise to Gorbachev, its obfuscation of that promise in public records, and the subsequent betrayal of that promise in the years that followed. We all know about the broad strokes of this already, but I found the specific details of this quite interesting. Chomsky, who is against NATO expansion and sees it as the root cause of this war, fondly spoke of this article in "Internationalism or Extinction."

The article is 38 pages and 185 citations. it's from 2016. It is very thoroughly researched. Pro-NATO academics at harvard scrambled to put out a pathetic "rebuttal" the next year that was 7 pages and 13 citations, which I have also attached for the sake of laughing at.

Also attached is a video of the author discussing the paper. I also posted this in the /ukraine/ general but thought it would fit in better here since this one doesn't cycle.

File: 1648482515343.jpg (59.29 KB, 657x527, 1635023423044.jpg)


I have the impression that psychology is a field that is heavily influenced by the societal structure we live in and what culture we have, to deduce that some behavior is inappropriate, an illness, a deficit, or on the other side of the spectrum healthy, a sign of maturity, desirable.
Do you guys have any literature on that?
9 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Socialism as an idea is derived precisely from the arisen contradictions beholden & intrinsic to capitalism; if there are psychological findings which contradict the ideological propositions of capitalism, such findings are technically still *derived from* a capitalist context and will thusly still be partially tainted in their formative structuration by capitalist ideology. There is no wholly neutral or detoxed finding which could otherwise emerge from psychology under the particular societal mode which contextualizes its epistemological basis.


Honestly, Kaczynski touches on this a little bit in Industrial Society and It's Future. If you're open to reading a wild schizo's thoughts on psychology and sociology, it may match your perspective on the field.


Mental illness is real. It's what society considers normal. Aspergers havers are the only mentally healthy ones, but since they're the minority, they're ironically labeled as mentally ill.


gtfo varg


Published just last year.

File: 1675878807646.png (779.81 KB, 827x1173, ClipboardImage.png)


recommend good books about marxist antipsychiatry pls :3


We already had a thread like that >>10197

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