[ 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

File: 1608528239306.jpeg (235.07 KB, 1360x765, iu copy.jpeg)

 No.2940[View All]

Hello comrades. I propose a general thread in an attempt to get the /edu/ ball rolling again. Everytime you visit /edu/, post in this thread. Tell us about what you're thinking about, what you're reading, an interesting thing you have learned today, anything! Just be sure to pop in and say hi.
524 posts and 99 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Most arguments against marx can be won simply by quoting him because marx opponents can’t read.


Read Parenti's book on Caesar and the Fredrick Douglass's first narrative. Actually reading first hand accounts of slavery makes the reality of the situation so much worse, I thought I knew how horrible it was, i didn't.

Does anyone have any YouTube lecture recommendations? I've run out of Parenti ones.


There’s a few versions of him giving these lectures.

Mark fisher too if you’re okay with uhm’s.
Zizek is great but I know leftypol thinks he’s a nato shill.
David graber did a few great talks.
Half hour Hegel is great.


File: 1679610353902.jpg (27.35 KB, 331x500, MaloneyIRA.jpg)

Just got my hands on this book. What other recommendations does this group has for the IRA?



Banned from glowpedia for a year no idea why haven't been editing in years and I helped write the NPOV policy years ago

There is an error it this article


Some wikitard plz fix


I seriously need to stop drinking and consoooming screens in my spare time. I haven’t finished a book in months.

How am I supposed to become the best in my field if I’m not well read? How long will these shelves of unread books watch over me in disappointment? Reading gets rid of impostor syndrome, right?


Apparently the author wants to drive the point home that 'IRA worked with Qaddafi, who were both radical nutjobs who blamed poor Britain and European Imperialists for the state of their country!' The guy who had it before me kept underlining every line that has to do with Qaddafi or Islam or something in it, so I don't feel confident about the target audience.


I might have spoke too soon, giving that the author is giving credence to the idea that Qaddafi was responding against genuine CIA threats. I'll keep on.


Did they underline that part?


The person who had it before me didn't actually.


The good thing about living in a lumpen state like Tennesee is that, due to the laws of supply and demand and the fact that most people are too stupid and poor to achieve higher education, medical degrees cost less than a new truck



File: 1681910377195.mp4 (13.49 MB, 1280x720, Know Your Enemy.mp3.mp4)

Theory without practice is immaterial.
Practice without theory is immature.
But we're not talking about politics;
What physical skill did you study this month?


Did you start using a proxy? Could also be a dynamic IP address.

Wind in your back, lads. Wherever you go!



Is there any long-term value to noting down some individual's ideology, trying to find a common denominator. As a stereotypical board poster my ability to understand people is absolutely garbage, so I don't know if this is doing good at all.


>trying to find a common denominator
Trying to find common political ground between them and you?
Maybe, although I'd be cautious about stereotyping based off something as broad as ideology.

It's useful to keep in mind things like remembering which co-workers have admitted to being socialists or who expressed annoyance when the manager's manager's manager made chilling comments when a conversation shifted to wage theft. I don't have to write it down, but if you know you need to write it down to remember then so be it. Just make sure you're not writing down their political views while they're talking ;)


Nuclear power is back in the news again. Feels like things haven't changed in a decade: every degrowth radlib still hates nuclear with a passion, and every STEMfag is smug about how wrong this is. Leftypol falls into the latter group. Any books that just explain why the Silent Spring boomers came to hate nuke power, and why they're wrong? thx


I realize my reply is a bit low quality for /edu/, but the cultural fallout from two nukes through the Cold War tensions, plus high-profile nuclear plant disasters making world news (blah blah Chernobyl blah blah Three Mile Island) showed the real dangers of these plants, and their increased safety in the many decades since doesn't make news or get drilled into them by Fox & Friends. Cute puppies are more newsworthy than technological safety advancements. And I guess the Fukushima Fuckup doesn't help.

So, intense prolonged fear with no re-education means they're full of irrational levels of hate for the wrong things.


Unto This Last by 19th century art critic John Ruskin is a weird book, supposedly about economics. Got a few good bits against the mainstream economists, but most of it is just pompous words about I don't what. Oh and he is in favor of fixing wages and claims this would lead to people employing them putting a stronger focus on quality so that the people delivering crap quality would soon not be employed in that trade anymore and that would be better for everyone (reminded me of A Market for Lemons).


Khrushchevism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race


File: 1682946450308.png (380.12 KB, 680x748, ClipboardImage.png)

A vid full of lies from youtube's foremost Stalinist, unable to accept REAL, EXISTING tankie socialism that doesn't fellate his mustached daddy. Pathetic. You'd think he'd blame the guy who openly took credit for Stalin's death, Beria (see: Molotov's memoirs), but I guess FinBol can't handle putting the blame on a fellow gulag fetishist and statutory rapist.

When will Stalinists accept that so-called "anti-revisionism" theory is nothing but Trot degenerated workers state theory, but where Stalin is the good guy? Even the Trots have a better case for it, all Stalinists can do is try to slander an authentic communist as a counter-revolutionary for saying some spicy things one time, which weren't even false.


Finished "Progress and Poverty", the 1879 classic by Henry George which inspired the board game Monopoly. Great rhetoric, bit too pompous at time. My god does this guy have a hate boner for Malthusians. The Malthusian doctrine gets totally destroyed in one big section and after that part comes another part where it gets destroyed again with different arguments.

What I cannot condone is how HG often glues together workers and capitalists as if they were one class when he argues against the landlords.


This still exists wow
I finished these books


File: 1683296352692.jpeg (64.05 KB, 806x199, 43.jpeg)

any comments ?


Where I find reliable socialist(not bourgeois or reformist) news on the Dominican Republic?


File: 1683325846365.png (34.73 KB, 800x329, Screenshot.png)

>Bunch of buzzwords and non sourced claims to defend the cringe cornboy
Generate actual backed arguments instead of being fan of a smarter Gorbachev.


Which unsourced claims? Or did people already forget what FinBol did. Unless you mean Beria, in which case lmao
>a smarter Gorbachev
I would say you're thinking of Beria, but even Gorbachev was smarter. Beria made Gorbachev look like Lenin by comparison. Here's the NYT praising him: https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/03/opinion/beria-the-reformer.html


To whichever one of you retards insisted photosynthesis doesn't exploit quantum effects
I told you so



I haven't really been able to read about anything other than law recently. Too much work and running around like a chicken with my head cut off. I started reading the annotated criminal code as well as a handful of other books and resources I got from other attorney friends willing to share their research folders with me. It's so wild how most information online is garbage and not very useful, apparently written either by an AI or written for clients or SEO. The real juicy stuff is all in tomes that cost far too much. Pro tip, many law libraries set aside their old copies of books when they get the new year's copy in. My little physical law library is full of one or two year out of date books that cost thousands of dollars new. Also used bookstores sometimes have some good slightly out of date stuff too.

I've also noticed that lawyers really like to reinvent the wheel and focus on 'story telling' and 'psychodrama' and all this other bullshit that Aristotle wrote about in rhetoric 2500 years ago. But I guess that's what you get when you don't standardize undergrad degrees for lawyers. This leads to so many books that are like baby's first public speaking/writing. As if no one was properly trained on how to use a fucking oxford comma, or remove prepositions, or write for clarity. It almost inspires me to start writing a blog or something about being an underpaid leftist baby criminal defense lawyer, but that would be screaming into the void just as much as this post is. Why put in the effort to scream into a void no one will hear when I could be drinking beer or playing video games?

I want to be good at this job. I want to be the guy that other attorneys call when they have a problem instead of the other way around. I keep thinking of cracking open Obsidian and making my own little wiki or even just getting a physical journal and start writing down my experiences lawyering, but there's just so much work to do in front of me and the time I do set aside for myself is spent playing mahjong or drinking beer. I should be going to the gym and reading this huge pile of treatises, but after these 12 hour solo days I just don't have the gumption anymore.

Anyone have any input?


You can't do more than what you can do, if you are working long hours helping people then it's perfectly justifiable to want to chill the rest of the time.


You could probably get some beer money at least maybe even a full side hustle for a blog like that on substack


>Anyone have any input?
It sounds like you're doing something worthwhile and are in a position to do more with assistance. 12 hour solo days are something that very few people can be productive with in the medium to long term. Maybe take on the responsibility of an acolyte who can learn from you in exchange for performing the more mundane tasks, preserving your motivation for the most important work and maintaining health.


I guess it's the mixed feeling of work time being a sort of doggy paddling through it all. I know I'm learning on the job, but it's only ever what's right in front of me. Say a motion to suppress, I'm only looking into what fits exactly the issue I'm arguing as opposed to a more broad perspective of the subject for future times I need to narrow the thing down. It feels almost like when you work out one muscle group too much and the others suffer because of it.
It's always been a little idea in the back of my head to have some weird rambling blog about the law, but I'm not sure what exactly it would look like. I feel like my understanding of all these things is so shallow. But maybe the blog becomes the excuse to set time aside to study and dig deeper into things and gives an excuse to write out my thoughts. Strange to think I could write from any place of authority after having met people far smarter and more experience than me.
I have a paralegal that works a few hours a week filing stuff whenever they have the time, but I do eventually need to hire help full time. Right now the appointed cases don't pay enough to really sustain even myself, but the county just gave us a raise. So maybe over the next few months.

Thanks guis.


Staqrted reading Revolutionary Suicide by Huey Newton & J Herman Blake. Glad to be reading it


File: 1683812203350.jpg (46.1 KB, 400x343, jessica.jpg)

>see an ancient egypt document mention embalming
>decide to check wikipedia article on embalming
>there's a section talking about Jessica Mitford
oh yeah, she did do journalism about the death industry. small world, ey comrades?
if you don't know who she is, don't look up the Mitford sisters


Absolutely based. Why did my mortician friends not tell me about the now dead love of my life???


File: 1683999683382-0.png (61.91 KB, 750x413, Fig2_LS.png)

File: 1683999683382-1.png (55.29 KB, 750x585, Fig3_LS.png)

This is cute, to do active recall you cover up parts of the document you are studying with solid rectangles, write the recall cue on them and then colour-code them based on how well recall went so you know what to focus on next time.


Some light entertainment for youse


Live now the secretariat of the FPCI
Role of middle powers in a divided world


Finished "Organizations - A very short introduction" (2011) by Mary Jane Jo Hatch. This book is, well… let the work speak for itself:
<Einstein’s theory of relativity included the principle of the curvature of space-time, which implies that gravity forces light to bend, a phenomenon that has since been proven by scientific experimentation. One popular way of explaining what this discovery means in human terms is to note that, if we were able to look far enough forward in spacetime, we would end up looking at the back of our own heads. What does this imply about the positions we take in the world that define our ways of seeing as well as what we (think we) know? Would it be possible to look beyond the back of our heads and glimpse what lies over our shoulders?

<Metaphorically speaking, looking over our own shoulders is more or less what we do when we glimpse culture and come to understand its symbolism, social construction, and sensemaking processes. Keeping our shoulder in view reminds us that we are bound to a unique subjective position even though it is one that looks out on a larger reality we share with others who are similarly bound to their unique locations within the whole. This uniqueness explains the intersubjectivity required to access culture, we cannot experience it unless we engage with other cultural members. Might intersubjectivity position us to explore the fifth dimension lying within our collective consciousness?

<Combining the new physics with dynamic ways of thinking about the three Os suggests we always confront our past as we create our future in the momentary present of our existence. Culture manifests our heritage by inserting its vestiges into contemporary life, not unlike the idea of spacetime bending back on itself, an idea that provokes much speculation about time travel. Some physicists are convinced that jumps between two temporal points brought into proximity by the furrowed surface of five-dimensional space could allow for time travel. Could cultural intersubjectivity furrow individual awareness such that we might leap from our own narrow understanding to empathy with another cultural member or even with the whole?

<Given that culture allows us to symbolically align with our origins, as when we share stories of our ancestors or contemplate the artifacts they left to us, could it be that these intersubjective experiences constitute and/or grant access to a five-dimensional space whose contours form and are formed by our cultural heritage? Literature shows us that stories can transport us somewhere beyond the limits of ordinary consciousness, as do dreams and religious experiences. Some spiritual leaders, such as the Dalai Lama, have noted the striking similarity between the territory spirituality opens and ideas being explored by the new physics of hyperspace. As far as can be told from the archeological record left by the Cro Magnon, culture and religion originated together – why should they not work together now to help us confront the future?


Found something: Mainly just him conflating use value and exchange value and claiming that somehow proves that equivalents aren't exchanged. Vanilla and chocolate ice cream can *cost* the same, but one has more use value to you and the other doesn't.


ow anon, my brain liquified


File: 1684610805597.png (716.05 KB, 1248x2020, ClipboardImage.png)

Maybe the single most disappointing read of my life. Wasn't this supposed to be one of the greatest books out there?
The first part was promising and an incredibly engaging read, though it struck me as a bit shallow and essentially taking a long time to say what Nietzsche managed to do in two simple quotes (that Frankl directly cites): "He who has a why to live can bear any how." and "What does not kill me makes me stronger."
Then I found out that Frankl also outright lies, or at the very least severely confuses the reader during his memoir. The emphasis on Auschwitz would make you think he spent a long time there, whereas in real life he only spent three days there in transit. His experiences in Theresienstadt as a doctor are brushed under the rug entirely, not surprising considering what he was doing there. I also thought the prominence of spirituality and religion in the first part was Frankl trying to hint to the reader that turning to God was the only way to fill up the void of meaning, but I thought that was just me being harsh and assuming things too early – until I found out Frankl's other book where he does exactly that, The Unconscious God.
I thought it would be a profound book shaped by the author's experiences during the Holocaust – what it ended up being was a basic "just cheer up bro" self-help manual trying to use his own experiences in a concentration camp as a marketing gimmick. There is nothing new to be gained from reading this book, unless as a pretty harrowing Holocaust memoir (though Frankl's dishonesty makes it hard to discern what is real and what is made up).


GenZ in China and the US on quiet quitting and lying flat


Just finished reading: Marx’s Theory of Value in Chapter 1 of Capital
A Critique of Heinrich’s Value-Form Interpretation
by Fred Moseley (published 2023, already on Libgen).

Michael Heinrich is an academic and has been a professional Marx explainer for several decades.

Moseley argues that what exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production. Mosely is basing his interpretation on various statements by Marx in Capital, for example:
<What exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is therefore the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production.
Now I know that some might think that this means that according to Marx what exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production. But apparently just because Marx wrote
<What exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is therefore the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production
doesn't necessarily mean that he meant that what exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production and Heinrich certainly denies that
<What exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is therefore the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production
means that according to Marx what exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production. This is just like, Moseley's opinion, man, says Heinrich. So Moseley wrote a hundred pages to defend his interpretation (that what exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production). Book's a bit repetitive IMHO.

Heinrich claims that according to Marx value is determined in exchange. In particular, Heinrich means an "exchange relation" which Heinrich defines in the glossary at the end of his Marx-explaining book like this:
<The relation between two commodities that are exchanged, considered in abstraction from commodity owners.
I could not find a single passage in Capital unambiguously supporting this. And indeed, it's a big gripe of Heinrich that Marx wrote in a very garbled and frustrating way from the point of view of those enlightened ones who know that's what Marx really meant…


Marxism is a socio-economical theory. Why arent you studying economics instead of wasting time reading bullshit philosophy?


This but also with economics. Also, the post above you discusses just that

Unique IPs: 42

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
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 ]