[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / 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: 2 + 2 =

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

| Catalog | Home

File: 1685802283015.jpeg (1.21 MB, 1517x997, black horror.jpeg)


How does capitalism, and its most retrograde right wing layers, even keep the idea about race in the public discourse to begin with? I don't think "race" is even really an apolitical and scientific concept to begin with, but if we take science as mediated through the superstructure, then something like race may be naturalised and justified through "genetics" and ancestry/genealogy databases.
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Because ideas of racial inferiority provide an ideological justification for the hatred of the 'undeserving poor' which unilaterally occurs within capitalist societies.


Modern science is mediated by the superstructure. None of it is "real" except in this political order.


capitalism is incompatible with tribal social organisation, thus modern "race" is meaningless linguistic concept.


File: 1685861922715.jpg (43.54 KB, 700x394, franklin on whiteness.jpg)

race is a socially constructed and flexible spook; germans used to be considered nonwhite by anglos


>I find the "race is not scientific" argument to be a poor rebuttal rooted in semantics. Modern science recognizes genetic trends between the "races" even if there aren't neatly divided categories behind them.
You do realize races can not exist while the species can still have prevalences of some genes in subsections, right? There ultimately aren't human races, because of the low overall genetic variance, high genetic overlap, and there being less difference between these alleged races than among them.

>Historic population dynamics still carry a non-negligible genetic inertia to this day even in places like the US where we see the significant intermixing.

No, lol. The US is still relatively segregated because the history of racism in the United States bore an impact on the socioeconomic divide across racial lines that largely still exists. Therefore there are many regions of the US where either only or almost only black people, or white people, or Native Americans, or latines live. The US isn't that much of a melting pot as people think from the media. Just look at city maps and how these "races" are largely segregated.


What historians do you recommend to learn about the Soviet Union? For that matter, what books specifically would you recommend if there are specific ones you like.
9 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Also here, history of the Soviets/Bolsheviks between 1917 and 1924. Not perfect but a fairly decent set of books


Famine of 1932 some basic reading, the first pdf is the most important.


Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan (I used to talk regularly with his son).
And Anne Louise Strong's dismissal of the claim of "Dictatorship"

Pdf 3 is also related to the 1932 famine.


Does anyone have any good sources on War Communism? I just want to learn the philosophy behind it and how it was implemented, and its faults and successes.


Economic History of the USSR provides a good overview of the entire period.

File: 1694208525521.png (103.7 KB, 768x1024, ClipboardImage.png)


Can I start my theory by just cracking this open, or is there something else I should read first?
10 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Yeah reasonable entry reads, but Theses is actually included at the end of that (it's where it was originally published).


start with the moderns


This is pretty good intro to the Dialectical Materialist and Historical Materialist philosophies of Marx/Engels


Start with Hammurabi


start with the sumerians

File: 1694730002292.mp4 (4.5 MB, 506x480, nazchizo posting.mp4)


I'm aware of a book called My Life with the Taliban that is a memoir of a Taliban fighter who fought the insurgency against the US in the early 2000s, that one seems interesting, I'm imagining there must be some memoirs of American soldiers too right? If you know of any of either Iraq or Afghanistan feel free to give me some suggestions. Something that's like Storm of Steel or similar to that type of war memoir.


File: 1673379480761-0.png (51.86 KB, 275x183, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1673379480761-1.png (67.12 KB, 318x159, ClipboardImage.png)


I wanna state that I'm from Pakistan and grew up in a community that was very proud of its self, we see ourselves as our ethnic group and everybody else is an outsider
Said just comes as a across as a whiny self hating cunt and applies that whiny cunt nature towards everyone outside Europe, the man knew aboustetly nothing about the middle east, south asia or the muslim world, he was a white radlib(culturally) who had the luck of having ethnic heritage to justify his basis


What? Orientalism is about cultural depictions in the west
Thanks for letting us know you're an ethnonationalist I guess


I disagreed with it, cause like it or not those ethnolouges are probably the few accurate accounts of my people, there are some bias but I have read them and they were oddly tolerate and the internetion was for understadning
Said was just to far up his own ass to see that


nah, you're just a liberal and low iq..


because most firstworlders here have the same disease, they don't give a shit about marxism or actual politics in general, they just use it as a tool to hate themselves and their surroundings. why do you think "rich kid guilt" and "idpol" are a topic here but the auto workers strike isn't?
take a random subject and try to come up with the most stupid, incongruent and straight up incorrect take that you can. now wrap it in some cheap "west bad, east good" rhetoric and post it here. as a fellow esl you can probably recognize native and non-native speakers. evaluate the reactions yourself, they won't surprise you



File: 1687021402490.jpg (136.14 KB, 1500x1500, 2Q==(9).jpg)


>Bolsheviks were the party of workers, proletarians
>Bolsheviks didn't give a fuck about the peasants
>in fact, peasants were counter-revolutionary and petit-bourgeois
Meanwhile, the Bolshevik logo has a SICKLE on it. Why do internet MLs refuse to consider the fact that we need people to grow food, and like it or not, we don't have replicators or vertical, indoor industrial-scale farming (yet), so it stands to reason that we must ally ourselves with those who grow food or want to grow food. It seems there is this attitude that we (communists) can just do whatever, not make allies, because there is this assumption that we'll just fight and defeat anyone who disagrees. But for a fledgling movement, like communism, peasants and the army are two important parts of "the people". Without them, the urban proletariat would starve or be quickly defeated by an actual army.

Well, /leftypol/? How do we get a large part of the army and "peasantry" on our side?
66 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


The professional managerial class duh



File: 1695367088477.png (230.79 KB, 453x346, ClipboardImage.png)

The Bolsheviks were nerds and fags, and needed to be removed by Chad Stalin and his true working class Stalin and his inner circle


the urban petit-bourgeoisie and some of the peasantry


File: 1695399181480.jpg (229.93 KB, 792x794, 1649643888600.jpg)

How do we purge the left of this notion that class is some kind of essence embodied within people rather than a social relation they are trapped within? Bolsheviks didn't hate peasants or proletarians, they wanted to move on beyond peasantry to a more developed form of production relations. They were opposed to peasantry and proletarianization i.e. the structure, the institution of these class structures. They wanted to free the peasants and proles (the people) from these oppressive class positions, put instead in a classes position of simply a worker, common to everyone in society.

File: 1608528152394-0.jpg (287.46 KB, 732x1024, 8df3c00570.jpg)

 No.2083[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

So some of you may have read the quite popular pdf where Rafiq dunks on eco fetishism, in that thread he references a previous thread where he had spent a lot of time focusing in on eco-fetishism, however this thread has been lost from Revleft. It's available on internet archives but to preserve it I've made this in the style of the previous popular pdf. Hope you guys enjoy!

This thread could serve to discuss this work if anyone ever dedicates the time to read it, or we could debate the place of ecology in modern day Marxism. To provoke discussion: does nature have any value outside how it immediately serves human interests?
107 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


This is what he does, he reads articles on stream and he reads them well. What a weak piece of "evidence".


Lots of cope in this thread. Why is this in /edu/?


It started out as a relevant thread and then got derailed.


The accused person in question does not have many opinions in common with the Infrared Collective except interest in conservative philosophy, which is not very abnormal, even on the far left. Marcuse and Adorno spoke positively of those thinkers, for example. And a germ theory of ideology is a silly sort of cancel culture, that if prosecuted to the end totally would warrant the cancellation of Marx himself.


> Post capitalism and we gain no pleasure from our fake relationships with pets, dogs will just go extinct
<Ignoring historicity of animals/human cohabitation
Man, going back through these old threads is like a fever trip. I cant believe I was duped by such a pseud view point

File: 1608528162327.gif (2.91 MB, 500x200, untitled-15.gif)


Inspired by my reading of the book, Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn
How do we know myths, stories, magic, etc. are not real? Assuming what we know scientifically is true, how does this negate myth, legend, etc? Why are dinosaurs not simultaneously animals and also monsters when they fit what we would have called monsters? Why are overriding social systems not tantamount to a spirit or God when they control our actions and shape our life histories even if they don't act consciously? Are they not what we'd call an egregor, i.e., a presence brought into existence by the actions and beliefs of a large number of people? Is our Sun not a God when it is responsible for all life on Earth? Is the biosphere not some sort of Earth spirit when it encompasses all living things yet influences each individually and can be destroyed through harming the Natural (non-human) World. Are spirits not the electrical currents moving through your brain? Do we not tell history as a story?

In the beginning there was nothing but the One, then the One expanded into the Everything, as the Everything continued to expand soon the beating hearts of the Everything, the Stars began to form from the energy of the Beginning, the stars coalesced into huge interstellar communities, galaxies; in the nuclear core of the stars more building elements were created, and from the stars came the planets; in the deep seas of one planet around one star life formed out of the energy of the planet's iron core, over the course of billions of years life arose in complexity in a way matching the Everything until finally from Life emerged the Someone, a complex arrangement of the Everything capable of consciously perceiving itself.

Why isn't our understanding of the Universe, even being scientifically true, a myth? Myths were once truths, after all.
36 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1694972513401.png (1.46 MB, 900x625, ClipboardImage.png)

Reposting from /siberia/. I don't agree with it wholly but it's an interesting post nontheless
A 'god' does not need to exist or be believed in:
- To be pondered: you have an idea of what a god is.
- To have spread that very idea.
- For one to engage with the question of weather or not it could and/or does exist, or that it couldn't and/or not or doesn't exist. These being the same concept with a different value assigned to it.
- To have pondered the concept of 'belief': you have an idea of what belief is
- To do the previous but in terms of belief
- To occupy in part or in full a train of thought. This doesn't need to be your primary train of thought.
- To be associated with other concepts.
- To, in doing the previous, influence how those that do engage with the previous may engage with a subject, not necessarily with the consent of any involved party.
- To do the previous without other parties knowing that one party contributed to a discussion or done something whilst under this influence.
- To have material interests as an active participant as thus established.
- The aforementioned concepts with values assigned to them do not need specific values assigned to them. A 'god' shaped hole would possibly be even more of a threat, since it would no longer bound by the rules that would apply to it if those values were 'true.'
- To have in it's aforementioned material interests the elevation of it's influence regardless what form it would have after as long as the previous stands.

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


>commodity fetishism is magic
<reading marx poorly

Anon you realize that marx does not mean "fetishism" in a manner that is complementary

He's literally calling it a form of misrecognition


ITT people who are bad at critical thinking attempt to justify irrational beliefs with half-assed epistemological relativism and not enough people smack them down


Nothing is supernatural. I hate those terms like metaphysics.


File: 1695065923417.png (840.39 KB, 1280x952, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1694717310429.png (147.73 KB, 594x680, oppie kitty.png)


I've wasted my life. I don't like who I am. I struggle to connect with the overwhelming majority of other people, and do not desire their companionship but the lifestyle is starting to fuck me over. I have a crippling internet addiction. I'm in a deep, deep hole in more ways than you can imagine and I don't know if I have the strength to get myself out. I can't even tell you how bad it really is. I know, I'm a very special boi. On the plus side, I don't harbor any bigotries and I'm not a porn addict.

Since I can't get mental healthcare and I don't really have a support network, I'm looking for books—fiction or non-fiction, any genre—that fit any of the follow criteria:
>emotionally and/or intellectually edifying
>something that can give me some hope, comfort, inspiration, or show me a way up
>nothing too positive or wholesome because it'll bounce off of me
>no gimmicky, panacea bullshit either
>something I can relate to for the catharsis that comes from reveling in your shitty feelings in a controlled outlet, or maybe not, I could see this becoming a bad idea; use your judgement
>something I can feel a little better about myself for having read
So what should I read? I'm putting my faith in you.
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Checked. I liked No Longer Human when I read it a few years ago. I haven't read anything else by him though.




Maybe you're like that because you want to be like that.


Well, Goethe's The Sorrow of Young Werther was very influential in it's time. Check out the wiki page on it.


Oblomov is a beautiful novel I wouldn't be opposed to reading again. I recommend it any anons reading this.
Meme answer. I read that one in high school (of my own choice, not assigned reading). If you can't sympathize with or relate to Werther, it becomes very dull reading, which was the case for me.


>In Rainer Zitelmann’s book, "Hitler’s National Socialism", Zitelmann explains that Hitler's economic concepts regarding the relationship between markets and planned economies are controversial.
>Before 1933, Hitler's true position was kept secret. >He emphasized the need for secrecy in his economic plans for the pragmatic purpose of maximizing the possibility of gaining political power. >Thus, he presented himself as a supporter of private ownership in some speeches, while attacking capitalism in others, depending on his audience.
>His main aim was to reconcile the principles of competition and selection with a state-controlled economy.
>Hitler believed that the common good should determine individual benefit, rather than the other way around.
>Once he came to power, he diligently studied Stalin's government.
>His view of the Soviet economic system shifted from skepticism to admiration.
>He defended the Soviet system and even praised Stalin's economic planning.
>Hitler's admiration for the Soviet system is confirmed by Wilhelm Scheidt's notes, where Hitler recognized the inner relationship between his own system and Bolshevism, considering it more developed and straightforward.
>By 1939, Hitler's intention was to expand state control of the economy, not reduce it, even after the war.
>Hitler believed that capitalism had run its course and predicted the survival of Fascism, National Socialism, and possibly Bolshevism in the East.
>In his last radio address, he stated that unrestricted economic liberalism had become obsolete.

6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


If one considers Nazi Germany socialist for using dirigisme during a war, then one must consider the Allied powers just as if not more so; therefore, the word "socialism" loses all practical meaning.


File: 1694640564561.jpg (78.1 KB, 792x768, 7nvy7ozt0o161.jpg)

I remember hearing once that Hitler supposedly claimed in a dinner that the result of the five year plans Stalin introduced created an industrial goliath "greater than even the Reichswerke Hermann Göring."

Now, presuming this is real it's not entirely out of the ordinary and reflects the frankly bizarre relationship Fascism had with the USSR; it was equal parts realpolitik and also the arbitrary whims of the various Fascist dictators. ᴉuᴉlossnW, for example, claimed that Stalin had essentially created "Russian Fascism" or "National Bolshevism" during their initial years trading with one another. Funny enough I think ᴉuᴉlossnW even claimed that Stalin's own purge of his political enemies was not all that different from his, the difference was that Stalin being the Russian "Leader" was thus influenced by some "Mongol Spirit" and was reflected in him ordering mass executions, whereas Italians used the more "refined" and "civilized" method of forcing individuals to drink castor oil and shit out their innards in order to publicly humiliate them.

It should be noted that Fascists tried to apply at least some kind of bizarre "Fascist Analysis" to Stalin. For example, I believe it was Ribbentrop who excitedly claimed that, in fact, Stalin was a nationalist who was going to build a "Great Russia" of sorts. He elaborated (or maybe it was Hitler himself) that there was in fact a wedge within the Communist movement that on one side had Stalin as some sort of "modern day Genghis Khan" (the context in which it was in implied that was a positive thing) who would expand Russia's power and territory, versus Trotskyist "Internationalists" who sought to ferment global revolution and were part of some international Jewish Conspiracy. Essentially they saw "Socialism in One Country" as not altogether contradictory with what Fascists wanted, and Fascists themselves liked to think they were "pragmatists" who could take bits and pieces from liberalism or socialism to "make it work."

Hitler's own opinion on Stalin, while colored by the fact that he was on meth and would vasscillate wildly between one statement or another, was that himself, ᴉuᴉlossnW, and Stalin were the three most historically significant figures of the 20th century. Which, I mean, given the level of power Stalin was perceived as having within the USSR, makes sense from a Fascist perspectivePost too long. Click here to view the full text.


>Stalin and Hitler were the same
We’ve known this


Hitler praised everything from Islam to the British Empire to the America's westward expansion. He was, like many modern fascists, a fanboy for everything perceived to be strong/masculine with no regard for ideological consistency or coherence.


Stalin was BASED. Stalin's "dictatorship" was exaggerated by CIA. Stalin rejected his own cult of personality and viewed it as a relic of Russian peasant backwardness, but the party forced it on him anyways. Stalin wanted to form an anti-fascist alliance with the capitalist states of Europe, but they rejected his olive branch, because they were thirsty for the genocide of slavs, jews, roma, and the death of socialism in general. They allowed hitler to commit the holocaust to own stalin, and then at the last minute, when stalin bought time with the M-R pact, while fighting fascist Finland, those same capitalist states created a myth that Stalin and Hitler were best friends. Nothing is more devious, more reactionary, than the myth that Stalin and Hitler are twin dictators. You might as well be a holocaust denier and a nazi if you suggest this, so blind do you have to be to history.

Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / 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