You beat me to it! I will have a read and get back to you next time.
I myself have been reading Capital lately with a reading group. It's getting juicy now that we've gotten past the first few chapters. Also going to start Towards A New Socialism soon, if anyone has any tips or resources for that that would be great too.
John Brown by W.E.B Du Bois
and the 18th Brumaire (I dun get it)
About the Cuban revolution and how their modern focus on ecology and climate change can serve as an example for the soon-to-be socialist states.
Capital Vol. 1 and some assorted Lenin to develop my Marxist thought.
How money works.
A thread outlines the differences between Marx and Engels since everyone seems to treat them as inseparable.
I think a theoretical direction of an orthodox Marxist Leninism (spelling intentional) could be an effective way of breaking through a large amount of the sectarian fossilization within Marxist communist organizing and solidarity-building currently.
>>2946> Max Stirner, Individualist Anarchy, And a Critical Look at Egoist Communism
I really liked their view on the topic in general, I think the ending pages were kinda shitty, it sounded like they really just want to own the ancoms and didn't really think much about it. But in general a really good read.> Manifesto Against Schools by Armeanio Lewis
A perfect overview on schooling in general, very well written with some very good points on the topic. The narration is a little bit more informal, but I actually like how everything is expressed here, it is a really nice touch.> BITING BACK: A Radical Response to Non-Vegan Anarchists
It is a nice critic, not one of the bests - but still, it is short, and a nice read nonetheless> A Vegan Revolution Against the Fast Food Empire
It is just so short, but so well written, it explains all the basic concepts so bloody well in one page, thinking in translating it because it is just a really good, really short introduction - you can read it in like 5 minutes.> Against Speciesism, Against Anthropocentrism: 8 Reasons for Radical Veganism
I actually didn't want to include this one mainly for the title, it really sounds like those bait youtube video titles. I didn't like the arguments very much, I think he focus too much on > muh morality, muh duty - and gets kinda boring to read. But still, it isn't that bad, has some good points.
Those were my favorites, there are still many more, like way more to read; the good part is that they are very short and quite nice to read. What about you? Which ones have you read?
Jesus that last one is pretty insufferable. I can't believe I ever bought into the whole vegan thing>In one suburban family home, a woman is threatened by a male fist;somewhere in another, a pet hamster gets flushed down the loo: both areworthless rubbish in the eyes of those who wield relationships of possessionover them.
No don't throw that ball! You are exerting ownership of something you consider to be your property and that is bad! This part actually disgusts me honestly, to reduce the suffering of a refugee to that of a fish in a tank that has no water. And they wonder why they are accused of lifestylism! The points about the environment, and cost are reasonable, but they are clearly secondary reasons in the author's mind (since afterall they consider a hamster to be capable of the same suffering as a woman). >Animals are at the bottom of the dung heap
I mean bacteria are definitely below any animal. They are constantly transported against their will, destroyed without mercy and used in industrial processes.
>>2954> A Vegan Revolution Against the Fast Food Empire
I agree that it's nice and to the point. I do think that veganism doesn't actually solve these problems however, you can do all of this>we are individually taking a responsible approach to living a healthy life. With community gardens, local harvests, and organic food co-ops we can empower one another through working together and building a sustainable future.
without being vegan. Apart from that it relies on the reader believing in "speciesm". Since it seems you support these ideas, what does animal liberation look like to you?
I've been thinking a bit about which definition of the state is better, the marxist or anarchist definition. I'm an ML so I obviously consider the marxist definition to be more accurate however viewing it through anarchist lenses I still think what the goal of most anarchists looks like is still a state. If a state is a political apparatus with a monopoly on violence, wouldn't a free association of communes act as the de facto state? As long as your society has enemies, your FAoC would have a monopoly on violence (to combat your enemies of course, unless anarchists purposefully don't want to have a monopoly on violence, which would be putting them at a huge disadvantage. This is why the marxist definition is so much more accurate imo.
Morning comrades. You reached for the book, and not the phone this morning, right?
Where my comrades at?
Could you provide more detail on what you're working on?
You may already be aware of this and decided it was a form that didn’t suit your needs by it’s the most similar thing I could think of to what you proposed
I want to create a manifesto of sorts, a bunch of ideas for a new-left movement, largely based off the thoughts/writings of one person. To motivate people and try getting a better understanding of the condition we are in.>>2991
Thanks for the suggestion, I haven't heard of this before, but it seems a little less 'organised' than what I'm looking for. I'm currently not sure how much I want to write myself and how much I want to keep quotations in full.
I guess I'm mainly looking for a way to create an efficient workflow, I will be dealing with many different writings on various topics. So currently I have a selection of chapters for the book, and then I will read through each text and just find bits of interest to copy into some big text document.
hello, anyone has read Cyclonopedia by Reza Negarestani? how does it compare to Nick Land? is it worth reading?
I cant motivate myself lately and my focus is shitty but I plan on reading about some philosophical terminology and book reading.
In the nearer future I hope that Ill touch some history of philosophy and of marxism.
Make a schedule to do an hour of reading a day
trying to get through Hegel’s Lectures on the History of philosophy. still somewhat confused by his use of the word “Notion”
been eating up lots of anarchist audiobooks and essays. Ive totally burned myself out on insurrectionary works, but found some nice critiques that actually advanced my own thought a bit, so it was worth it.
Been listening to Perlman's "Letters of Insurgents" or whatever, its bomb as fuck. Oh yeah, and have been reading Camatte essays, mostly from the pdf hosted here on bunkerchan that some comrade uploaded in leftypol a week or two ago. (shoutout to whoever did that, thanks) Also just bought Against the Grain: a deep history of the earliest states (i think is the title). It's good as fuck, in fact it contradicts a lot of primitivist thought, and even prior works of the author a bit, and he totally acknowledges it. So a hearty thumbs up for this book, for coming from an anarchist perspective and taking new research into account in order to give a more accurate model of how the early states were formed, what material conditions led to them, and how people lived outside of them.
I highly recommend this last book to anyone whose whole anthropology comes from either Marx, or Zerzan. Remember that history and anthropology are sciences, and not there to support your ideology with concrete abstracts, and so the feild is always moving and learning. Might as well move and learn too, and adjust to the new information. No shame in that.
Most of all what im thinking about recently is how leftism ties in to anti-civ sort of critiques. The first politics i got into when i was younger was marxist theory and communist thought. Over time i got into anarchist and later deep green theory. Just now getting into Camatte, surprisingly. And now i realize that i never really changed my deep views that much, but was looking for things that gave words to my feelings and desires. And all the tendencies did give word, more or less, to some facet of my feelings about the current world. I think this needs to be more strongly recognized for us all. For me, the person most different isnt some nazi or capitalist or whatever, its someone who treats "ideologies" as something that can be right or wrong, better or worse, and that should explain the whole of reality. I might not be explaining well, but you probably know the people im talking about. The ones for whom communism isnt there to releive alienation, bring about the human communities we're missing, give us a common goal and fight for a better world, but for whom communism is a project for increased efficiency, purely logical, objectively better than capitalism, etc. Those are maybe my real enemies (or at least foreign people), and i think it doesnt matter so much what "ideology" someone is playing with at the time, but why they arrived at is.
Much love to all my real comrades out there, who are together in this project to dismantle the things that hurt us and make life unfulfilling, precarious, boring, and mentally and physically degenerating.
I've been thinking about making a Esperanto and Spanish keyboard, I just don't know whether of not I should include additional symbols or just copy the one someone already made but just make it for Linux.
got to refresh my already shit japanese
feeling conflicted about the place of democracy in party structures and in future communist society. Basically the debate between the direct democracy advocated by Cockshott, or keeping the decision making in the party leadership, or some mix.
just finished hinterland, pondering what to start next
Besides Deluze, are there other theorists who believe that the revolutionary subject is not the working class, but the self-defeating internal logic of capital itself? I wonder if it's even possible for a conscious political force to oust capitalism because it's even more of a world system now than it was in Marx, Lenin, or Mao's time.
yeah i wonder that too… i doubt any internal factions (separate from internal forces or like, natural consequence) can really defeat it, simply because they still exist within the structure and would need its existence relatively unchanged in order to stay alive, and also on a mental level, we're shaped by the desires and values of those around us, which overwhelmingly conform to capital…
to add to that last part about values, really the only experiences that make me challenge capitalism as a whole are ones that ive had ourside of its grip. Obviously shit sux doing wage labor and experiencing how society is to its constituents, but really all levels of shit can be dealt with with drugs, self-help, and delusion. Suffering is never revolutionary, especially in a world with pharmaceuticals. I wonder how much that plays a role in how unrevolutionary the US seems, for example. Like we never had a past of indigenous people incorporated into our society. The american society clashed with various indigenous ones and ultimately wiped them out or assimilated them, or imprisoned them in foreign (to them) plots of land. So we have no cultural "outside" or past even really.
Learning calculus and linear algebra to better understand economics. Also reading works of Edward Bernays since he really is a fascinating character, even though he shouldn't get much sympathy.
There's a linear algebra thread on this board somewhere if you're interested and don't know already
I'm here to post this archive of the current cycled /burgerkreg/ aka /riot/general on /leftypol/, bc near the bottom there's a few posts from a minneapolis anon describing the initial uprising and current developments on the ground at George Floyd Square and citywide in Minneapolis, which I enjoyed learning about and find to be of great historical value:https://archive.is/MciNJ
I've been reading a PDF about the rational kernel of Hegel. Someone posted it in one of those anti-dialectics threads.
It's pretty interesting so far, I've been stuck on reading, but slowly going back.
I've been reading on Hegel more generally. It's really interesting and the little I've understood so far seems very profound. I find myself applying the theory (as I understand it) IRL which has been very fun. I want more! But I suck at reading.
If you read anything let me know. I've been wanting to discuss hegel, but I still feel too baby to do it.
I take the bar exam for the third time on monday. So I've been reading outlines and practice questions. Reading infinite jest before bed.
God I don't want to fail again. Both previous times it was by 1%. Now it's all online. How is it that I can dismantle the ideological underpinnings of any person I meet, but I can't pass this stupid neoliberal bullshit exam. God damn it.
Wish me luck anons. And if you figure out how to unlock your subconscious through meditation or lucid dreaming, let me know, I know that I know this stuff I just can't remember any of it.
Good luck comrade. I know how you are feeling, it is truly awful. You have got it all under control. I have however heard very good results regarding meditation as a tool of focus and relaxation (in the anti anxiety sense).
Nice, I'll check it out.
Here's a link to one of the later works by a Left Communist of my tendency who eventually came to the conclusion that revolution was impossible and embraced a form of primitivism. It's pretty interesting even if I hope he's wrong.https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jacques-camatte-the-wandering-of-humanity
and here's a classic from uncle ted that's been a favorite of mine since I read it.http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism
Thanks Comrade. Test is tomorrow and tuesday. I have prayed to the gods and cast the runes. I am hogging down spaghetti and meditating. I am not doing this a fourth time.
Also kinda new, wow /edu/ is slow. Thought it would just be lefty /lit/.
Yeah it's a great board, lots of high quality posts, but that comes at a price
Hello comrades, I’m reading On the Genealogy of morals by Nietzsche, am I in the wrong to be thinking this guy is fucking retarded? This guy would have been deffo been a nazi
Am going to finish State and Rev, am gonna move on to finish Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, and then I'm gonna read What Is To Be Done?. I admit I'm not really diligent in my studies as I spend a lot of time online since I can't really go out and organize. I'm gonna change that and improve myself, though. I've also been studying more Serbian and want to be able to visit my family in Serbia on my own at some point rather than needing someone to go with.
Read Infinite Jest this summer. I haven't researched this, but Wallace strikes me as sort of centrist, maybe conservative in some of his stances. That being said the novel has really stuck with me. The story is filled with so many details that pander to North American nostalgia, the landscape that all the characters inhabit is just so American to the detail from sports to TV to suburbia and adolescent culture. How far are you anon?
Let me check…
I'm on page 342. First time I tried was for the meme and dropped it at 64. Now it's because it's so real. The themes of isolation, addiction, escapism, expectations, unused potential. It all resonates so deeply. It feels like a personal attack on my near 30 years existence on this earth. He really captured the zeitgeist of American consumerism. Those boring little details he so endlessly describes that everyone experiences but are so minute that you don't actively think about them. This time around it has been a much more interesting book. I've laughed aloud a few times even. I've watched most his interviews and read a bunch of his articles. Can't wait to finish reading it. It's been haunting me for years now.
Also day 1 of the bar exam finished. Fuck my brain hurts. 1 day left.
Ive been trying to read imperialism by lenin. Been thinking about how solarpunk has a lovely aesthetic and a bunch of sort of beliefs baked into it that make it very amenable to a new communism. Im not sure i buy that the sort of centralisation the USSR and China have are necessary and ive been trying to find works/write my own theory on how we might create more decentralised states. Ive read a little bookchin but i hate his writing so tyle so its a struggle.
Just finished reading Blackshirts and Red by Michael Parenti, it was an enjoyable read and he really got the point across about how shit the restoration of capitalism in the warsaw pact was. Also I found his chapters about Left-wing anti-communism and leftists who refuse to talk about class to be really relevent considering the state of breadtube and grifters like Vaush. It's a book I'd recommened to anyone especially those who are still infected with the liberal idea that fascism and communism are both terrible totalitarian ideologies.
Based. I read that book a few years ago.
Well the bar exam happened.
Started reading Dubliners. Haven't finished Infinite Jest.
Been practicing writing recently with /lit/'s genre burgerpunk. Dunno where else to share it. It's been fun testing out different styles, methods, and techniques on how to tell stories. I know it's probably not as funny as I think it is, but treating today as dystopian science fiction makes me giggle. Multiple layers of irony allowing for a literary critique of late stage capitalism. I think it's a good exercise overall.
Here's the link if you actually want to read it. Let me know what you think!https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/36209/burgerpunk-pizza-time
Is there an English Translation?
As far as I know it has only been translated to Spanish and Portuguese.
I'm actually thinking of translating it myself, but I don't know if I have the time right now. Maybe if I get some other comrade on board.
how do you think the exam went?
I don't really read any fiction, I need to improve on that front. Too much theory. Will read your thing another time I'm going to bed now
I am more at one with failure and the world this time around than the previous two times. I've come to accept who I am regarding taking the bar exam. Some parts I think I did well, other parts might be up in the air. It's all just tumbling down
I've been reading a lot about the Red Army Faction and the situation in West Germany in the 70s in general. Absolutely fascinating stuff.
Hi anon, I'm dropping in because of the board shuffling proposals on /leftypol/ though I posted in the medieval thread too. I am halfway through G. Agamben's "Homo Sacer", and then I'm going to read this weird thing by 'SDK' called Turn Illness Into a Weapon. There's a lot I want to do, mostly to more clearly and essentially grasp Marx (I have Postone's tract on Time, Labor, and Social Domination open somewhere), but also Hegel. This idea in my head is that the regeneration of the human being or species essence is inextricably tied to revolutionary praxis and that a certain liminal human figure mediates this process.>>3565
I think I have Kaufmann's translation and in his forward he btfo's the Nazi shit. Also you may be in the wrong because his was a very original project (specifically the genealogy) that smarter people than us (Deleuze, Foucault) say all the time they are indebted to. >>3569
That's fine as long as you are assimilating the main points. You will be better-read than half this chan. "What is to be Done?" is a hard text full of little historical tidbits (I could be thinking of One Step Forward…), don't miss out on the overall point. >>3576
What I see in this centralization-decent debate is different understandings of the terms' meanings and more importantly certain modernist(?) conceptions of space and freedom. Like the world is a big abstract space, where anything can be put anywhere, and it's a big matrix-puzzle to solve. We should instead conceive of different bioregions as organs in the Earth's total metabolism.>>3625
gib update soon.
I'll know in December. In the mean time I'm in a weird limbo for employment. Not a lawyer yet, nor do I want to leave the house and accidentally kill my grandmother.
I am re-reading Harry Cleaver's "Reading Capital Politically" to hopefully use it as the basis for an introductory study group on economics (as it covers a few chapters from Capital 1) but not sure if it will bear any fruit.
Just started taking a sociology course and I'm eager to read all of the material (it includes Marx, Gramsci, Weber and others) yet I feel intimidated by the amount of work expected - a large volume of reading, annotation and writing expected weekly. Anyone have similar experiences with how to manage rigourous social science courses for newbies?
>what you're reading
Finished "Is Socialism feasible?" (Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 2019). Meh, he's like a less intelligent and more verbose Alec Nove (mixed economy good and maybe some co-ops, NHS also OK, big socialism bad). In a footnote he complains that the writing of writers such as "Marx are marred by anti-Semitic remarks." The sentence the footnote is connected with doesn't mention Marx (nor the sentence before that or the page or the page before that page). My impression is that the author had a to-do list of bad things to say about commies and when rewriting parts in the main body of the text, he forgot to change this footnote.
Authors of the far right get a careful reading and polite response, for left-wingers he analyses a few slogans
and finds these lacking in nuance
(page 156):>An even cruder misunderstanding is that public good means ‘good for the public’. While anyone who has taken Econ 101 should spot this error, it is nevertheless widespread. The term ‘good’ in this context does not mean virtuous or worthwhile. Instead in this case it means objects of trade, including traded services. Bad things, like tobacco, heroin and personnel mines, are also goods in this sense. As leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn has opined that ‘education is a public good’ and suggested that this implies that it should all be provided by government and funded by taxation. All three leaders of the UK Green Party since 2012 – Natalie Bennett, Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley – have repeated the phrase ‘education is a public good’.
He continues on this on page 157:>Influential organizations are led by people who have not learned the lessons of Econ 101.
Then on page 158, there is this breathtaking finding:>Nevertheless, with education there are also strong positive spill-over effects. Educated people help to raise the levels of public culture and discourse and can pass on some of their skills to others. Educated people are also vital for a healthy democracy.
Page 159:>Consider the positive externalities of education. It would be impossible or socially destructive for every educated person to charge a fee to participants in an intellectual dinner conversation, or to invoice the government for making a well-informed choice when casting his or her vote in the ballot box. The internalization of these positive externalities is impossible or undesirable.
So the message is that your soundbite is bad, and even though I agree with the gist of what you say here I must denounce you since you fail at econ 101, even though I disagree with econ 101 myself.
As you can probably tell by now, he's a pretty shitty writer. I picked up the book because Cockshott's TANS is in the references, but he doesn't actually discuss sortition etc. (I don't believe he has actually read it). He also refers to the work of Rudolph Rummel when discussing the USSR body count. If you don't know who that is, see this thread: https://archive.fo/GCcfp
I'm pretending to do my homework. Never posted here before, and I want to read theory but I'm always procrastinating. Help me, I'm in neverending pain.
Read the books atomic habits, deep work, and make it stick. Do your homework anon.
Thank you… Last time I tried reading a book for productivity I almost read half of it. I'm afraid that nothing I read will work because my impulse control is so fucking abysmal.
Anyway, I'm trying to fix something that someone helped me write for my assignment, which is overdue at this point, but god fucking damn, my douchebag-ass neighbors just had to throw a fucking party with alcohol and blaring music right when I'm most worried about submitting this shit ASAP. It's midnight, and it sounds like it's coming from inside my house. Makes me wanna shoot myself, I'm actually tearing up. Sorry, I just wanted to get it out my chest.
I think I'll stick around this board from now on and try to actually read something.
I'm investigating about Object Oriented Ontology.
The name has semblance to a programming concept which is pure neoliberalism and makes me want to shoot myself. There is still a lot about philosophy that I don't get, it sounds radically different than hegelianism (and materialist/marxist hegelianism), because as I have understood it so far, it ignores the human element in the understanding of reality.
An object is never just itself, it exists in relation to a shit ton of things, and these relations are social in nature. The social part is human. It could be animals of course, but the point is that a set of consciousnesses has to create said social relations of objects. Zizek doesn't seem to have too many qualms on this area as far as I've seen, so maybe I'm missing something obvious.
And it seems OOO is kantian + heideggerian in origin? Which ignores the advances made by hegel and marx to "unify" the phenomena and neumena.
Hmmm, from a youtube comment of a lecture of the star of OOO:>Most of the issues raised by Harman in this lecture were solved long ago by Hegel. It's disturbing how many philosophers can still continue to work in the shadow of Kant.
So maybe I'm not that far off the mark. I feel a need to tell everyone IRL about my shitty understanding of Hegel, but nobody seem to give a shit TT_TT
>>3683>a programming concept which is pure neoliberalism and makes me want to shoot myself
How many layers of ideology are you on right now?
I don't think OOO is kantian or heideggerian explicitly. Maybe just on the most vague levels. Would like it if someone else could clarify.
Rafiq thread was excellent. My collection of his compilation of posts grows and I am very happy with the discussion there.
Did you get your stuff done anon? Did you at least get some sleep? It's all gonna be okay bud.
Thanks for taking the time to read it, Comrade
go check on libcom, im pretty sure i saw something like radical america there
Finished "I Am a Strange Loop" by Douglas Hofstadter. It's musings about how minds work without talking about the brain as an organ, very autobiographical and full of tedious punning (I admit I'm somewhat biased against puns in general as I always think about the poor translators when I encounter them).
He makes the point that language doesn't only have metaphorical meaning in a few sentences here and there. People talk and think in metaphors and analogies all the time, it's just that we usually only explicitly call out the big and wild ones. He gives an example of you eating a cookie from a plate and remarking it's delicious, some kids then eagerly grab similar-looking cookies from the plate (instead of pulling the one you said is good out of your mouth like a REAL SCIENTIST would, stupid kids). The kids reached a conclusion through a mini-analogy. Hofstadter has actually worked on a computer program that finds analogies and my hope when picking up the book was he'd describe it in some detail as well as other AI research, but he doesn't.
Instead he craps on soul-body dualism, ultra-individualism, and John Searle's Chinese room argument. He argues against these three entangled issues (or is it one issue?) very well, but I didn't need any convincing. I'm more like Hofstadter when it comes to that than he is himself.
"The Invention of Capitalism" by Michael Perelman, very good book about Adam Smith and other classical economists. It's a common trope among Marxists that economics used to be more scientific while the bourgeoisie had been a progressive force and then took a nosedive post Ricardo. The book shows that the change to capitalism was not a basically automatic outcome of tendencies within feudalism, but to a great extent helped by political machinations, with our respectable philosophers/economists being quite aware of that and being for a rather hands-on approach despite how they are remembered. There's some real vile shit in it from their private letters.
guess that guy succeeded his goal of triggering me because wow, fuck that guy. burning a book isn't the most evil thing you can do but it is one of the most transparently, pointlessly evil things you can do, IMO
I thoroughly enjoyed reading "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Hofstadter.
The rest of your post was good, I have little to comment on, but I enjoyed your review.>I'm more like Hofstadter when it comes to that than he is himself.
Based and marxism-pilled.
Currently reading Engels' Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. It's an interesting work. I've only read the very beginning so far, but am very interested in seeing where the rest goes.
On another note, I've been thinking a lot about Kant and his transcendental idealism. I recently read Marx's Theses on Feuerbach and Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, and both touch on Kant's philosophy, though the Theses do it more indirectly. Reading these I think I've been able to understand and form a pretty consistent critique of transcendental idealism from a materialist point of view, though this only makes me more interested in actually reading Kant, which I haven't. I guess I'll work on studying him more closely as I read these other Marxist works. I'll probably start with Descartes then Hume or something like that. Might check out Leibniz at some point too.>>4368
So the book shows how economists/philosophers like Smith and Ricardo were not just responsible for indirectly 'justifying' liberalism, but also directly engaged with its politics, all the while knowing its flaws and surrounding opportunism? That sounds pretty interesting, I guess I'll check it out sometime. Will add it to my 'critique of liberalism' reading list.
halfway through my first book since probably middleschool, Against Empire by Michael Parenti
I wish this board was more active>>4382
someone did this on /mu/ once too, they got a whole suitcase full of EXTREMELY rare Three Six Mafia tapes and other very valuable Memphis Rap releases and were like,
>I no longer agree with the message of this jungle music, it promotes violence and degeneracy
and then procedes to start melting them and throwing them in the garbage
I've had this book for a while but have put off reading it. Maybe it's time. >>4412
You can make it more active comrade. Look through the catalog and see if there's anything you like if you don't wanna make a thread!>>4408
Based. One of my favorite Engel's works, was a huge breakthrough moment for me in getting the 'bigger picture' of humanity.
Anyone read Ted Reese's book "Socialism or Extinction: Climate, Automation and War in the Final Capitalist Breakdown"?
Am reading Carr's History of Soviet Russia. Currently on Part 3 (Socialism in one coutnry), vol. 1. PARTS 1 and 2 were really good.
Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations". When people sit alone at home and do philosophy, they rip words out of their usual social contexts, and with these shifted meanings they "find" many "logical flaws" in how normies are talking. Wittgenstein points to normal usage of words and while he gives many weird scenarios, their purpose is to highlight by contrast something about how language normally works. No familiarity with other philosophical works is needed to read this. The less familiar you are with philosophy, the more often you'll say to yourself while reading: Well, isn't this banal. The more familiar you are with philosophy, the more likely it is you will get a headache.
It's Christmas comrades. Time to get some mulled wine and armchair away the days with good books. Still working my way through Zizek's Living In The End Times. Very much enjoying it regardless of its length.
Passages from the Life of a Philosopher" by Charles Babbage (copy from standardebooks.org). Disjointed ramblings about physics and engineering, how annoying street musicians and beggars are, his fascination with his figurine "Silver Lady" etc. He also makes lists about which ethnic groups play which annoying instruments in public and who encourages them (e.g. "ladies of doubtful virtue"). He got harassed a lot in public over his opinion on banning street music by the mob. While he's explaining his calculating Difference Engine at an exhibit:
<…I was insulted by impertinent questions conveyed in a loud voice from a person at a distance in the crowd. My taste for music, and especially for organs, was questioned.
As for his other politics:
<In the course of my efforts to inform myself of the real wants of those around me, I profited much by the experience of one or two friends, both most excellent and kindhearted men, whose official duties rendered them far more conversant than myself with the subject. Mr. Walker and Mr. Broderip, both of them magistrates, were amongst my intimate friends. Mr. Walker, the author of The Original, maintained that no one ever was actually starved in London, except through his own folly or fault.
<Whenever any further extension of our representative system becomes necessary, the dangers arising from the extension of the personal suffrage may fairly be counterbalanced by giving a plurality of votes to property.
About half the book is like looking at a REEEing Pepe with a monocle. Not recommended.
Hey, this is anon from earlier in the thread. I fucking passed the bar exam! Woo! Anyone know of any resources for leftist attorneys?
Not sure if this is what you're asking for, but have you heard of Evgeny Pashukanis? Soviet law theorist, seems like the most important thinker in marxist critical law theory. I keep hearing things about him in local marxist circles, and he does seem interesting, but I haven't yet read anything from him. https://www.marxists.org/archive/pashukanis/index.htm
Congrats man! You're free!
>>4610>The pre-eminent Soviet jurist of the 1920s and early 1930s, Pashukanis fell victim to the great purges of the late 1930s and was thereafter reviled as an “enemy of the people” until his posthumous legal rehabilitation in 1956.https://www.marxists.org/archive/pashukanis/biog/biogintro.htm
stalin purged literally all the good marxists. it's fucking crazy
This site wont let me post threads, i wanted to create a thread with the contents below but the captcha 100% of the time says its wrong or expired so i dunno.. can someone post a thread for me?
I have fuck all time but to be a proper revolutionairy i need to read and comprehend much more than i do. I don't have the time to read books and not remember the contents.
I was hoping everyone could drop their tips, hints and self-help books on reading and studying more effectively so that we can all become more effective students.
Lukacs wasn’t purged but he was exiled, and it was sort of his own fault
Still reading Hegel's logic. (a secondary source on Hegel's Science of Logic). I read ridiculously slow and I've been very distracted lately.
I'm like 20% of the book done after months of reading lol. I recently shared the books with a friend and they already surpassed me -.-
My biggest hurdle is actually starting to read. The book's material is not easy for me, so I actively try to not read. I can have the book open in front of me, but I'll watch an hour of youtube videos just to avoid starting to read. I'm not sure how to mitigate this.
I was reading Capital a while ago, also ridiculously slow. I noticed I've gotten much better at reading, because when I read normie books, I can read them much much quicker and with less effort than before (I still read them slow, but at least I can read now). I stopped reading after chapter 1 *facepalm* but I'm meaning to retake it once I've matured my Hegel knowledge a little bit more.
Hi friend. I’m almost done reading Bullshit Jobs: a theory.
Wondering how to get USanos with an libshit allergy to Stalin to study Stalin's works
is anybody here?
Yeah, just holiday busy. I bought a book I plan on reading soon. I'm somewhat tired of the book I was reading previously.
Reading Frances Stonor Saunders' Who Paid the Piper? about the cultural Cold War of the mid-20th century. It's really interesting but the "cast" of important figures is vast and quickly becomes difficult to keep track of.
Willing to compile a short list of the most mentioned people if enough interest arises.
Anyway, I like the book because it paints a really good picture of how great of a job the CIA did painting itself as innocuous when it came to cultural matters, even though it was pretty much everywhere. I imagine most of us are familiar with the horror stories of 1950's McCarthyism, but the other side of the coin is just as interesting to me: it could be as simple as getting a pre-screening of a new John Wayne western and slipping them a few thousand bucks to put more of an emphasis on freedom and individualism. Didn't even have to be an explicitly anti-communist movie, even though there were enough of those to go around as well - quite the opposite, the CIA's involvement in cultural projects it didn't start itself was designed to steer independent art in a direction that benefited it most.
Another great example of how the CIA achieved this was by appropriating burgeoning artistic movements before they had a chance to make a name - or a means of making a living - for themselves: the abstract expressionist movement that arose from the New York avant-garde. In the name of freedom and fatherland, through CIA assets like the MoMA, artists like Rothko got more exposure and cash than they knew what to do with.
I'm not through with the book yet and I know my thoughts seem scattered as all fuck but still, I recommend it if you can keep track of all the guys.
Don't know how active this is but I came and I saw.
Slow board, now on a new website. Things are a lot slower than they used to be, we can only hope threads like this help garner attention towards the board.
>>4795>fell for a /lit/ meme
I am spreading myself thin between work stuff, errands, comradely work, and depression.
I bought On the origin of family. So far the writing is good. I needed something mellow, easy and pleasant to read. I'm tired of struggling to understand what I'm reading. I thought of reading fiction but it feels so pointless at this moment, I don't know why.
I'm getting strong urge to start quantitative finance thread as I spent lot of time studying rigorous books on option pricing and stochastic calculus during lockdown picking up few tendies here and there
I know, I know, this is no place for profaned bourgeoisie 'science' but I genuinely think there are few things we can learn from how modern 'quants' are modelling markets and how traders actually interpret it without even discussing actual trading.
There is not much linear programming involved so I do think it warrants separate thread from dickblast. whatdoyathink?
Do it, I may be able to participate with stochastic discussion but I'm by no means an expert.>>4804>I'm tired of struggling to understand what I'm reading.
Kek I've had this, origin of family is a good book to relieve that. I've always hated fiction also. Zizek's more normie targetted books are good too.>>4783
I'm okay. Very anxious to start uni again. Hope you're good comrade.
Thanks for the recommendations. Which are zizek's normie books? Sublime Object of Ideology?
It's the year of the ox, so I'm hoping to get a cow gf if I can
Ngl it ain't looking good so far
I haven't read that one, I dunno how much it assumes knowledge of Lacan/psychoanalysis but it's definitely one of his most important works. 'Violence' and 'Virtue and Terror are good intro texts. The latter (he writes the preface* to a collection of Robespierre works and Zizek's analysis is far more interesting imo) is the first thing I read by Zizek, it's good and short just read it and see if it's your thing to be honest. 'Living In The End Timer' is also great, very large but it's almost like a collection of short stories about culture and relating these things to communism/psychoanalysis/philosophy, so you can pick it up and put it down without having to really follow a coherent 'story'. I'd recommend googling terms you aren't familiar with (objet petit a and so on) but not dwelling on this too much because you will come to understand these concepts and the way Zizek thinks through osmosis.
*He did a series of prefaces with Verso books, haven't read any others but I imagine they are all quit normie friendly, I'm sure there will be one on a topic you're interested in.>>4812
Will pray for you comrade.
Lovely sentiments. I applaud your choice of Against the Grain, especially.> And now i realize that i never really changed my deep views that much, but was looking for things that gave words to my feelings and desires.
I relate deeply to this.
>>4829>what you're thinking about
Thinking about the Spectacle and how far it extends. I have a friend that cannot go five minutes without making a reference to some meme or popular culture. I sometimes fall into this trap as well. I find it disturbing that, rather being bound by lived experience, our interactions are mediated by something manufactured and artificial. And if I feel this way about just talking with my friends, does it infect other spheres of other relationships?
>what you're reading
After reading some of Marx's basic works, I am covering some of his essays. I have just finished Civil War in France and I intend to read Value Price and Profit next. After reading that and covering some of Marx's other works, I am unsure if I should go into Psychoanalysis or ecology
>interesting thing you have learned today
After thinking that the Union hymn "John Brown's Body" was based off of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," apparently it is the other way around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGlH6sz2A30
If I want to truly understand the liberal mindset, who do I set out reading?
Locke and Rousseau?
is anybody here?
Those and Adam Smith, if you want Classical Liberalism. You could read some sections from Wealth of Nations (no need to bother with the whole thing) and Theory of Moral Sentimentsread_a_fucking_bookRead a Fucking Book
I'm an ex-/pol/tard, currently anarchist, please recommend me a book or two.
I am not really interested in becoming a leftist, but I wanna know what socialism/communism really is.
This one is my favorite, a very simple summary of Capital. Let's be totally honest here, Marx writes like a fag.
Trying to read all the books on the /read/ reading list and I've finished reading The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism by Lenin. It was shorter than I expected at only 5 pages and its like a short and sweet recap of what I've read in Socialism Utopian and Scientific. Overall it was an enjoyable read and my first introduction into Lenin's work.
I also read Principles of Communism too which was another good short read and reads like a FAQ, I liked that it was written in easier to understand english than other works by Marx and Engels. Sometimes it would take reading a page twice to understand what was being said by them
What a nice post to read.
:) have a good day anon.
Thanks! I hope you have a good day too
/read/fag here. Glad to see people are making good use of our reading list. We made it public in the first place so that people outside the group could also benefit from it. If you have any questions or comments about any of the books, feel free to join our chat. We also recently started a new reading group for new members, which is something that might interest you. Check our thread for any info you might need, >>4899read_a_fucking_bookRead a Fucking Book
Check out this thread:>>4337
I bet there are people willing to pay a premium to have someone else buy an e-book for them and pirate it.
I can't seem to find a specific e-book online for free. I'm hesitant to buy it because it's like 30 USD and it'd only be for me. If I do buy it, I'd hate for it to be only for me, I'd rather share it. But I'm not skilled enough to cover my tracks, so I'd rather not do it.
Just passing by, but I was wondering what would be a good way to develop myself philosophically and economically in a communistic way?
Read books and learn, learn, learn. What to read depends on what you already know and what you would like to know.
If you're interested in getting started with marxist theory in general, https://leftyread.ml/schedules/tilmeeth.html
and the old leftypol list (pic related) are both good lists. For economics and political economy, the other pic related is a good chart. For philosophy in general, and if you're interested in taking the whole historical tour of western philosophy, Plato is not a bad place to start.
Just remember to take it easy and not get overwhelmed by the sheer amount of books to read and things to learn out there. Take it one step at a time, but knowing that reading and learning are really just never-ending processes.read_a_fucking_bookRead a Fucking Book
The book diagram is nonsense, see post No. 1314990 here: https://bunkerchan.net/leftypol/res/1314909.html
Up to around 1933 Carr's History of Soviet Russia is great.
Am currently reading Capital vol I., together with Harvey's companion, frenchies' Reading Capital and Heinrich's Introduction to 3 volumes of Capital.
i'm from a poor family of brown mud people how do i become educated enough to slay the wh*te bougie menace with a flick of my tongue
I just got done reading Wage Labour and Capitol over the course of a week on my lunch breaks at work, might have to read it again as Marx is pretty obtuse at times.
I think I would benefit a lot from seeing the things Marx talks about from a different perspective, as what he says in WG&C is pretty intuitively obvious if you've had a job but I can't help but feel everything he asserts is just a bunch of made up bullshit
Starting to read Spinoza. Have not really read much older philosophy, but some of the authors I've read have been positive towards him, (ie mark fisher). Anything i should know before jumping in?
>>4976>The book diagram is nonsense
Why? The link is broken for obvious reasons
Just got through "How We Decide" by Jonah Lehrer (2009). It's one of those books about experiments revealing human biases like anchor values etc. (see also: Amos Tversky, Philipp Tetlock) and he tells some stories about how people decided in life-or-death situations. He makes you second-guess your urges. He also mixes in some "explanations" about what part of the brain apparently does what (based on data from injuries and brain-scan activity patterns). But what am I supposed to do with that information? I can't pull parts out and back in depending on the situation. Still, decent book overall. The writing is easy to follow and engaging. He's like a less hacky version of Malcom Gladwell.
Finished "How I Learn Languages" by Kató Lomb, Hungarian polyglot and professional translator sharing anecdotes from her life and tips. She says that you absolutely must dedicate at the very least 10 hours a week to the language you wanna learn. Normie language courses are good but they take forever, so her idea is you should just lie about your skill level and do a ton of extra learning in addition to the course. Rather unusual advice by her is to start reading books in the target language fairly early on. Just annotate the shit out of what you read… I don't know what to think about that.
I've read this. I remember the anecdotes being fun but the actual advice wasn't anything new. Well, it's an older book so I can't blame her.
Finished "Sugar" by James Walvin (2018). Walvin is a historian and his big thing is slavery. Sugar played a huge role in that, not only because of the slaves directly involved in the sugar sector, but also by boosting demand for chocolate and coffee. The book also covers the 20th century and the current obesity crisis. It's an important topic and I'm sure the author did thorough research, but I found it tedious to read. He often talks through numbers and more numbers showing development of trade patterns and what have you, when he could and should have just used some charts instead.
Done with "How to Prepare for Climate Change" (2021) by David Pogue, a successful writer who usually explains computer stuff to lay people. It really is a book written only for people who live in the US. It starts with some inane shit about seeing a therapist because you are so sad about climate change… He could have done a much shorter book if he had omitted the things that involve spending big amounts of money, but that doesn't need to stop you. You can just jump in and go straight to whatever interests you and if it the section relates in some way to something written in another section, the book tells you that.
He has some advice on where to move (within the US), you move North and away from the coasts, basically. He lists 14 nice cities to live in based on how the climate will develop, how they are currently doing economically, the proximity to water supplies, and some other factors. And here they are: Madison, Wisconsin; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Burlington, Vermont; Bangor, Maine; Denver, Colorado; Boulder, Colorado; Chicago, Illinois; Cleveland, Ohio; Boise, Idaho; Portland, Oregon; Spokane, Washington; Duluth, Minnesota; Buffalo, New York.
I'm currently reading your mind
DUDE WTF is your problem, You want to do what with my cock?!??
visiting /edu/ again, just saying hicurrently doing Operations Research, thinking about how to build better shelves
>>6210> It really is a book written only for people who live in the US.
I'm sick of this shit, I was thinking of just not reading books written by Americans but on some topics it is hard to find pirate-able alternatives in languages that I understand.
I'm thinking that DiaMat is bullshit for the most part except as a tool for historical, sociological, anthropological, geneological analisys.
By this I mean if you wanna understand something look at the material/economic base of it.
The reason why we eat with fork and knife has a material basis.
Superstructure doesn't influce the base, just enforces it and validates. Focault is right in his analysis if you consider his work as analisys of the superstrucure.
The history of european Anti semitism has a material basis.
But contradiction, stages and prediction are just gnosticism for atheists
I'm listening to Adam Tooze's The Deluge and it's pretty cringe. Can anyone recommend some based historians?
trying to learn to code something
What are you trying to code?
Finished two books, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI
by Dave Mark (2009), a very easy read and rather superficial. I don't remember how I encountered it, probably some thread about how terrible Yandere Dev is. It completely omits path-finding and the author gets a bit too obsessed with randomness in the end IMHO, but it's an OK book for absolute noobs (Yandere Dev would surely benefit). It lead me to another book published by the same company, Video Game Design Revealed
by Guy W. Lecky-Thompson (2008) and that book is, well… something else.
The author claims Smash TV introduced dual-stick controls in top-down shooters, even though Robotron already had implemented that years earlier. The author mentions Crazy Taxi (written Crazi Taxi) in the same sentence with GTA as an example of violent games. The author claims Mario Sunshine to be the first 3D Mario and classifies it as a puzzle
game. The author claims that the release of the Sony PSP "prompted Nintendo to combine the GameBoy Advance and GameCube into a similar kind of gaming system" and he means the Nintendo DS by that. The author seems to believes that the original Doom used polygons and that CryTek invented variable level of detail in polygon models (and he calls Far Cry "Cry Freedom") and he says bump mapping
is when you recycle a monochrome texture by mixing in different colors to represent sand and asphalt. The author says that in Doom episode is the term for a level, that modern shmups use momentum in their control schemes, that the d-pad came about with the 16-bit generation, and that R-Type got 2D top-down
scrolling. This thing is so terrible I'm going tinfoil mode: Was that on purpose?
Here's a representative excerpt:<There may not actually be an on-screen character. Puzzle games such as Tetris do not actually have a lead character or even enemies. The idea is to beat the machine, which becomes the “enemy.” The blocks falling from the top of the screen, and which need to be arranged in order to complete lines and thus win points, can be seen as enemies or heroes—you can be either with them or against them, depending on your point of view. Puzzle games rely on a recognizable screen layout, the game environment, and its dynamics to achieve success.
The author likes above paragraph so much that he reminds you of it later in the book, and by later I mean literally the next paragraph:<In addition to the characters, there is the game environment which they inhabit. While “character development” might not apply to some types of games (we used puzzle games as an example of games without characters), the “environment” applies to all games. Even games such as Tetris, which do not have a discernable character beyond the blocks that fall from the top of the screen, have a game environment that is instantly recognizable.
It's extremely repetitive. The author mentions that Tekki on XBox has a special controller seven times
Here are some more real quotes from the work:
<For example, take a game such as Brain Training for the Nintendo DS. This is a game that relies on the player’s wish to have his brain “trained” for periods at a time.
<Skin looks like skin, and a moving thing that is covered with a skin-like surface is probably an animal or a person.
<As animals, we rely on our hearing (one of our five senses) to give us information beyond that which is delivered by our eyes.
<In the GameBoy world, the LCD screen is composed of a series of dots (pixels), each of which can be lit up as required.
<An automobile, for example, is a compound object that can be used as a container for other automobile parts. A mix of parts with different properties will make automobiles with different external characteristics. Red and blue automobiles will share many of the same objects, but each will have different color properties that will give the automobile its distinctive red or blue features.
<Consider films like Star Wars or, more recently, The Matrix. They present alternate realities that have their basis in our day-to-day experiences and, therefore, enable us to believe in them, even though we know that they are not real.
<We expect flying vehicles to give us a different perspective than submarines or race cars.
<It is worth checking out the Nintendo of America site (http://www.nintendo.com). Search for Super Mario Sunshine and take a look at the (eye candy) screenshots. Even a “platform” game like Super Mario has been updated to reflect an FPS, over-the-shoulder 3D feel.
<the text adventure might just take over the future of gaming
WHO IS THE AUDIENCE?! It's like a boomer writing for aliens. Maybe the author is both a boomer and also an alien. I don't know how the author functions in this world as a believable human being. Zero stars.
I been contiplating why I always seem to get stuck on learning a new language. I think I understand now why after having been reading through a book I recently picked up. Fluent Forever it was called, and since it was an ebook version I was about to read it for a few hours be realizing I what I had been doing wrong. I wasn't making the language stick because our brains have these filters out any foreign words that it doesn't deem important.
That's when I realized that I wasn't making the progress I wanted because first I was forgetting everything. I wasn't making memorable and meaningful connections to the words. I was also trying to just translate everything rather than actually learning. It also showed that I should try and learn how to pronounce words properly than to sound like a dumb burger speaking in a broken language. It also I was bored with the methods i was doing as it wasn't engaging and as such well. There are three main languages I am wanting to get a handle on. Spanish. German, Chinese. Chinese of course will the the one to take the most time but is one that is very interesting with its character system. Though its tonal system for speaking is a pain in the ass to do correctly. Spanish mostly LatAm spanish since I am a burger and that is the Spanish I am exposed to everyday when I hear spanish speakers. German well its one of those languages that seems funny having extremely long words to mean small things and I kinda like that about it.
So I plan on learning one of those three first and just stop being a monolingual burger and actually connect with more people.
Here's a list of German "sentences" that are one word long: >>6106
I'm building a list of around 600 words that closely follows the list of basic vocabulary from Fluent Forever and will put it in that thread. (I can't make everything what the FF list asks for because some translations just have too much ambiguity and especially the prepositions are hard/impossible to translate.)
Just finished The Governance of China by Xi Jinping (2014). This is a collection of speeches. Did you know that China has over one billion people? Xi Jinping is here to tell you that. 24 times. He often makes references to various writers from several centuries ago, to folk sayings and so on, and there are very helpful footnotes, but I have to say it's pretty boring overall. There is also an appendix that tells you about his life and that China has over one billion people. He comes across as someone who is serious about fighting corruption (that was also the impression in leaked internal communication of our friends from the American Intelligence community who seemed upset about that for some reason) and someone who cares a lot about how ordinary people are doing. He namedrops Marxism a lot, but whether he has a deep grasp of it I cannot tell on the basis of these speeches.
Read Atomic Habits by James Clear (2008). He does this usual liberal thing where he talks like believing that half the world's population are business owners, aside from that it's an OK book.
Thinking about https://sci-hub.do/donatetankieTankie
Found this site recently it's a barrel of laughs if you're in the mood for hand-wringing stupidity https://communistcrimes.org
I want to make Moldova socialist again
>>6682>unironically shilling TGI
confirmed for not reading itegoismEgoism
Uhh what? Chapter 1 of The German Ideology is one of the most fundamental and complete pieces on historical materialism out there. It's on every marxist reading list.
Finished The Human Drift (1894) by King Camp Gillette. He's big on the advantages of big-scale production and planning, believing that it would be most efficient to only have one mega-city per continent as a long-term goal, perhaps even only one city on earth. People will only work a few years of their lives. The "job market" will be regulated not by payment differential, but by how long the individual has to work. So positions with few applications will be made more attractive by reducing the amount of required time per person. He wants equality but doesn't want to give people identical consumer budgets, he instead believes that changes in education and culture will be strong enough so that people just taking what they want for free won't cause any problems! (I certainly disagree with that.) There are a few diagrams laying out the structure of city and buildings. There is also a tedious poem in there where Satan represents capitalism or whatever.
How to get to the glorious future? He proposes a big company to suck up all the competition. It's a democratic company because one share costs almost nothing and every shareholder gets one vote irrespective of how many shares they have.
Bazat si rosupastilat
Just finished reading this. Trying to learn more about the transition to Abstract Expressionism in American art. Philistine communists who smugly regurgitate the 'AbEx is CIA lol' talking point never mention that Jackson Pollock studied under (and was in fact the star pupil of) Thomas Hart Benton—one of the big three 'Regionalist' painters. They also fail to discuss US arts patronage during the New Deal era, of which 'Regionalist' and 'Social Realist' styles became widespread, and eventually found themselves deeply wedded with big business (as an example, Benton himself is on record lamenting his advertising work for the American Tobacco Company). When you look at their two styles, Benton and Pollock, they're miles apart; but Erika Doss convincingly argues that the underlying motivations both artists had in their work were actually quite similar. To this day, many art historians act as if Abstract Expressionism came out of a void; but, like most things from that era, this is just the residue of Cold War propaganda. One cannot hope to understand the rise of Abstract Expressionism without also understanding Regionalism. Benton "tried to unify American culture through the regeneration and redefinition of the producer tradition"—the very fetish for the yeoman farmer applied to factory workers once held by his father during his failed career as a Missouri politician from 1897-1905. Pollock on the other hand, took Benton's liberal reformism and calls for social change to its apparent conclusion by fusing Jungian therapy with artistic production, yet, stymied by postwar consensus culture, found himself in a "no-man's land of formalist experimentation […] and elite patronage." It's interesting to read about all of the art historians and critics associated and adjacent to the Congress for Cultural Freedom and Partisan Review attempt to justify themselves in this new climate; news of CIA funding didn't drop until 1966, after all. It just makes me think real American Modernism has never been tried. But if one were to try, then they'd have to reckon with Benton's liberalism first and foremost.
Also iirc Erika Doss mentioned this in passing, but during his years in New York City, Benton apparently let the early CPUSA use his loft as a meeting place a couple of times? I'm imagining what could've been had Benton just became a marxist. Perhaps the party's cultural programs would've actually amounted to something during the 'Third Period' and 'Popular Front' years. Not all of Benton's art writings are readily available, but he didn't start to become more like explicitly anti-communist until after receiving word of the Moscow Show Trials. On numerous occasions he just complains about 'totalitarianism' like a big brained centrist; it's annoying. But being 5'2" that's the kind of manlet energy I'd expect.
the reason abstract expressionism was important was because it was the first American made style of art and its popularity made the art world reoriented itself from France to new york.
I totally get it.
All that being said i still think its 2deep4u bullshit
Just found out about this. The purpose of the search engine is to give more weight to long texts and simple web design and it seems to work very well from what I have seen.
Done with A History of Mathematics
third edition (2011) by Carl Boyer and Uta Merzbach. If you ever wanted to know who invented the equal sign, this book is for you (it was a more recent invention than you think). Here is a quote about something else:<Condorcet is perhaps best remembered mathematically as a pioneer in social mathematics, especially through the application of probability and statistics to social problems. When, for example, conservative elements (including the Faculty of Medicine and the Faculty of Theology) attacked those who advocated inoculation against smallpox, Condorcet (together with Voltaire and Daniel Bernoulli) came to the defense of variolation.
Some things never change, eh?
7H4Nx 4 p057In9 BR0
Sorry I'm late to reply but Abstract Expressionism wasn't the 'first American style of art'—whatever that's supposed to mean. There were lots of stillborn trends in American Modernism before it, and much more visually interesting than Regionalism imo (one could point to the 'Precisionists' or even CPUSA-adjacent 'Social Surrealists' as immediate examples). I think Abstract Expressionism is important primarily because it signaled American artists' being dragged back into the art market, as FDR's New Deal programs were phased out during WW2. This is why many artists and art critics in the 1950s and 1960s ended up foolishly embracing 'art for art's sake'—it was a doomed rebellion against their surrender to the market, and was supposed to be contrasted with 'art for the sake of exchange-value'. Alas, this turned out to be wholly compatible with the circuit of industrial capitalism by the 1970s. The 1973 Scull Sale at Sotheby Parke-Bernet was the real watershed moment for American art. It's hard to say just how much two decades of covert CIA funding through the CCF really contributed to that. The art 'world' would've reoriented itself to New York from Paris even had they not.
Also also it's interesting to read about communists in the New York art scene before WW2. Like, imagine being an artist in the 1930s and the two most popular styles are:
A: Regionalism (Reinforced by New Deal liberalism; its noteworthy artists are too afraid to just come out as modernists, much less as communists)
B: Social Realism (CPUSA and CIO-adjacent; think John Reed Clubs and Artists' Union—explicitly communist on-canvas, in dialog with the USSR)
Especially when talking about it after 1933/1934, you'd be stuck between making art in this very liberal, arguably early 'modern' style that would receive massive government patronage employing tens of thousands of artists across the country on the one hand; and making art in a very communist-sympathetic, arguably 'postmodern' style that would fail to gather as much rapport with the masses on the other. I guess if you wanna piss off philistine communists then just say "Socialist
Realism was the first postmodern Russian art movement" because that's literally true, lol.
>>7029>imagine being an artist
an *American artist, I should say
>>7025>7H4Nx 4 p057In9 BR0
Where can I start if I want to understand what the hell modernism is? Can I just jump in with this book or do you have a better rec?
I don't have any reading recommendations re: modernism ig because my art history knowledge so far is the result of a handful of courses I took in college years ago under a professor who specialized in a topic related to Picasso ('modernist primitivism' and notions of the 'grotesque'). A big reason why I've been reading so much about American
modernism lately is because I didn't learn a damn thing about it in art undergrad, lol! I'm now realizing that the circumstances that led to its many stillborn movements were actually quite special, albeit a little underwhelming compared to their European counterparts. In order to better understand the latter, though, you'll definitely need to go to late 19th century France and learn about Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, and (crucially) the emergence of Cubism. I've heard good things about TJ Clark and HW Janson; Meyer Schapiro too.
Thinking about my plan for the day. Nothing recently learned, sorry. Currently reading Mary Beard's China A History Volume 1 and Irish myths.
I've read Capital vol. I last week for the 2nd time (1st was over 10 years ago). Took me about 6 months with reading a few pages every day.
Can't wait to start with Vol. II for the first time.
Anyone know of any Marxist responses / rebutals to the field of crowd psychology? A rebutal to Gustave Le Bon would be especially nice to see, however I'd be interested in more wide covering of the topic as well.
Don't want to start a new thread, so posting here
Is there anything particularly wrong? >a crowd forms when an influential idea unites a number of individuals and prompts them to act towards a common goal.
pretty new to reading theory, have read:
principles of communism by engels
dialectical and historical materialism by stalin
on practice and on contradiction by mao
the communist manifesto
socialism: utopian and scientific by engels
any suggestions where to go from here? thinking i should read some lenin at this point, either imperialism the highest stage of capitalism or the state and revolution
Civil War in France and Critique of the Gotha Programme by Marx, then State and Revolution by Lenin is a fun little reading list
He also talks about how the crowd is inherintly conservative and seeks authoritarianism, a social group that is akin to a primitive beast which can only respect authority and craves for slavery, only rebeling when their slavemaster looses their power and is seen as too weak. Le Bon in his Psychology of the Crowd comes off as a turbo-reactionary.
thanks for the rec! ill look into it
I've noticed that my drive to read – seemingly – works in random bursts that last a few day days. Wonder how can i better harness it.
Hello, I just came to leftypol to post funny pictures I found real quick, but right now I'm studying C++ with a book (which I've mentioned several times on /games/ and /siberia/).
Despite having above average autism score and being considered smart by many people throughout my life, I've become so slow at reading books and "boring" stuff that I can't stand reading even 1 page a day. I had to force myself to get to the end of each page when I had to read a chapter for homework; this got so bad that I dropped out of uni. However, it's not so hard for me to read this book because I really do want to become a programmer, so reading it makes me feel better. Maybe I'll do a degree in CS or something similar if I make enough progress.
And yes I'll also try reading SICP, I already downloaded it.
I think we need to make a proposal to make an exception to this filter for /edu/.
People on /edu/ should know more than anyone how much bullshit autism score is.
I know, but I think it's better to leave it as IQ because there are serious discusssions about it here (like debunks and such), as opposed to being thrown around as an insult or used by /pol/fags, who never seem to touch this board. If someone wanted to copy and paste an effortpost about IQ on another site, for example, they would have to replace all the instances of "autism score". Anyway, they said they removed the filter for this board.
That sounds awesome. I used to love the library as a kid. I aspire to be a book reader again some day. Thank you bookbros for helping motivate us lumpens
Envious. Mine has barely any, actively discourages book purchase suggestions and is always struggling to get a hold of books I put in ILL requests for.
Unlike most libraries they do offer to wrap hardcover books in plastic for literal pocket change which is nice. Although one of the librarians gave me the stink eye when I handed them my Stalin bio, lol.
Recently I learned about the reason so many English buildings have bricked up windows
Apparently it's because of a tax on fucking windows during the 1700s - 1850s. video related.
It's been three and a half years fuck
and now I finally have the opportunity to post this screencap:
Direct action gets the goods.
Just finished "Codes of the Underworld" by Diego Gambetta (2009). It's a very interesting book about how people in the mafia and prison gangs act and why they act that way (why is self-harm so common in prison, why do ethnic gangs form, and so on). It ends with a funny/creepy essay about how movies are influencing the mafia.
care to post a pdf?
Lmao, i have a cousin that feels very strongly about this
Really? Relay their opinions m8!
Lol, it's mostly just banter and cursing of the French in an ironic jingoistic manner, which he does so to show he's heard about this really odd event.
Though, watching this video made me feel that, but unironically. Goddamnit, why are some Europeans so insufferably snobbish?
>>7850>why are some Europeans so insufferably snobbish?
The same reason any bourg government is, arrogant selfishness. After all the Japanese pulled the same shit on China for decades.
Just started reading Endnotes from the beginning. Curious to see their take. We definitely need some properly 21st century theory that isn't just retreading 19th and 20th century projects.
"Artificial Intelligence in Perspective" by MIT Press (1994), a retrospective by various AI researchers. The issue was dedicated to Allen Newell (who had died in 1992) and his Soar project, but it's also about other stuff like the medical expert system Mycin. It's written in something pretty close to normal language and there is no mathy stuff or code snippets in there. Instead it's very philosophical.
Finished "How to Lie with Maps" by Mark S. Monmoier (3rd edition, 2018). I suppose this has sold well because of the snappy name. Not a terrible book, but it's all obvious if you have half a brain. The author talks about how any flat map must distort the view of a planet, how different choices of threshold values for hues affect the impression of the viewer, and so on. (This irked me a bit: He mentions how Colin Powell used maps with wrong information to convince people of the necessity of going to war with Iraq. The author believes that Powell was mistaken. I believe he was lying.)
Maybe the author would agree with you in private but was afraid of being sued for libel.
>>7852>Just started reading Endnotes from the beginning
Good for you. I like reading them and their chinese cousins from chuang, even if I don't agree with everything they say obviously>Curious to see their take
On what tough?
Reading Marshall Mcuhan, seems quite interesting, i'm wondering how his technological determinist views can be integrated into marxism.
Also found a funny anti anglo quote in understanding media.
"The English aristocracy was properly classified as barbarian by Matthew Arnold because its power and status had nothing to do with literacy or with the cultural forms of typography. Said the Duke of Gloucester to Edward Gibbon upon the publication of his Decline and Fall; "Another damned fat book, eh, Mr. Gibbon? Scribble, scribble, scribble, eh, Mr. Gibbon?""
If he really pointed out this:>He mentions how Colin Powell used maps with wrong information to convince people of the necessity of going to war with Iraq
he probably knows Powell was lying on purpose.
i have a fucking headache, and digestion prbolems why am i on here
Currently Reading Althusser's Philosophy for Non-Philosophers, i like it although i haven't gotten far. Besides that i am reading Snowden's book, Permanent Record, i also haven't gotten very far into it, so far is a normal autobiography, i guess that i haven't gotten into the good stuff yet.
Just finished "Brain-Wise – Studies in Neurophilosophy" by Patricia Smith Churchland (2002). She criticizes modern philosophers for trying to disentangle themselves from scientific developments, talking about concepts like mind and conscience purely based on self-reflection and dialogue with each other and irrespective of the hardware, so to speak. (She probably wouldn't be entirely happy with that sentence since she also criticizes people who talk about brain as hardware.) How different are we from the other animals? She takes clues from just about anywhere: the rough impression you get from looking at the size and shape of brains, MRI scans, various experiments with subjects assumed to be normal / subjects with brain lesions / subjects under the influence of drugs. A lot of interesting experiments with humans, monkeys, rats, and even insects are described. It's a good book, though I'm not 100 % sure whether it's entirely fair to every philosopher who gets dissed in it.
You should try reading the non-autistic/anglo-boxed side of the aisle when it comes to consciousness. Look into people who attempt to provide and develop a non-physically reductionist explanation of consciousness, look into mysticism, etc.
Before dismissing this out of hand, consider your own prejudices and recognize that these accounts are cosmological and philosophical just as much.
Stop this racializing nonsense. There have been plenty of Russian, German etc. researchers pushing in the same direction as Churchland.>Look into people who attempt to provide and develop a non-physically reductionist explanation of consciousness
Churchland's book already does that.
The book you've mentioned is an insufficient tip of the iceberg, not a pointless one sure, but there's so much more out there. You're disserving yourself on the topic by omitting such engagement.
Also it's not literal racializing, it's just a colloquial term which relates to the geo-historical origins of this type of thought, not an essentialization of it as being innately characteristic with respect to a sole group.
i wasted a good bit of the past few years thinking i could live according to philosophy
don't do it kiddos
What if my philosophy is just living my life as i normally would anyway?
that ain't philosophy
I'm thinking about that shitty episode of Cosmos with Tyson where it's chock full of anti soviet/ anti communist propaganda.
trotskyists and marxist-leninists are the same
they both have the same core of trying to build a philosophical hermeneutics of marx and lenin (when that’s literally an impossible and pointless effort) that’s used as a kind of justification for essentially utopian, idealist politics
there’s also like the weird implicit belief that the bolshevik accession to power was something that could have been predicted and thus re-applied, and this also carries over into the obsession over having a correct political line, as if that’s what really matters
painstakingly tutoring USian leftists into grasping the most basic notions and concepts of das kapital (most of them are grad students btw although at some shithole state uni probably)
Funny, it's usually Americans who've never read Capital who tend to call it "Das Kapital"—like, that's such an easy tell; it's so common lol
i prefer the german title as a reminder of its original context
I am planning on starting a thread with everything Deleuze and Guatarri
. I don't have time to do it soon, but please keep in mind for the next week or so.
If someone wants to make the thread, please go ahead.
If you're American there's no real reason to call it by the German title unless you fully intend on diving into Marxology at some point. Which, I think it's hard to determine that until after you've finished reading Capital
Be sure to point everyone to Jon Roffe's new(ish) book on Deleuze; it's fast becoming the best introductory secondary lit on the guy: https://re-press.org/books/the-works-of-gilles-deleuze-i-1953-1969/
whatever, i just use both interchangeably anyways, i don't really care
And that's fine; I just don't want you contributing to a recurring problem among the US 'left'
concept: pink terror
mass political/military terror by centrists/moderates
usually in the context of a popular rebellion against a reactionary government where once the bourgeois wing has gotten what it wants, it liquidates anyone to the left of them
usually not much distinguishable from white terror
Someone should write a book called "The Economics of Vulgar Socialism", where they try to put liberals and conservatives understanding of socialism into a coherent ideology and economic model.
Im trying to find a youtube video of a history seminar or conference or whatever of a US professor giving a history of the Korean War. This professor was militarily involved in it, not sure to what capacity, it was an hour long. Sorry for the small amount of info, i seem to have lost the link some time ago and suddenly i need it again
marxist communism feels a lot like a petty bourgeois democratic movement. even bordiga's supposedly ultra conception of a totalitarian one-party "proletarian" state falls flat hard imo
> what you're reading
printed my copy of the communist manifesto, have been reading the first few pages
Can someone recommend me the best biographies for Mao and Deng respectively?
marx should've been more open about his atheism, and the young hegelians were based
I am fully disappointed by the state of the left organization in a post-socialist country, and I have no idea how to even begin organizing without getting my own future in danger. I can only read and not shittalk with other leftist and it's making me depressed
>>8880>without getting my own future in danger
What kind of future do you think you have?
>>8880>without getting my own future in danger.
I'm not gonna moralize you since I don't know what kind of danger you think you might be in, but generally speaking this is something that comes with the territory. All organizing is gonna make you a target and set a limit on the kind of carreer opportunities you can aspire to, at the very least.
Reading "Remembering the Kanji" by James Heisieg, 6th edition (still has the kanji for village and city mixed up) and "Making Sense of Japanese" by James Rubin (written for people frustrated with normal textbooks and somewhat humerous).
I meant James Heisig
Art and Production (1926) by the Russian communist artist Boris Arvatov is a rant about which artists and movements suck. (All of them basically. Vasili Kandinsky? Sucks.) There is an introduction by some wanker that goes on forever and my advice is to skip that. Arvatov describes how capitalism has changed art. Art used to be set in specific places and the interactions of the elements mattered (think of what's inside an old church). Sculptures could play a physical role in holding a building together. But now, the person doing sculptures or paintings produces things that can move between people and places, and the artist cannot really anticipate how it will aesthetically work together with other things. Arvatov urges artists to keep track of technical developments, to work together, and to go into the factories.
I was just browsing to see what's active here.
What books do you recommend to not-even-socialists? Got a few people expressing a little interest in the things I'm saying. What about Manufacturing Consent?
Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti is supposedly a better book covering the same topic as Manufacturing Consent, but I haven't read it yet. Parenti is certainly a more engaging writer and speaker than Chomsky.
Manufacturing Consent is pretty good (from what I read, the first part about the 5 filters). It's Chomsky, so suitable to newbies.
Parenti (Against Empire) is like a book specifically for people with no experience with the subject matter.
There is quite a lot of different material for this case.
It's very basic, I don't think it's better than Manufacturing Consent.
Finished “Entangled Life”, a 2020 book about fungi by Merlin Sheldrake. He is touching on many different topics, like where does a plant actually end. There are many plants that absolutely cannot live without certain fungi and it is misleading to just say their roots get this or that nutrient when the roots alone can’t get shit done without them. Sheldrake is hyping up the many uses of fungi for making food, medicine, packaging material, and even fake leather. There are also fungi that glow in the dark. What I miss is more precise information. I’d really like to know how exactly the fake leather is made and what exactly its properties are (can you wash it and at which temperature etc.) and how bright the fungi can be (as actual measurements) and how long they can keep glowing and so on. Maybe that stuff could be used to illuminate handrails, but there already are other materials that release light for a limited time after dark, and I’d like to see a proper comparison.
Translators of Marx and Engels into English translating the gender neutral Mensch into "man" or "men" was a disaster.
man kind and so on
it's normal usage in bonglish
hey, does anyone has a poverty graph of the USSR before the perestroika (in other words 1986) ?.
Reading "The Making of the Working English Class" rn. Would recommend, it will instantaneously dispel any crypto-chauvinist myths about "muh evil Anglos".
<George Orwell once commented that ‘good prose is like a window pane’; that is to say, it should be clear and understandable to all. I don’t share Orwell’s view on this. It seems to me that as the sciences and social sciences probe ever deeper into our reality, such an increased specialization and depth of knowledge require a more technical and intricate language in order to express it. I wouldn’t expect a medical treatise on Lymphedema to be ‘like a window pane’ in terms of its clarity, and I, for one, would lack the specialist knowledge to understand the terminology and the arguments. For this reason, my criticisms of an Adorno or Althusser do not boil down to the fact that they use a technical language which is often difficult for a non-specialist reader; the works of Aristotle, Hegel and Marx all do that at times, and with good reason. My critique is not motivated by anti-intellectualism. Rather I would suggest that the sheer obscurity in style and language of a writer like Althusser has two main functions. One, it works to foster a pronounced sense of elitism. What you are reading is so profound, so monumental, and so esoteric, that only a few great minds will ever be able to master it. What a thinker like Althusser or Adorno does with their ridiculously complex jargon is to differentiate themselves from the mass of humanity, to better facilitate the image of themselves as a world-historic genius while at the same time disguising the paucity and crudity of the arguments they are actually making. Two, and this is the more important issue: much of the complex and opaque language overlays a process of reification; that is, the thinker in question is able to take what are living and fluid socio-historical entities and contradictions – particularly the contradictions of class – and convert them into things which interrelate in a purely structural and physical manner.
Above is from "The War Against Marxism" by Tony McKenna (2021). He points out there is something misanthropic about things like "consumer criticism" and the general attitude towards mainstream culture of academic people posing as Marxist radicals. McKenna demolishes Walter Benjamin and other cultural critics as pretentious pseuds. (He also occasionally brings up Stalin = bad. I don't think that most people he criticizes had a high opinion of Stalin nor that most Stalinists have a high opinion of most of the people McKenna is bashing, so I have no idea why he does this. Trots gonna trot, I guess.) He also gives positive examples of how one can discuss themes related to capitalism in books and movies, by dedicating one chapter to the John Hughes comedy "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" and one chapter to Stephen King’s horror book "IT" (completely spoilering everything and also "The Sixth Sense" and "Psycho" while he's at it; but at this point you have probably seen a dozen parodies of each, so no big deal). These chapters will get him no admiration for creativity, since the topics are plainly there in the works and not something that is perfectly hidden until decoded (or hallucinated to be there) by some great intellectual. He writes in mostly plain language, aside from a bit about how Zizek has Hegel wrong that gets rather technical.
Finished "Who gets what" by Alvin E. Roth (2015), a so-so book about non-market allocation (e.g. assignment to schools and the kidney exchange). It's nice to read, but rather superficial. For most of it you can just go to Wikipedia and follow some links to learn the stuff in a faster and deeper way. But the stuff about how fucked up the American job market for lawyers is was very entertaining! The author has a very incoherent ideology (might be opportunism and not genuine). He points out how markets often suck and shows the alternative of putting things into the central COMPUTERGOD to plan things without use of money, and then he says he is against planning. The methods shown are highly efficient, and because central planning is bad, they can't be really central planning you see, they are akshully the free market, the free market in a big computer that doesn't do money-based calculation…
check out The Condition of the Working Class in England, it's also a great antidote to vulgar leftist garbage
also, i feel bad for bullying you on /leftypol/
i'd like to add it's an essential read for any communist in the "west"
go back to twitter lol
>As in 1849 so during this year's parliamentary recess — the party of Order had broken up into its separate factions, each occupied with its own restoration intrigues, which had obtained fresh nutriment through the death of Louis Philippe. The Legitimist king, Henry V, had even nominated a formal ministry which resided in Paris and in which members of the Permanent Commission held seats. Bonaparte, in his turn, was therefore entitled to make tours of the French departments, and according to the disposition of the town he favored with his presence, now more or less covertly, now more or less overtly, to divulge his own restoration plans and canvass votes for himself. On these processions, which the great official Moniteur and the little private Moniteurs of Bonaparte naturally had to celebrate as triumphal processions, he was constantly accompanied by persons affiliated with the Society of December 10. This society dates from the year 1849.
>On the pretext of founding a benevolent society, the lumpen proletariat of Paris had been organized into secret sections, each section led by Bonapartist agents, with a Bonapartist general at the head of the whole. Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux [pimps], brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars — in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème; from this kindred element Bonaparte formed the core of the Society of December 10. A "benevolent society" - insofar as, like Bonaparte, all its members felt the need of benefiting themselves at the expense of the laboring nation. This Bonaparte, who constitutes himself chief of the lumpenproletariat, who here alone rediscovers in mass form the interests which he personally pursues, who recognizes in this scum, offal, refuse of all classes the only class upon which he can base himself unconditionally, is the real Bonaparte, the Bonaparte sans phrase. An old, crafty roué, he conceives the historical life of the nations and their performances of state as comedy in the most vulgar sense, as a masquerade in which the grand costumes, words, and postures merely serve to mask the pettiest knavery. Thus his expedition to Strasbourg, where the trained Swiss vulture played the part of the Napoleonic eagle. For his irruption into Boulogne he puts some London lackeys into French uniforms. They represent the army. In his Society of December 10 he assembles ten thousand rascals who are to play the part of the people as Nick Bottom [A character in Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream. - Ed.] that of the lion.
>At a moment when the bourgeoisie itself played the most complete comedy, but in the most serious manner in the world, without infringing any of the pedantic conditions of French dramatic etiquette, and was itself half deceived, half convinced of the solemnity of its own performance of state, the adventurer, who took the comedy as plain comedy, was bound to win. Only when he has eliminated his solemn opponent, when he himself now takes his imperial role seriously and under the Napoleonic mask imagines he is the real Napoleon, does he become the victim of his own conception of the world, the serious buffoon who no longer takes world history for a comedy but his comedy for world history. What the national ateliers were for the socialist workers, what the Gardes mobile were for the bourgeois republicans, the Society of December 10 was for Bonaparte, the party fighting force peculiar to him. On his journeys the detachments of this society packing the railways had to improvise a public for him, stage popular enthusiasm, roar Vive l'Empereur, insult and thrash republicans, under police protection, of course. On his return journeys to Paris they had to form the advance guard, forestall counter-demonstrations or disperse them. The Society of December 10 belonged to him, it was his work, his very own idea. Whatever else he appropriates is put into his hands by the force of circumstances; whatever else he does, the circumstances do for him or he is content to copy from the deeds of others. But Bonaparte with official phrases about order, religion, family, and property in public, before the citizens, and with the secret society of the Schufterles and Spiegelbergs, the society of disorder, prostitution, and theft, behind him — that is Bonaparte himself as the original author, and the history of the Society of December 10 is his own history.
—Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Probably the best description of conservatism ever.
Would anyone be interested in a weekly country discussion?
Where every week we pick a country and investigate its history, current conflicts, situation with socialists, major players etc?
I'm very ignorant on most of the world. I sometimes discover new countries I had no idea existed. I think it could be a fun exercise.
god that was so epic
I can't seem to will myself to read any theory lately. Instead, I've been reading the Foundation series by Asimov. They are very fun books! Very recommended to any Marxist, and anyone really.
Idk if I'm burnt out of reading theory, I just don't seem to care that much. Two years ago I was really excited to read marx. Not sure what happened.
reading this over, it seems like there was a lot more leftist resistance against the security state crackdown immediately after 9/11 than i thought. kinda feels hopeful in a way
Sounds like a good idea, check this out: >>6832
Finding that I read Spanish better when I keep a notebook. On the left side of the page, I write the terms I haven't seen before, and on the right, I write character descriptions and important plot points(this section also being written in my best Spanish for reinforcement). This might be a general reading/language learning technique, but I found it on my own so I guess I can say I did something.
Finished "Game Theory - A very short introduction" by Ken Binmore (2007). Well that was pointless. Once again, it's one of those books that don't do anything for you if you have already skimmed Wikipedia on the topic. The author loves to sniff his own farts and makes extremely broad statements about things he knows nothing about, it's almost unbearable – well, he's an economist, so what did I expect.
The First 20 Hours–How to Learn Anything… Fast by Josh Kaufman (2013) is one of the less creepy self-help books (no diet that puts you in the hospital or anything like that). There are a lot of activities that have a steep learning curve and instead of dreaming about just knowing how to do it well, Kaufman says you should dedicate 20 hours of serious learning and after that you are through the most frustrating and boring shit (probably) and can decide whether it is fun now. You can get over a lot in just 20 hours if you use methods with rapid feedback like flash cards. He shows how he went through learning the basics of a couple things like using a different keyboard layout (for that he uses a program that directly measures what keys you suck at and throws them constantly at you). He also learns to play the Ukulele. It's an OK book.
Is it exclusively about physical skills? I have found that a ton of these books about learning are actually only about a very limited set of well defined activities and don't generalize well.
CTRL + ALT + SUPPR
go to "on wakeup" or however it's said in your language
(there are also litteral option in the app itself you moron)
Thanks.>(there are also litteral option in the app itself you moron)<I've tried way too many times to stop them from opening up, but it never lasts for long.
The author does the 20 hours with Yoga, some basic programming, touch typing with Colemak layout, the game of Go, ukulele, windsurfing.
Oh right it even claims to be about "skill acquisition". I just wish it did not have "Learn Anything…" in its title when it obviously won't help you with something like ornithology.
I came here looking for that one really bad introductory philosophy book peterson published just before his benzo addiction got him in a coma
Anyone remember/have it? It's important I drag his name through the mud.
adorno was right>>9736
just look up his bibliography
Can't find anything on that, either I was wrong that it was jordan's book or the web got scrubbed
Are you sure you are not confusing it with The Art of the Argument?
YES, thank you, I was indeed confused
I saw a clip of a Stefan Molyneux video a long time ago and it struck me how awfully bad faith he was for such a self-labelled rational intellectual. This was before I started "arguing" with /pol/yps and the like.
Finished No Bosses, 2021 book by Michael Albert. It's about Participatory Economics or Parecon for short. Very vague, not a single algorithm in sight. He's saying exactly the same stuff as ten or twenty years ago. No revision of basic concepts is what I expected, but I couldn't even find a single new tiny thing. There is no reason for this book to exist.
Some retard a little while back came here posting /webm/s like this to epically own the commies and unmask the Marxist conspiracy, and the vids were just some snotty-nosed kid reading 4chan tier schizo theories and highlighting the word "ANTI-FASCIST" to prove than the literal anti-fascist brigades in Donbass are part of the great shadowy Antifa organization. It's the most hilarious shit, I never get tired of it lmao
Here are the webms in question, saved for being absolutely hysterical lmao. This is what rightoids actually believe
Oh, and the site from which i originally got the video in >>9787
from both claimed that blm is "le radical marxist group" only to later say:>Uhhh, ackchyually they are capitalistshttps://www.dailysignal.com/2020/07/07/these-18-corporations-gave-money-to-black-lives-matter-group/https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/02/15/dont-worry-blm-founders-arent-corrupt-theyre-capitalists/<Well guys, sorry for the false alarm. We had no way of knowing.
Hope's a bitch, and that's why i can never get enough of it.
Finished Democratic Economic Planning (2021) by Robin Hahnel, Michael Albert's co-visionary. The entire book is written from the point of view of neoclassical economics, gah! There is a very brief analysis of the competing proposals by Cockshott & Cottrell and Daniel Saros.
Hahnel criticizes the model by C&C (correctly) for being overly simplistic in assuming that there is just one single production technique for each product. I would fix this issue by scoring the different allocation scenarios with a more sophisticated method: Consumer items can be grouped in a tree, starting from a few very abstract categories like edible VS non-edible, splitting off into less abstract categories, and ending in the crown of the tree with the specific products. We assume that the more specific the category gets, the more we zoom in, the better high availability of some stuff can compensate for low availability of other stuff. So at the broadest categories, the one with the worst score of a these determines the overall score of the scenario (with second-worst and so on only working as a tie-breaker), the scores of branches within the same broad category give the score for the broad category according to harmonic mean, the score within a branch is determined by geometric mean, and when it comes to items that are practically identical (and here we are with the different production methods for the same thing), we can just use the arithmetic mean. (I just only listened three means because I'm lazy, AFAIK even the old Greeks knew at least ten means or so, so of course you could make a tree with more distinctions than maxmin-harmonic-geometric-arithmetic.
Hahnel criticizes Saros (correctly) for reading ordinal data (people rank items they wish to consume) as if it were cardinal data and suggests people just assign points whatever way they feel like instead of being forced to use a particular configuration of point weights for the rank positions. Hahnel criticizes that consumers "must" provide so much data ex ante, but IIRC Saros's scheme does allow spontaneous consumer decisions, it just gets more expensive for you than pre-ordering.
Consider posting this on cybersoc if you haven't already.
don't, they'll just call you a retard and spam you with "cope" the moment you offend them in any way
engels sucks ass
a little too cozy with german petty bourgeois democrats
worryingly uncritical of european anthropology, especially of that time
a dogmatic hegelian even decades after the split with the young hegelians
Finished "Getting to Yes" 3rd edition, a supposed classic about negotiation, and "Never Split the Difference" by Chris Voss, another negotiation book. GtY was extremely boring and I didn't learn anything, NStD has the most gripping anecdotes (the guy dealt with hostage situations) and I also didn't learn anything from that. GtY is written from the point of view that you might meet again and again and that your reputation follows you, NStD isn't and so is much more aggro in what it recommends. All the "tricks" presented are banal in my impression, but perhaps people who are a bit Aspie-ish can benefit.
holy fuck /edu/ has been full of brainlets recently, is it the russia shills
I was already here when /edu/ was /freedu/, son. What's your problem, you believe reviewing mediocre books is not allowed here?
/freedu/ was such a cool board
Finished "Maphead" 2011 book by trivia king Ken Jennings about geography geeks: the map collectors, geo-quiz champs, geocachers, and also the author himself. I somehow expected to find some tricks for memorizing some geographic facts in it, but that never happened. But there are some interesting things here and there and the occasional sensible chuckle to be had. Have you ever heard of Mayda? – The story of a little island on old maps that wasn't found by the people using those maps so it moved a bit on the updated maps and then it wasn't found by the people using the updated maps, so there was another update… and this went on and on for several centuries until it finally vanished for good.
today I learned of Serge Voronoff and his monkey testicle surgery as a male enhancement during the 1920s and 30s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Voronoff
What are people's opinions/recommendations on classical Greco-Roman texts? I'm probably to read Thucydides "The Peloponnesian War" after my current book. Are there any Marxist commentaries on some of these ancient works?
I have a good list of primary sources for Greco-Roman texts but you'll have to wait a bit, I've got a ton of work to finish before tomorrow
NTA but I'm curious too
Today I'm reading The Country Under My Skin, a memoir by Gioconda Belli, a former member of the Sandinista National Liberation Front. It has me feeling like I did when I read Jakarta Method, which is to say going from hopeful to mournful and back again.
Finished The Microfoundations Delusion by J.E. King (2012), a very thorough compilation of economists being stupid about this one particular thing, perhaps too thorough. Within the first fifty pages or so he convinces you that requiring microfoundations for macroeconomics is pointless and that there have been many economists shilling for that wrong idea over the decades, then come a hundred more pages, and another hundred pages after that. Not only does he distinguish between authors for and against microfoundations, but he distinguishes between being against it out of practical concerns while supporting it in principle and being against it because one believes this sort of wholly one-sided causation direction doesn't exist out there in the real world, and he tries to tease out how strongly held this or that belief is; and he doesn't just tag the life output of an economist as belonging to one position, he tracks how the writings change over time, comparing different works and even different editions of the same work. And he also points out when economists in his view misrepresent other people on that topic. (It's so thorough it borders on creepy. How much time did he spend on this?) He also looks at the idea of building from micro to macro in other contexts and criticizes Richard Dawkins.
Just got around to read The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Very short work with very general advice.
So I snagged this book, Dušan Čalić: Actual problems of the development of the self-governing society in the SFRY and I'm seriously considering that ultimately, no matter how you work around it, insufficient material forces will lead to a collapse of any self-declared socialist state. I'm becoming an unironic dengist, bros, and I don't feel guilty. Seriously, it reads like some Stalin's apologia about the state of affairs in the USSR after they claimed to have built socialism.
Oh and, if anyone's wondering, it's in Serbo-Croatian and there's no copies or pdfs online.
Read Losurdo's Opera interviewhttps://archive.ph/ZLmI6
ASB military is a good source on gab on Ukraine conflict https://gab.com/ASBMilitary/posts/107949096229117807
Also reading Losurdo atm, his book on the language of imperialism to be precise. Among other things, it is a good breakdown of the history of antisemitism. There is a somewhat popular idea around that the Nazis hatred of Jews is just a development from the Christian hatred of Jews. Losurdo points out that Christians have been obsessed with converting and absorbing the Jews, which is a horror scenario
from the Nazi point of view ("damaging" the race). So these views are not just somewhat different, but opposed. The source of inspiration is colonialism, slavery, the American genocide of the native population. And you can get that straight from the horse's mouth (and by horse I mean Mr. Hitler and friends). Nazi terms like Untermensch were translated from the American discourse ("underman") and German race-purity regulations were likewise inspired by prior American examples.
Based and thanks. Losurdo is really underrated on this site.
Really nice read. Thank you for sharing.
Not sure what to read next.
I want something light but also engaging.
Well. Might get Liberalism by Losurdo, or Washington Bullets by Prashad.
And I'll make a thread about Losurdo, hopefully soon. Anything worth mentioning?
I love his work but I find him very dense and Liberalism is even more so than his other work (from what I've heard - I've only read Stalin apart from Liberalism).
I still wholeheartedly recommend him, though. Excited to read War and Revolution next.
I read To Have or To Be by Fromm, who i read somewhere was a freudian with some marxist bent. It's total shit, Fromm is a total reactionary (he'd be a Nazi if we wasn't Jewish) who probably never read Marx despite quoting from him numerous times. It's pretty shit. It's not really a study of psychology so much as it's a textual stew of all the references he could find to support his edgelord ideas.
Which is disappointing since the thesis has a lot of merit (the thesis being that we have two modes of understanding our being, Having and Being). Already this looks like a class problem. Why would we, in capitalism, the bourgeois society, focus on Having rather than being? And to make this work, Being really ought to be Doing, as this is what fundamentally expresses the proletarian position. I suspect the reason he chose Being was because he's an intellectual and a reactionary who imagines a utopia of living in feudal times when people respected tradition and humanism (he actually thinks that all previous modes of production have been humanist, including early capitalism, and he blames industrial society for the creation of our supposedly uniquely non-moral production), I suppose he sees himself as an aristocrat then because it would be most in keeping with his current class position. Anyways he totally sidesteps the idea of class, of bourgeois ideology or proletarian consciousness. I think this is a really important idea, that the bourgeoisie impose a dysfunctional ontology onto us, and a real class consciousness goes beyond a mere enunciation of class relations, but has to be a total shift in our view of what constitutes life.
It's a good study in reaction though, since he shows very well how a third cop out way can be imagined. Obviously it's ridiculous though, since what kind of mode of being is Being. Like you just sit there, aspirate? Obviously being has to have some character, and the bourgeois mode is ownership and the proletarian mode is labor. Being through having or being through creating. With this model in mind, the bourgeois ownership model is progressive even, since it posits a sort of superhuman limitless conglomeration of object and subject, compared to a feudal ontology which is probably closer to "just being" (It'd be super neat actually to see a study of how the people in past modes of production saw themselves and their relation to the world). Having is necessary, and whatever sense of self comes after it must be an improvement. And lo, verily it is! Through our labor we reproduce society, and this act of abstracted production ties us in with the whole material body of society as necessary poles. It's our labor which grants to us our right to the universal productivity of society. This is held back by private property. Having gets in the way of having.
It feels like the hotdog school is one big psyop to push a misinformed popular version of marxism
In Angela Nagle's book kill all normies she says: "The obsession with decline found on the alt-right today comes from a long conservative line of thought, who regularly drew upon books like Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the eighteenth-century text that tied Rome’s
collapse to sexual decadence" What scholar elaborates on this? I want to read more about the obsession of the right about moral decay.
I first saw the triad Universal Particular Single in a Zizek book, and it looks like psychoanalysis, critical theory, and other modern kinds of studies use this triad, but i was reading a Claes Ryn book and he talks about Universal and Particular as a dyadic combo which goes back to Plato.
Anyone know when or from who this triad emerged? Before the singular/individual was what was meant by Particular, and universal was the sort of general category. I was reading the Ilyenkov essay on the Universal and he brings up all 3, but mainly keeps to a Universal-Particular thing. Is this a marxist thing or what? If anyone has any clue i'd be happy to hear it
Looked up the original German text to the last issue of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Here’s what the infamous paragraph reads like when put through Google Translate:>We are ruthless, we ask no consideration of you. When our turn comes, we will not sugarcoat terrorism. But the royalist terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and justice, in practice they are brutal, contemptible, mean, in theory cowardly, covert, double-dealing, dishonorable in both respects.
Definitely a bit less rosy than the official English translation floating around.
Is piracy praxis
I just remembered about an anon talking about the old European nobility "buying in" to capitalism as it formed to maintain much of the class power they had under feudalism, anyone got book recs about this?
Civilization and Capitalism mentions this
Started reading Davies and Wheatcroft's Years of Hunger—any other recommendations for books on the Ukrainian famine?
Fraud, Famine and Fascism by Douglas Totte.
Several Short Sentences About Writing by Verlyn Klinkenborg. The advice: Look at each sentence in isolation. Avoid passive formulations. You don't need to throw in buts wherever something contrasts and therefores whenever it connects. Trust the reader to have some sense of contrast and connections. Trust your intuition when something feels weak. But Don't trust what your intuition produces. That stuff is stereotypical. Keep sentences short. Name the things precisely. Consult the fucking dictionary, even for words you already know.
I started reading Middlekauf and Kennedy's entries in the Oxford History of The United States(still need to get to Zinn though) and wondered if anyone else had book recs on US History.
Done with "How to Learn and Memorize German Vocabulary" (2012) and "How To Learn And Memorize Math, Numbers, Equations, And Simple Arithmetic" (2014) both by Anthony Metivier, both shit. There is a lot in the math book that is not math and a lot in the German book that is not German. He repeats himself within the books and between them. For example, both books have passages about relaxed breathing. Reading him feels like watching a never-ending infomercial.
Oh, and the German is terrible. Three things in increasing order of cringe:
<Ich hole mich ab.
That sentence is nonsense. Ich hole X ab means I pick up X. But it only means picking up in the narrow sense of getting a person (or thing) and then walking with that person or transporting that person (or thing) elsewhere. For example, I pick up the kids at the cinema. You do not use hole ab for something like I pick up the coin. There is a different verb for that. And neither verb is used in a construct like I pick up myself, which is what the author is apparently trying to say in German. Such construct does not exist.
He recommends to come up with some memory hook for at least every letter of the alphabet (I approve). And he goes further by also memorizing pictures for common prefixes. He gives the example of using Zorro to memorize words with the prefix zer. It makes sense to expand the collection of memory hooks to syllables if the syllables are basically random. But this is not some random sound, it carries meaning. A zer word almost always has something to do with a bigger thing getting destroyed and spread over an area. (For example, brechen is to break and zerbrechen is to shatter.) He does not seem to be aware of this.
He mentions zerunten and zeroberst. These words do not exist. How can you fail like this? This is not a mistake a normal fraud would make.
Finished Ciber-comunismo by Paul Cockshott and Maxi Nieto (2017). It's arguing the usual points from TANS and against Austrian economists, but in Spanish.
Trying to become a mini-Michael Roberts or Cockshott and become a respectable Marxist economist. Beyond finishing Capital and Theories of Surplus-Value(along with ABCs of Communism), what else should I read to reach this goal? Yes, I'm aware that economy without political education is a slippery slope, and I hope that your recommendations will also accommodate for that as well.
Hello. Does anyone have a link too Ismail's book suggestions that are on available on the internet archive?
Which, out of the various philosophy threads in here, count as the general one?
Thank you. I always forget to bookmark this eregime page.
i'm the retard who was asking about what the deal was with universal(or general)/particular/singular division
i'd seen it in a way where singular seemed to take on the meaning of particular, and particular taking a more specific meaning at a higher order of categorization than singular. Anyways i was reading grundrisse and saw marx use the triad, and how he used it was keeping general and particular as they're known, and referenced singularity in regards to the unity of the two. I don't have my notebook or book rn but i think the phrase went smth like "blah blah is the general, blah blah being the particular, and blah blah being the singular which brings them together"
In case anyone also had this question. Now it's answered.
Reading Thomas Pikkettys Capital and Ideology. The writing is refreshingly clear and to the point compared to 19th century French philosophy.
I'm going to read Moby Dick
History Anon here, I guess I've made progress; I pined a bit more through Vol. 1 of Carr's Soviet History, same with Years of Hunger, and I'm just starting Fraud, Famine, and Fascism. Rothstein's history is fun to read, and adds a few more tidbits to the way that R. W. Davies and Alec Nove would cover collectivization. I'm certain, by the time this is over the average r/historymemes user will disintegrate at my touch.
Apart from that, I'm relearning the Piano.
Question: I'm at Chapter 17 in Capital, and this particular passage confuses me:
>(1.) A working day of given length always creates the same amount of value, no matter how the productiveness of labour, and, with it, the mass of the product, and the price of each single commodity produced, may vary.
It doesn't make sense to me because of course if you were to do really productive labor throughout the working day, your necessary labor would be done quicker, and surplus value would increase(along with overall value), no? Please help me, I've thought it through and this has confused me for a bit. Why assume something like this in the first place, even as a hypothetical?
The passage is about society-wide
Hey. I'm just here to say hi.
Just remembered a pdf posted on this site, something about the USSR being close to radically altering its approach to labor time? I think the introduction talked about political and foreign relations reasons ultimately stopping the project from being implemented, anyone got it?
reading a history of libya atm. Writer is a liberal, but he keeps mentioning the lack of domestic expertise as a hindrance for the development of gaddhafis libya, and its ability to expand beyond a simple oil producing state. Question is, why didn't the Soviet Union take advantage of this? I know the pan arabists were anticommunist in speeches; but this didn't stop cooperation between Abdelnasser and the Soviets, even as he arrested Communist activists domestically. What prevented the Soviet Union from pulling Gaddafi, who was relatively isolated, especially as Egypt's revolution is betrayed by Sadat, into the Soviet sphere?
>How to argue and win every time
a good book about how to argue ?, if not is there others.
one i'd like is how to combat sophistry, because right winger and right-wing adjacent like breadtubers and their fans love it.
Unique IPs: 146