[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / 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: 3 + 2 =

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

| Catalog | Home

File: 1641495265321.png (525.44 KB, 640x853, ClipboardImage.png)


New reading project for the Continental Floppa reading group is beginning. We will be reading various writings related to the subject of "Patriotic Socialism" and national identity. This thread is for slower discussion of the topic and readings and for posting links or uploads for relevant texts.

Join our matrix chat to get involved.

Our tentative plans are to discuss readings on Saturdays, but this will depend on what anybody joining the group has to say. We are still determining which texts to include in our readings and the order.
37 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Told that the reading group may be considering Settlers in the future, I was told whilst Settlers is a culturally important document, it doesn't have much the modern left can benefit from reading it and has many flaws to it.

And I was instead suggested this reading list to better study the question of race and class in the American settler social formation and how racial chauvanism presented itself and sabotage the proletarian struggle for power, something that we can't understand from reading any one book.

Here's the reading lists of books we should read before Settlers:
>A Nation Beneath Our Feet by Steven Hahn
<Workers of the World Undermined by Beth Sims
>Roots of Oppression by Talbot
<The American Crucible: Slavery, Emancipation and Human Rights by Robin Blackburn
>Whiteness of a different color by Matthew Frye Jacobson
<Black Awakening in Capitalist America by Robert L. Allen

W. E. B. Du Bois is an author that would also be integral to study the question as well

I think reading all these books and authors would give us a good comprehensive understanding, but we should also eventually read Settlers for its impact on the left as well to give us the tools to expose arguements and criticisms of the book by those who haven't actually read it


>Told that the reading group may be considering Settlers in the future, I was told whilst Settlers is a culturally important document, it doesn't have much the modern left can benefit from reading it and has many flaws to it.
Black Reconstruction -> Settlers -> False Nationalism, False Internationalism are pretty much the go-to combination for those interested in understanding the thread topic from the context of the New Communist Movement.


This Saturday
Time: 6pm UTC (subject to change if it's inconvenient)
We'll be covering Lenin's The Discussion On Self-Determination Summed Up. (again)
We want to give everyone the opportunity to read and join the discussion, since this text is closing out our introduction to the topic before we move into the modern context in the following weeks. We'll be doing an overview of the Self-Determination question as well, including the question of how the question manifests in the present.

The plan for the readings in the following weeks are:
<1> Decolonization is not a metaphor by Tuck & Yang (2012) (40 pages) https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck%20and%20Yang%202012%20Decolonization%20is%20not%20a%20metaphor.pdf
<2> Democratic Confederalism by Abdulla Ocalan (2011) (48 pages) http://www.freeocalan.org/books/#/book/democratic-confederalism
<3> Dawn: Marxism and National Liberation from Tricontinental (2021) (30ish pages) https://thetricontinental.org/dossier-37-marxism-and-national-liberation/

After that, we are planning to look at more specific contexts drawing form this list >>9295 and other places.
Here is the list of suggestions we have been discussing so far.
<Stalin – National Question
<Aimée Césaire
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Ocelan is the most shameless plagiarist I've ever seen. Is there anyone he hasn't ripped off?

How can you have readings on nationalism without Benedict Anderson or Ernest Gellner?


Element client tells me "no known servers" when I try to join.

File: 1698871407744.jpg (959.92 KB, 1700x1244, frenchrev_main.jpg)


Where the hell do I start with this shit? Unlike with the Russian Revolution I never see any leftists giving any clear recommendations for the French Revolution, so let's make a thread to address that now.

There are a whole bunch of differing interpretations that are neatly summarized in this Cosmonaut article: https://cosmonautmag.com/2019/09/historiography-wars-the-french-revolution/

Contemporary: The names that get dropped here are Edmund Burke's right wing critique of the French Revolution and Thomas Payne's reply. Seems like something I'm obliged to read eventually but is it a good place to start?

Bourgeois revolutionary: These are the historians that Marx and Engels themselves read: Guizot, Thiers, and Michelet (the latter Wilhelm Liebknecht really liked and who seems to be the most leftwing). The translations are usually pretty old so they might be a difficult read. Do you recommend any of these authors?

Second International Socialist: You have histories by Jean Jaures, E. Belfort Bax, a short one by Kautsky, and some others. Once again physical copies are mostly print on demand dreck, but I'm wondering if anyone recommends these.

Official Communist Academic: The big names here are Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul. These authors combine more rigorous research with an explicit Marxist mode of analysis - albeit presumably with some probrematic baggage about a "democratic bourgeoisie" that must personally lead the "bourgeois democratic revolution" and so on. Anyone read these?

Revisionist Renegades: The latter school actually had some clout in mainstream history departments so there was a big cold war push to discredit them - casting doubt on how independent the bourgeoisie was from the aristocracy etc. However, it's pretty much solely a negative critique, with the unspoken thesis being that the whole revolution was a senseless act of violence and that the ancien regime would have evolved into a parliamentary capitalist regime by itself.

So not ideal, but this school has the benefit of the most up-to-date research and prose. I actually already own one book in this tradition: Citizens by Simon Schama that I found at GooPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


I got into an argument with my professor on this topic. What book should I read on the great terror and to disprove some lies (especially about how it was to target political enemies)? Also, I heard my professor say the Britain was a liberal democracy, can anyone elaborate on that?


File: 1709082585985.pdf (1.48 MB, 173x255, Thompson.pdf)

>Britain was a liberal democracy
In the sense that it was a corrupt shithole and the political elite controlled the populace's culture and labor, he's correct.

File: 1708880991454.png (319.53 KB, 520x840, ClipboardImage.png)


Decided to start a thread on this topic after skimming through Bonnell's work and starting The Organizational Weapon(as much as the neocon pours through the page). The last chapter of Bonnell states but does not explain why the Russian capitalist was far less conciliatory than his American counterpart(though that's probably just because I skipped to the end and need to tread back) though that's certainly of interest. The book also tends to stress more cultural victories, such as Bolshevik journals being more practical and "proletarian" than their intellectual Menshevik counterparts. A younger, dumber version of myself would have turned this into some Maupin-type point but I don't know what to make of it now.

File: 1680698540183.jpg (317.9 KB, 910x645, together.jpg)


I'm searching for good(!) resources on how to outreach, recruit, organize people.
Looking for modern material i.e. "Social Media" and "Youtube" should be part of that.
32 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>tbh tho you are best off joining an effective org and learning through doing rather than reading theory
It is actually possible to do both. It is important that as communists that we make full use of democratic centralism as a method for which we make decisions concerning how we orient ourselves toward the struggle. Democratic centralism, compared to the so-called principle of "horizontalist concensus," enables the most organizationally advanced section of our class, in terms of development, to act quickly, to be able to turn on a dime and take off, starting off in strategized basegroups, and with clear vision of the objectives, and with coherent and developed understanding of the actuality of revolution, set out to intervene in the authentic struggles by the people, amidst the cascade of crises under this murderous system, the current material stage of imperialist capitalism. Our understanding of organization is that in order to that we may help make revolution, alongside the masses, providing them a platform from which they can act in their authentic crises, is that we have to be highly organized and purposeful: that there is absolutely a need for democratic decision making, and it must be a centralized fashion, where we have a debate within a set time frame, we have that necessary discussion time, and then we act, and do what the majority of us said we should do, and orient ourselves to unity of action, even if we might disagree.



These do about as much relevant stuff as the DSA
There's no real party organization for workers in the US or really anywhere except for tentatively voting for established libleft parties, in this case the Democrats


Seems good, I'll give it a read


Ok now that I've read it, it seems pretty good for any genuine Marxist organization to get shit done. It's meant to be read as a group and is a from an explicitly Maoist lens.

It outlines the baseline strategies and tactics for a Marxist org quite well. Tbf it's written by actual revolutionaries and not armchairs. Would love to see more takes on organization.

File: 1703185782202.jpg (161.17 KB, 1193x752, jollymarxism.jpg)


Hello, i used to be a white nationalist. i don't want to be one anymore after my life went to shit when everyone found out. i was radicalized by the alt-right by my friends when they became nazis in early this year. i viewed their white nationalist rhetoric as correct. they stopped being my friend when they found out i was trans and gay, and i still held onto the white nationalist beliefs when we stopped being friends. i want to fully get rid of my white nationalism and become a leftist. i go by they/them pronouns btw.
47 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Telling a recovering white nationalist to read fucking Marx and Lenin is like telling someone raised in a fundamentalist Christian cult to read De Principiis Naturalis and On The Origin of Species.

We're not a religion, we don't have holy books. Surely we can advance on the "science" of Marxism enough such that there would be newer better books, ie written in the last few centuries.


You're essentially right on both accounts; the white race is under attack from two sides, and black americans do have anti-white sentiments within their culture.

Capitalism is not inherently discriminatory enough to save one race over another, and so white people too find themselves always under threat. This is the appeal of fascism, that there can be some higher authority that curbs the chaos of the market, in favor of race, or an ideal for a nation. The other way whiteness is under attack is from radical marxist cultural critiques, that show how whiteness is not a historically consistent or internally coherent (or even able to be definitively delineated) category in reality. They show that whiteness is a coalition of peoples, who have banded together for mutual benefit, gravitating around the wealthy (who already tend to be white, and male, for historical reasons). Marxists (and people culturally touched by marxist ideas, e.g. black progressives) seek to break up "the white race", because what it really is is a politically expedient fiction which gives a wider social base of support to the bourgeoisie.

On the issue of black culture, it's apparent that they have so much culture that is influenced by their african roots, and by the traditions created during slavery, as well as culture that came from the rural white working class, peasants, and lumpen, as well as culture that developed more recently from the urban black working class. This is much larger than just being anti-white (which does exist, and for good reason, when structural racism and individual racism both are still around, holding down and hurting black people).

Slurs like "cracker" or slurs like "lol u can't season ur dry chicken breasts"? Bcuz for me, I just laugh at the latter insults cuz they're true, and honestly i think it's important to have healthy inter-cultural banter, like you're still stuck in racism if you feel shocked by anyone lobbing meaningless insults at other people for doing smth different. If you mean individual words… idk what your situation is, if you were the kind of whitey to grow up surrounded by non-white ppl and u got bullied for it and probably need actual therapy, or if you're just offended at the idea of being denigrated based on youPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1704239271759.webm (18.49 MB, 720x405, homofascism.webm)

>they stopped being my friend when they found out i was trans and gay
life imitates art


>i always see examples of “anti-whitism” online so it radicalizes more when i'm trying to not be radicalized
>i don't want to be one anymore after my life went to shit when everyone found out
so you want to stop being a white supremacist because it's inconvenient for you now, but you can't because you keep shitting your pants at "white ppl cant season they food :joy:" tweets? sorry if misinterpreting


If it's anything like my racist tendencies directed towards myself, the only way to get over it is to bite the bullet and look into each core belief deeper, like >>21357 is doing with race and IQ. If these ideas were something you could just ignore, you would never have become a wignat in the first place. A thread on class collaboration(the idea and history of it) would be well-placed for this goal.

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.
27 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


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.


Does anyone know more stuff like those videos? It's fascinating.


File: 1708133214677.png (199.69 KB, 260x406, Masanobu Fukuoka.PNG)

How the fuck hasn't anyone even mentioned Masanobu Fukuoka on this thread yet?
He's like the centrepiece of this study.


Who is that?


I found this book, "How to Read a Tree", it's by a guy interested in natural navigation but it's not limited to navigation, it has lots of stuff about how a trees environment, history and health are reflected in its shape and parts.

File: 1708200257900.png (303.77 KB, 588x522, ClipboardImage.png)


I've always found it weird that this event is never mentioned all too often, like from what I understand
>Muhammad and his followers in 622, facing hostility, flee from Mecca (a major regional trading center) to surrounding areas, specifically the city of Medina .
>After establishing themselves, they begin a protracted counter-war, chipping away at the Qurashi trading routes, and finally conquering the city. At 630,
>Muhammad dies in 632, the early Muslim expansion begins at 634
at what point does the rest of the Arabian peninsula get conquered/absorbed into the caliphate and why was it so easy to bring them into the fold then the Quraysh?


It was in 628-630 after the treaty of Hudaybiya when Muhammad sent letters to every Arab ruler and notable non-Arab ones. At that point Muhammad had basically defeated Quraysh militarily, controlled the trade routes going to the Byzantine empire & Europe, and was well-known throughout the peninsula.
Exceptions to that were other Hijazi tribes and the Ghassanids who were vassals of the Byzantines, they were conquered militarily after Mecca.

Of course, since this was a diplomatic expansion based on "trust me bro" and Muhammad's reputation, the Arab rulers did revolt after his death and then subdued. You might argue that this was when the Muslims actually controlled the peninsula.


but why was every other Arabian power, seemingly so easy to conquer then Quarish?


Shit snowballs, I guess. They had more men & money by the time of the ridda wars.
Also if you look further into it, the Muslims weren't soloing the tribes in these areas, but had a bunch of local allies supporting their rule against local enemies.


the quraysh were wealthier and ruled over a large metropolis
contrast that with agrarian tribes in the middle of nowhere


I’ve been exposed to way too much of this shit again lately on 4chan and I want to start a thread where we can start debunking common “race realist” talking points on things like intelligence, crime, athletic performance, or whatever.
11 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Oh, and not to mention that rote activity has been shown to be robustly more cognitively taxing than actual formalized tests of intelligence, as per more direct neuroscientific research. Haeir is involved in neuroscience, but from a psychometric background. This is an important technical difference.


But I am a radical IQ denialist who also happens to believe that, as is heresy, the scale being 'measured' is actually ordinal rather than interval, so the implications here, far from denying human difference, reorient our understanding and render the supposed hierarchy non-linear.


he is a race realist in that he believes races are real, but he doesn't believe that there is a hierarchy of intelligence.


Sounds pretty interesting what you are talking about. Can you list some litersture I can get into to get a better understanding of the subject?


Paul sackett would be a good start.

File: 1708688694152.png (337.38 KB, 338x500, ClipboardImage.png)


Some people recommended me a book called "The Turning Point: revitalizing the Soviet economy" during a debate.

Is this talking point real or just propaganda?

File: 1650832978316-0.jpg (352.5 KB, 1473x2268, 814cR9d6LuL.jpg)


Recently got this book, because it sounded interesting and reading the first pages I found it to be promising. So I'm dropping it in here. Perhaps we can talk about it.

It's a collection of essays by Evald Ilyenkov, a Soviet philosopher, who acted as a figure to make Hegel's role in Marxism understandable and accessible to the general public.
18 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>Evald Ilyenkov
I like some of his stuff but he's a bit too much of a hegelian for me. I lean towards the anti Humanist stances, kinda like althusser though I think his structuralism leans too far much into postmodern positions and his comments on political economy can be retarded especially on the productive relations. their was a brand of anti Humanist sentiment within the early Soviet Union though (prolekult specifically, though I have my issues with them).
> i never read any hegel, only marx+lenin+stalin
Have you ever thought about reading Plekhanov before?


File: 1679592066577.png (3.23 MB, 1125x1492, ClipboardImage.png)

Say what you want about Althusser, but he put anti-humanism into practice



David Bakhurst - Discussing "Ilyenkov's Hegel" from "The Heart of the Matter"

Nov 26, 2023 David is author of the ground-breaking "Consciousness and Revolution in Soviet Philosophy: From the Bolsheviks to Evald Ilyenkov". He is George Whalley Distinguished University Professor and John and Ella G. Charlton Professor of Philosophy at Queen's university, Ontario.

In this discussion we focus on his essay "Ilyenkov's Hegel", from his latest book "The Heart of the Matter: Ilyenkov, Vygotsky, and the Courage of Thought". The essay helps to situate Ilyenkov in his philosophical context and explore some of his goals and motivations.


I saw + read this article, have very minimal thoughts about it. Anyone else seen it?

It critiques dialectical logic, specifically the concept of 'contradiction'. Specifically goes against Ilyenkov a few times too.

Personally it wasn't that interesting, from the start it makes clear that the only contradiction they will be talking about is formal contradiction, like "it is sunny today" vs "it is not sunny today". And later on it quotes Marx and mentions how when Marx says 'contradiction' he really could have just called it a social conflict or something. This is basically my view as well - it's not that useful to talk about contradictions, we have in the material realm, conflicts, and in the linguistic/theoretical realm, unresolveable issues of definition, of identity and non-identity and their interrelation. To me that's the heart of dialectics, the fact that any given thing's claim to total integrity as a concept is ultimately indefensible, yet difference is still maintained. That's the kind of 'contradiction' I see, the contradiction between the truth of any definition and it's failure to faithfully capture the reality it attempts to enclose, either because of deficits, broadness, or internal difference. It's all about that difference and identity. Do these concepts come before those of formal logic? It seems like a meta-logic, because the question of contradiction is of an abstract claim about reality being contradicted by another exactly opposite claim, it's about the negation of the original claim, and the paradox between that negation and the relative validity of the claim. Anyways I might be off on this last thought idk.

Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / 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