[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/edu/ - Education

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

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new on Mondays : /meta/
New /roulette/ topic: /spoox/ - Paranormal, horror and the occult.
New board: /AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

| Catalog | Home

File: 1640985701043.jpg (8.59 KB, 231x346, 1221.jpg)


Is this book any good? It was published while Lenin was still alive, but I can't find him mentioning it anywhere. I assume its on the same tier as The ABC of Communism. Good, just not often recommended. At any rate, I'm going to read it over the next week to see for myself.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


I would agree usually, but Bukharin is an exception. His imperialism and works on marginal utility are all fine


Lenin and Bukharin are the exceptions to your rule


didnt bukharin get purged by stalin?


The book has recently gotten some new attention since it got republished by Cosmonaut Magazine not too long ago: https://shop.cosmonaut.blog/product/historical-materialism-a-study-in-sociology/16?cp=true&sa=false&sbp=false&q=false&category_id=2
Now I haven't read it myself but I've heard very good things about it and Bukharin in general was a pretty great theorist. This book is on my personal reading list, though I don't know when I will get to it. Let us know what you think of it when you're done, OP.

Yes, unfortunately.


It's quite nice so far. I recently read Stephen Cohen's biography on Bukharin, which is what spurred my interest. I will say, however, it's restating mostly the basics of stuff. If you have read Engels 4 letters on historical materialism, the first chapter of the german ideology, capital, or even the manifesto, you are probably set enough. Probably. It's good to have things restated clearly anyways. It does remind me that purging Bukharin was an unforgivable and senseless tragedy. It's a determining factor in being a non-stalinist communist, among other factors.


Baudrillard is one of the few who was able to critique Marxism from a resonable and not cucked perspective.
Especially in The Mirror of Production his criticisms are from the prespective of some one knowledgeable of Marx.
Now that the dust has settled was he right nearly about everything?
I mean look at China
24 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Make an argument anytime


Baudrillard only had vapid literary critiques of Marx, also suck my dick anytime


This is not fucking /leftypol/. Stop shitting this board.


OP shat up this board


It sounds like a reasonable perspective until you realize that this concept was already addressed by later marxists.
Alienation being a fundamental feature of humanity is something explored by Zizek.

File: 1640960840219.jpg (86.71 KB, 640x807, Janos_Kornai_2005.jpg)


We had already thread on him I think but can't find it anymore. Are there any good books or reviews on his work? Did Cockshott ever talk about him?
In general also a /thread/ about current AES economics.


Contemporary socialist economics aren't your "AES" economics because all serious socialist economists have moved beyond your insipid apologia for state capitalism.


To what exactly?



File: 1632507970941-0.jpg (506.67 KB, 1280x1840, 04lnjOTIL1qdfjhdo1_1280.jpg)

File: 1632507970941-1.png (2.09 MB, 1086x764, 4567890.png)

File: 1632507970941-3.webm (60.16 MB, 1920x1080, 3456789.webm)

File: 1632507970941-4.jpg (205.27 KB, 1200x801, Esoup8NW8AElonC.jpg)


It was a dress rehearsal, without which the final victory of the proletariat in October 1917 would have been impossible. (Lenin)

The revolution of 1905 came as a surprise to everyone, although Russia had been going to it for a long time. For example, the American historian Richard Pipes considers it a prologue to the student unrest of 1899. The Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Izvolsky believed that the tsarist regime began to collapse even under Alexander III, and the publicist Mark Vishnyak counted the end of the autocracy from the mid-1870s, when Alexander II stopped the Great Reforms and decided to" freeze " the country. Russia and the ruling dynasty could only be saved from revolution by the introduction of a constitutional monarchy. But the last Romanovs, in an effort to preserve the unshakable autocratic foundations of their power, eventually lost everything and led the country to the catastrophe of 1917.

Interactive map of the 1905 revolution
55 posts and 71 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1637169445793.jpg (1.12 MB, 2560x1149, 5usTh9zdi58.jpg)

Commanding staff - unit commanders and heads of political departments of the 1st Cavalry Army. The city of Maykop, 1923.


File: 1638072757808-0.jpg (488.08 KB, 1531x2048, xeYh7npKa_0.jpg)

File: 1638072757808-1.jpg (657.55 KB, 1435x1920, t3hlHNXkkjE.jpg)

Baron Roman Fedorovich Ungern von Sternberg under the escort of the Red Army in Irkutsk. 1921


File: 1640312301171.jpg (626.63 KB, 1920x1074, -wzRYRzdcf4.jpg)

Barricades in Sormovo, an industrial suburb of Nizhny Novgorod. The Nizhny Novgorod uprising took place on December 12-16 (25-29), 1905.


File: 1641147829359.png (1.8 MB, 4974x2520, 1634966587768.png)



File: 1641147963558.jpg (431.94 KB, 1140x1600, obd6dxw9zrE.jpg)

 No.338[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

All good communists study math.

What are you studying right now? What is your favorite field of mathematics and why?

Personally, I really like the book "Linear Algebra Done Right" by Sheldon Axler. It is on Libgen if you are interested and I attached a pdf.
172 posts and 34 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>a lot of quacks come up with "solutions" that are blatantly incorrect. All of the open problems require a lot of study to even understand
Counter-example to your second claim: Collatz conjecture (also a great example for your first claim).


Do you mean to insinuate that the Collatz conjecture is misleading?


How do you solve word problems with a reading comprehension like that?


First claim in the quote you've addressed is 'a lot of quacks come up with solutions that are blatantly incorrect'
Second claim is 'all of the open problems require a lot of study to understand'


I'm not that anon lol. The Collatz conjuncture is easy to understand, which contradicts the claim that
> All of the open problems require a lot of study to even understand


I've finally read the big ones (Deleuze, Guattari, Baudrilland, Foucault, Derrida) and I'm just not seeing it. The only argument I usually see when they bother explaining why is that these authors """reject""" class struggle.
34 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


They just everyone who is not dogmatic about the holy trinity of Marx-Engels-Lenin, it's not specific to continentals.


The primary reason is the contrast between Marxism's notion of the dialectical unfolding of history as class struggle, its scientific approach to society, vs. postmodernism's rejection of grand narratives + ultimate knowability.


You didn't read any books


Care to elaborate? I'm literally a fan of continental philosophy and have read plenty.


I should add that if you're going to arrogantly make a blanketed accusation against someone without offering any substantiation of your own, then you probably either don't understand what you have read, or haven't read anything yourself.

File: 1608527927010.jpg (79.24 KB, 597x424, antique-painting.jpg)


Post any weird and obscure history facts that you know of
52 posts and 15 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


The 11 yo Grace Bedell wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln telling him to grow a beard. He did it.

>All the ladies like whiskers and they would tease their husbands to vote for you and then you would be President.



File: 1638317892831.mp4 (323.02 KB, 734x720, youuuu.mp4)

>in the late Ottoman Empire there was a movement of weeboos who loved anything to do with Japan, since they were a non-western power who was victorious against a western one in the Russo-japanese war, then it culminated in conspiracy theories that the Japanese emperor was a secret muslim who was going to come to their rescue

Jesus Christ, nothing is new in history


Fucking kek, that's something I've never heard of before but it sure is hilarious.


File: 1639250108297.png (3.89 KB, 225x37, known for it.png)

This is my life's dream


The same company that invented Aspirin invented heroin.

File: 1640369773415.pdf (7.6 MB, 169x255, marxism ethics.pdf)


I finished reading Eugene Kamenka's Marxism and Ethics earlier this week and I found it so interesting.
There are two big thesis that stuck with me from the book:
Marxism can be seen as an ethical system that is not concern about good or evil, right and wrong but about alienation and liberation.
If moral system stem from material conditions that can be seen in soviet history, during the revolution soviet thinkers denounced many ethical ideas as bourgeois and celebrated revolutionary violence but after WWII when eastern socialist countries became prosperous and estable ideas that were denounced as bourgeois returned to ethical discourse.

Honestly the book doesn't answer the question of what marxist ethics are or what ethical system is more compatible with marxism but shows really well how ethics can be understood as how the conditions of a society understand the meaning of their actions.
Kamenka has another book on ethics and I wish to read it next.

This thread isn't just about Kamenka's book, I want us to talk about ethics in general and how they relate to marxism.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


moral codes come in several varieties:

Social rules that work, with reasons lost to time, maintained with stories.

negotiation/bargaining with ruling classes, subjects accept the ruler with the condition of adhering to moral codes.

you could try to interpret Marxist policies as morals. It would be moral rules for the optimizations of society, banning the exploitation of workers for profits will lead to more economic success, because the contradictions of capitalism reduce it's economic efficiency.

Morals however are very limited, because it can only be social norms ,which are hard to enforce and also limited in scope and complexity. Our goal should be to change the economic system, rather than social norms, because the economic system is the much more powerful and influential layer in society.


Of course not!
Morals are not ethics, plain morals lack a reasoning for their conclusions.


badiou's ethics comes close



File: 1640985151169.png (3.94 MB, 3756x1514, CapitalQuestion.png)


What are some real-world examples of this phenomenon? This is said to happen during the explanation of the Circuit of Productive Capital, but nothing comes to mind.


File: 1640988044128.png (12.33 KB, 296x194, ClipboardImage.png)

How does it even work? I remember seeing someone explaining it once and i think that the terminology was something like:
>M= money
>C= commodity/capital (?)
>MP= means of production
>L= labor
>P= product/production (?)
>C'= aggregated commodity (?)
>M'= aggregated money (?)
Is this correct?


fordism, taylorism, expansion and consolidation of supply chains on geographic scales like railroads


and also supermarkets and shit like that


Imagine fabrication shop who does machining and welding. You make one product then move it to another building for welding and it isn't sold for money until after the welding is done.
The capitalist has a sum of money and buys commodities: labor-power and means of production (which includes circulating capital and fixed capital). The production process occurs in which labor power uses the means of production to create new commodity. The circulating capital is completely used up in the production process (imagine sheet metal in the above example), fixed capital transfers some value in terms of the upkeep (imagine a machine wearing down over time), and labor-power is a special commodity that adds more value than it cost. The day is separated in necessary labor time and surplus labor time for the employees, which is causes the increase in value. C' is the increased commodities as the result of the production process which are then sold for a higher amount of money.

File: 1640891729727.jpeg (1.86 MB, 2057x2179, EEDwuFNWwAAU3Kh.jpeg)


(I'm posting this on /edu/ because I think it's more of a discussion about self-education than leftist politics per se.)

To an extent, I think most people on this site are skeptical of journalists and academics. We can all recognize that "knowledge production" is not politically neutral, not free from bias or outside influence, etcetera.
On the other hand, even skeptics of these sources don't tend to be fully skeptical. One thing I noticed is that even when people practice skepticism of journalism, they tend to question the interpretation and presentation more than the facts. That is, they might point out how facts are framed in misleading ways, or important details are excluded, etc., but rarely accuse the media of outright fabrication.
This mimics a similar practice I've noticed in skepticism of science: you'll find people pointing out methodological problems and limitations, but rarely questioning the actual reported results of experiments. I say these practices are similar because they involve questioning the logic but never the premises; they take it for granted that the authors might be trying to mislead you but would simply do so through subtly faulty logic and never through outright invention.
All of which is to ask:
>Is there any reasonable justification for this? That is, is there a reason to believe knowledge producers would draw the line at actual fabrication?
>In general, to what extent can we actually trust the information produced by academia and journalism? If none at all, how can we even navigate the world?
>Is it ever reasonable to simply "trust the science" without even looking at the arguments?
I feel the need to note these questions aren't rhetorical in the slightest, they're genuinely thoughts I've been struggling with.


Always be skeptical. Even the most rigorous and principled people can make errors.
>Is there any reasonable justification for this? That is, is there a reason to believe knowledge producers would draw the line at actual fabrication?
There's plenty of history that they are fine with outright fabrication at times.
>In general, to what extent can we actually trust the information produced by academia and journalism? If none at all, how can we even navigate the world?
Review sources, methods, data if the claim warrants investigation. Try to corroborate the information with other sources, particularly those with different or contrary interests (if you can't find someone disinterested).
>Is it ever reasonable to simply "trust the science" without even looking at the arguments?
No, literally never. "The science" happens in a real social context with a political dimension and it has always been slanted by this. Even if the data collected is good and the study is valid in a technical sense it will often be interpreted (by the scientists themselves or by reporting) through ideological lenses that lead you into mistakes. Always be skeptical. Anybody telling you dude trust me is probably being dishonest and is self-aware of it. An honest person would tell you to check for yourself and validate what they're saying.


I don't think that's fair.

Scientists are sceptical about results, and it is well known and accepted that results are sometimes wrong. More often because of errors than malice, but deliberate falsification does happen. That's why scientific findings always have to be reproducible. If multiple, independent research groups repeat the experiment/study and find the same results, they are most likely correct. Repeating previous results is expensive and not very attractive and unfortunately it is not done as often as it should be. In most cases as an outsider you can't do it from your bedroom alone. That's why you usually see people attack methodology and other issues first, it is less effort and you only need to get the paper from sci-hub. If you are interested in a topic, try finding meta-analyses and literature surveys instead of individual papers, they are more likely to contain trustworthy results, as they aggregate multiple results.

In journalism it is a bit different, but you can (and journalists are supposed to) cross-check facts from multiple independent sources, when they are available. Then again, this is more work that just pointing out faulty reasoning, so outsiders don't bother. But serious, published works are supposed to have done this for you, and they are more likely to be more factual than some online blog masquerading as a news site.

I don't think your criticism is right, these are known issues and there are safeguards that are supposed to limit their harm. Of course they are not perfect, but the situation is not nearly as bad as you make it to be.


>Review sources, methods, data if the claim warrants investigation. Try to corroborate the information with other sources, particularly those with different or contrary interests (if you can't find someone disinterested).
But what if, for example, there's an imbalance between the different interests? Few people have the resources to conduct large-scale nationwide polls, or access to advanced telescopes or particle accelerators, stuff like that. The ability to verify data might be concentrated in the hands of a few and at that point it's easier for their interests to align, especially when it comes to journalism.
It seems to me that the bigger institutions will tend to form a sort of "knowledge elite" that not only may align with the political elite but will also have its own independent interests (such as securing funding or maintaining its credibility) that will steer it a certain way.

I'm not that trying to suggest that we're in a crisis where most of the science is wrong, I'm just wondering how, epistemologically, we can justify our trust in the data that's presented to us.
I know replication and cross-checking exist, but as you yourself sort of pointed towards, they have their problems as safeguards on an institutional level. As I said above, the ability to verify might be concentrated in the hands of those with shared interests (or not even necessarily interests, but shared biases). This is especially the case with journalism where sources are often anonymous.

But I do agree now that there at least exist processes by which we can gain sufficient trust in the data, even if I don't think they'll always work.


just be critical, like >>9124 said


Learn to think skeptically; the clearest introduction to this mode of thought is still Sextus Empiricus' Outlines of Skepticism.

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 ]
[ 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