[ 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: 1624322264844.jpg (79.36 KB, 601x537, Inca Empire.jpg)


What is the correct socialist analysis of the Inca Empire? Was it really a proto-socialist society, as some people claim? Or was it just Andean feudalism?tankieTankie


File: 1624470595257.jpg (159.28 KB, 788x1024, Jose Carlos Mariategui.jpg)

Haven't read him myself, but Jose Carlos Mariategui is seemingly a corner-stone figure for South-American Communism and the had the first influential His-Mat. analysis of the Incan empire, his main work being this one:

The works of Abdimael Guzman (Chairman Gonzallo) also speak on this but not as substantially (or so i've heard).
His work can be found here:

As for what I know, Incan political economy was feudal in it's societal relations (culturally, hierarchically and land-ownership) but communal in it's relations of production.
Don't take my word for it though, that's just what i've heard.sendero_luminosoSendero Luminoso


any other resources on Nutrition/Diet in the USSR to deboonk the Commie Starves meme apart from that one CIA Report? we could really use a more thorough list of sources on it.


ask somebody who lived in the USSR what they ate. From what I've heard, Soviet citizens ate the traditional diet from whatever region they were from.



Soviet nutrition was better than most of the west but was limited and involved a lot of creative uses for bread.


File: 1627698891640.png (90.38 KB, 660x398, consumption 1981.png)



Hello all.

I want to create a sync channel for educational purpose with different playlist rotations so we can have people getting educated on leftist thought.

This thread I want to construct the best videos on educating people into the basics of socialism. So the basics of the means of production, the basics of property, and etc. I want it simple, easy to understand and yet thorough enough to explain to someone brand new to socialist thought where if they watch this playlist of videos. They can get a handle of what are the core principles of socialism. I also want to make sure these videos are strictly socialist. No social democratic bullshit please.

Please post your suggestions in the thread and I'll check the videos and we work on getting a nice clean playlist of videos. We can discuss videos if I feel it doesn't quite fit what we should build for this thread.

Please don't bring up communism, anarchism, and etc. This is all about the basics of socialism and getting people beyond social democrat thought.

Reason why I want to do this:

People aren't reading theory and books nowadays. It's a harsh reality and it's hard to make people pick up a book and read it. We leftists need to have a fucking reality check on this. We always want to force people to read theory so much and yet when we watch our opponents in other ideology. They are able to explain their theories and bullshit within a few videos and they get their followers locked in. We need to stop making excuses, gatekeeping and general bullshitting. We can do this. I also understand that we are also under attack via social media companies. There is a way to upload video files and such into playlists on cytube. I just haven't done it in a while but I'll be looking into that as well so we can make our own content without being tied to hosting on youtube and etc.

My first suggestion is this video. I like how it focuses on the main points of what socialism is. It touches briefly on the other flavors of socialist but doesn't go too fair into them but the best part is I like how it makes the statement at the end of the video that calling a political system socialism is just inaccurate because socialism is used to define an economic system.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Video is by far the worst way to learn. You are wasting your time.


I don't give a fuck. Wasting time on this is perfectly fine. If you don't wish to participate? Then don't.

Tell me why it is bad as something to give a light intro into socialism. Please note this playlist is going to be at LEAST 10-15 videos minimum before creating the channel.


Thank you anon. These are great. I will add these into their own playlists onto the channel. Since these are actual economic courses

I will say though the Shaikh lectures are really really long. That doesn't seem beginner friendly for getting people into socialism. However, I'll figure out a way to integrate that playlist into something.people can watch on weeks we don't want to some heavy lecture watching. 90 minute average per video is a lot. Literally 2 days straight of content non stop. Could be more since I just ball parked the numbers. Let me know if you have sources on other platforms and such. I am willing to rip source videos and stuff from places as well.


Does anyone have any recommendations for books or resources for studying the history and conditions of the English (or British, in the current sense) working class?

The two I know of rn is 'The Making of the British Working Class' by E.P. Thompson and 'Conditions of the Working Class in England' by Engels.
I've been told they are classic accounts but they unfortunately only cover the very early period of British capitalism and working class history.
If anyone has any good books and resources that cover past the period these two cover (so anything covering the 1830s and beyond, please post them here.snibeti_snabSnibeti Snab


Here's some I found myself


i found these on libgen


meacham standish- A life apart: the English working class, 1890-1914

Worth, Rachel- Clothing and landscape in Victorian England: working-class dress and rural life

Working-Class Girls in Nineteenth-Century England: Life, Work, and SchoolingVolume:
Author(s):Meg Gomersall, Jo Campling
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



You should read Thompson anyway because it will set you up well for what is to come as well as introduce you gently to Marxist humanist historiography

File: 1623970571376.webm (3.12 MB, 640x360, 1622745530914.webm)


I'm a college dropout in burgerland, and I would like to improve my understanding of math, which was my worst subject in academia. Does anyone here have any suggestions or resources for someone who only speaks English, but would still like to do better than American schooling? Assume that I stopped learning math in 6th grade, or 9th grade for geometry in particular.


Here's how I proceeded in Mathematics. I was a Biology major with a minor in Chemistry:

Algebra II
Pre Calculus
Calculus I
Calculus II
Linear Algebra
Calculus III

All can be learned at the Kahn Academy.
And you can find problems online.


We already have a math thread.
I study chemical engineering, so I have the luck of going through a somewhat decent education in mathematics. So our focus lays in linear algebra, differential equations, fourier, laplace etc. I don't know how this will help you if you want a more allround education in math

4/sci/ has a good list if you want to learn about math like an autodictat


Didn't know about the math thread, thanks. >>6064 I appreciate your advice about Khan Academy, too.


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.
25 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


his goal is blowing marxism to pieces


Because according to post modern theory, china would be Communist


Postmodernism doesn't exist. It was constructed in American academia.


>photo: Foucault in 2012, burgerized


Nice post. I have to say being knowledgeable of Marx and Foucault feels like having superpowers ha. Important to note that all of these guys are not impervious to critique (even our beloved Marx, was apt in critiquing even himself) so it's what you do with it in theory and practice moving forward that matters.

We live in the era of libgen and scihub, and so I'm optimistic about the future of theory. No one should do a disservice to themselves by not reading these guys or at least secondary lit on them that is in good faith.

Worst comes to worst watch lectures online.

File: 1623365100188.jpg (243.25 KB, 2048x1686, 1602768687881.jpg)


Where do most communists stand on the being vs becoming vs nothingness metaphysical debate? This debate is as old as philosophy itself; does a left wing mindset require you to take a particular stance, or is it irrelevant?


Is ontological the study of becoming or being? Or both?


I would say from the perspective of Marx commies are basically forced to rest on the "becoming" camp.


Thanks to Marx's Hegelian lineage,you can certainly see a strong influence for the becoming side of things - but this seems like more of an accidental than a necessary relationship. It's very difficult for me to think of an argument about metaphysics that would change my politics, or visa-versa. (Everyone's favorite right-wing syphilitic crank, Nietzsche, was no less of a becoming enjoyer.)

There's a certain sense in which leftists need to believe that things in the social world are capable of change, rather than simply given in their behavior through an unchanging nature. But that's pretty divorced from metaphysics - certainly it's nothing that someone with an eternalist outlook on the metaphysics of time couldn't translate to their own language (that is, that different parts of the eternal 4D universe look different along the time axis just like they look different along some spatial axis.)

File: 1623314226240-0.pdf (781.37 KB, 67x118, 1911.02087.pdf)

File: 1623314226240-1.jpg (51.53 KB, 557x501, 66767.jpg)

File: 1623314226240-2.jpeg (43.88 KB, 765x431, 4534653757.jpeg)


So is the universe flat or is it curved? I haven't had the change to read the whole paper, yet, but, from what I understand from the paper and what the lovely people at PBS explained to me is, apparently physicists at Cornell University observed a cluster galaxies under extreme gravitation forces causing gravitational lensing. Now this is nothing spectacular as far as what observation about the universe has lead us to, but, what is interesting is that when the amplitude of light passing over these distortions in gravity are examined more closely, apparently, they fall way out of line with currently, standard, models involving the geometry of the universe which uses triangulation of areas in the Microwave Background Image and Early Super Nova in the Early universe to summize that the universe is flat. This totally flies in the face of our current understanding of the universe and could have damning implications for modern Cosmology; The universe wont expand for ever? What is driving expansion then? Our models for Dark Energy break down. I am literally freaking the fuck out over this right now. HELP ME EDU!


Chance*** Fuck.

File: 1622811198330.jpg (72.84 KB, 1000x667, rubbo ducko.jpg)


Hello edu, I am a curious yet ADD retard that finds it difficult to grasp anything through reading and I offer you my services;
See some people find it helpful to improve their understanding of a topic by explaining it to someone else. If you are one of these people please feel free to try and explain what it is you are working on and I will try my best to grasp what you are saying though active listening.Win win
8 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


yeah, I hadn't noticed that.
this is a good talk on the subject.

"the interpreter pattern is the only useful patter in the GoF book" lmao.


> "the interpreter pattern is the only useful patter in the GoF book" lmao.
That's a bit unfair, the visitor pattern is pretty cool and so are the strategy and state patterns.


I dislike OOP tbh. I don't use it that much, nor do I do fancy enough shit to merit it.

This Free stuff is nice if your language has a nice type system.


Give Smalltalk a try, it will change your views on OOP for sure: https://mooc.pharo.org/


This would be part of a larger program.
Hmmm I'll look into it. I've never heard anyone use smalltalk for modern shit.


So I know what capital is but what gives capital it’s characteristics? And if capitalism is capital reproducing itself in ever expanding processes, then what is it? Does this mean that capital only producing commodities which is what the end product of capital is? No this can’t be because that would be engaging in commodity fetishism. If generalized commodity production is then a phenomena of capitalism then in appearance capitalism looks like a world of exchange values and use values in which is the limits of bourgeois economy because on the surface commodities seem to rule life. But if commodities are nothing but a phenomena and nothing but something taking place in the surface then what is actually capital doing?

If the subjective essence of capital is labor then the product or the commodity appears as the central issue and generalized commodity production the fundamental issue of capitalism. But what then is the objective essence of capital and capitalism?

Capital could only be capitalism if it reproduces itself and so the true essence of capitalism is a social relation. And even more fundamental is the conditions for such a social relation to exist. Predicate to the existence of capital is the deprivation of the means of production from the immediate producer whether that be the land, tools, machinery etc. but that’s not the only deprivation, capital itself must be deprived of labor itself: people. And so the fundamental conflict appears to be dead labor vs living labor and those two being deprived of the other. Capital (dead labor) is useless without the labor process (living labor) but in order for capital to be capital it must continue to keep itself separate from living labor and living labor separate from it, with commodity production being the mediator between the two. And so the true essence of capitalism is capital reproducing a social relation continuously in increasing size. So if capitalism’s objective is to reproduce this social relation why do so many people take commodity production as the true essence of capitalism. Or “changing hands” into that of the state? If the point of communism is to abolish this relation of production to a production in common then it follows that capital will seize to exist in contradiction between dead and living labor. We have seen historically that it doesn’t matter which hands capital is put in, it still exists as capital and reproduces capital relations, so what is it with the misunderPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


>But what then is the objective essence of capital and capitalism?
Fossilized labour sonstalinStalin


Stalin is my favorite corporate CEO.


That seems to effectively be saying capitalism will cease to exist when commodity production ceases to exist. The split between dead and living labor is in the commodification of labor’s product. You end that commodification, ie you end private appropriation of the product, then you’ve ended commodity production. You end exchange of commodities, dead labor can’t be hanging over us in the way it does now. But it’s only a part of the story, you haven’t necessarily ended surplus value extraction unless you end class. Value didn’t dictate the economy before capitalism, though it existed in limited commodity markets. But surplus extraction still existed, and it wasn’t based on the commodity markets. So class society is separate from commodity production, ending commodity production isn’t ending exploitation. But conversely, ending class exploitation isn’t ending commodity production, as exploitation is ended in the worker co-op form, but commodity production is maintained. So value still regulates human social reproduction.

These two things are in relation to each other. Commodity production is the means by which class exploitation occurs. Commodity production is downstream of exploitation, it is produced out of a historical searching for opportunity to exploit a surplus, and it was produced out of the given historical circumstances of that searching. Ending class exploitation opens the door to ending commodity production, though likely not all at once. Commodity production is a tool to exploit a surplus, so if you end the class doing the exploiting, the tool is only as valuable as it is useful to the continued existence of the classless society. Hence, worker cooperatives are a transitionary social form. Commodity production may still produce private incomes for classless producers, and therefore there will be divisions, but as long as the classless producers have relatively equal political access, then the private incomes of the few are subordinate to the interests of the many, which by nature of markets are always going to outnumber the wealthier few. However, the issue with capitalist social relations in this respect is that the rich few are a social class that has dispersed dictatorships within the economy. Political participation is limited to the state, which is actually an oligarchy of the private dictatorships, empowered by surplus extraction to reaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

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