/edu/ - Education

>>9516
???? who said anything about the booru

>>4269
>People Don't Read Anymore
<all this time used by other things
Not to mention the impact social media has had in rapidly decreasing attention spans. It's really fucked up, but a prole unable to concentrate or think critically, or educate themselves, is a prole easier to control for porky. Reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron (https://archive.ph/pofEg).

Video by DemocraticSocialist01 (currently renamed DemocraticMarxist01) debunking anti-Che rhetoric.

>>10045
Excelente

>>4211
FUARKK, the doc's gone, does anyone have a local copy?

>>4211
>bro just access my Google Docs
Uyghur, I don't use this site on places associated with accounts that have my info.>>4467
>>4467
You forgot to mention.
>wood doors
Not all concentration camps had wooden doors, some just used them as stopgap solutions.
>crematories
Not every jew was cremated, most were put in mass graves.

>>4211
the google docs document broke, can any post a functioning one ?

>>9984
Link, because Embed is unreliable here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw_nY-tMuHE

>>4211
MODS!!!!! GOOGLE DOCS CANT BE FOUND!!!!!

>>4211
>>12993
>>12905
>>12893
>>12889
Found the archives of the docs.

>archive.vn:
<https://archive.vn/PbYnq

>google doc (/mobilebasic):
<http://web.archive.org/web/20220701000000*/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gxwhh-vdeB--47HM-20cEVRC9eAMhrapbNf0Sk8VSOs/mobilebasic
<http://web.archive.org/web/20220308013038/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gxwhh-vdeB--47HM-20cEVRC9eAMhrapbNf0Sk8VSOs/mobilebasic

>google doc (/edit):
<http://web.archive.org/web/20220501000000*/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gxwhh-vdeB--47HM-20cEVRC9eAMhrapbNf0Sk8VSOs/edit
<http://web.archive.org/web/20220610092355/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gxwhh-vdeB--47HM-20cEVRC9eAMhrapbNf0Sk8VSOs/edit


It's odd that the doc is gone, my guess is that the person either delete it, or their account.
Regardless, google plans on deleting accounts that haven't been used in 2 years, (https://www.npr.org/2023/05/17/1176602395/google-deleting-accounts).

If we're going to educate the masses – not only do we need to be proactive in our understanding of the world, and the information being put forward is as accurate as possible – we need to be uptodate in how the information is spread and how it's saved/archived.

>>18235
>>4218
>>4213
Forgot to include the printed version of the sites.
I thought I printed it before, but whatever.

Anyone has a newer version of the printed webpage, post it.
The archive of the "/edit" version is really hard to print since it gives frequent errors.

>>18236
Forgot to look into, the author linked a reading list as well in the doc.
I found it, along a list of snapshots, and a snapshot to use:
>Original Link
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/18LdrYaUtaBsi_sTERnBV2Xj7szwKUAdO8serQAUCS5A/

>List of snapshots
<http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://docs.google.com/document/d/18LdrYaUtaBsi_sTERnBV2Xj7szwKUAdO8serQAUCS5A/*

>Best snapshot
<http://web.archive.org/web/20210530111820/https://docs.google.com/document/d/18LdrYaUtaBsi_sTERnBV2Xj7szwKUAdO8serQAUCS5A/mobilebasic

>Pdf of doc
<File rel

Every other link (from what I'm skimming) is planly written out in the doc, making it easier to search.
If there's a link, but it's displayed as a sentence, such as the reading list "Socialism in the 21st Century reading list (tons and tons of stuff here too)", just:
>Right click on the link,
>copy and paste it into the url bar
>Search through embedded links with the link, just search for the last occurance of "http"

>>20058
"""funny""" how the main google docs link and also the links in the google docs is """unavailable"""

>>18235
>>18236
>>20058
OP here (and the google docs link poster) thanks for finding the stuff, I didn't realize the doc was dead.

>>4269
Is there another link to read this? My browser just keeps resending the captcha. Unless I'm supposed to solve like 4 of them?? Annoying af

>>20526
It's archive.is going to shit. Try opening it in Tor.

https://lefty.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=10559

Stormfags create German warcrime fakes to "debunk them" claiming that these fakes are from Nuremburg. It should be noted that it is likely the same situation as the famous "Stalin and Yezhov by a river" photo edit.

Requesting feedback on these debonks. It's supposed to be a resource that's easy to link to for generic questions (instead of wasting time with a back and forth) and easy for non-socialists to understand.

https://wellred.miraheze.org/wiki/Capitalism_is_voluntary
https://wellred.miraheze.org/wiki/Communism_killed_100_million

(Those links may break when the admins eventually change the subdomain to wellred.miraheze.org but that's probably months away.)

>>20835
Make sure to repost the links when subdomain changes.

For the 100 Million link: It provides some good arguments in terms of debate but the "muh stalin ideology not ML" feels like a cop-out and it lacks concrete examples of such assertions being false outright, rather than just logically inconsistent and irrational. Frankly speaking pic rel does a better debunk of the 100 million nonsense regarding Stalin and I think
https://web.archive.org/web/20220105154839/https://leftypedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric:Communism_Killed_100%2B_Million

Did the argument a bit better in places. I'd edit the page using these 2 resources and other stuff such as >>20058 >>18236
To create a more solid basis of argumentation.

As a side note, the presentation of the thesis is too straightforward in the sense that its essentially screaming "NO, WRONG!" which will turn away a person on the fence about the truth. While it is irrational, human psychology can and will reject facts if presented to them in what they perceive to be an antagonistic or condescending manner. It's why debates must use persuasion using logos, ethos and pathos to convince a person that these facts are in fact true (because the average layman is not going to bother following up on sources, especially ones that are lengthy essays or articles in and of themselves unless they're already invested in the subject.

>>20836
Thanks for the feedback comrade.
The presentation is quite blunt and straightforward, a factor of that was wanting to be short, succinct and easy to read, yet covering as many arguments as possible. Another part of the delivery was trying to be factual and formal, like a wiki, which may have gone too far into making it sterile and too assertive for a political topic like this.
Giving it a re-read now (a lot of this was written a while ago), yeah, it's far too blunt, condescending and even a bit arrogant in parts, so I should definitely give it a re-write to soften the edges.
>the "muh stalin ideology not ML" feels like a cop-out
Yeah, it is. I was aiming to quickly counter the mainstream perception that communism is when you are le ebil dictators, by showing that there are other communist ideologies and methods, before claiming Stalin and Mao didn't actually eat all those babies.
I think that a large amount of the target audience would consider an immediate blunt contradiction of their worldview, 'Stalin didn't kill 20 million', the same way they would treat a Holocaust denialist.

Thanks for linking the resources.

>>20837
You're welcome, and I understand what you mean by people being in denial about the Stalin thing, fair point. That's what I meant by persuasion. When I was in high-school (back before leftypol was a thing) my history teacher started a spiel about "le gommies murdering 20-40-60 millioN!" and I challenged her on that, writing a fully sourced essay (that I unfortunately have lost to a crashed hard drive years back) and changed her mind about the entire thing by being as unantagonistic as possible while still sticking to my guns.

The liberal response to the book Late Victorian Holocausts is that the deaths involved are not a damnation of market forces, but rather a "absence of political power" or "adequately broad economic policy" as the New York Times put it. I don't think assaulting that argument per se would be all that productive, and directly citing the insights of Lenin on this topic will be equally unconvincing, so what sources do you all think should be used?

>>20902
The same criticisms comes to a common liberal conclusion about most colonized people's movements. The Palestinians are conservatives, they just want to go back to before they lost. The Native Americans are conservatives, they just want to go back to a world without modern medicine or white people, The Puerto Ricans are conservatives, they just want to go back to pre-European times.

Either I'm solely surrounded by schizopherenics who call themselves liberals or I might have just found a pattern of cope.

>>20902
Asking for details on what they mean by that would probably be more effective than sources for that, but what are you looking for? Citations for an argument?

>>20904
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/01/02/18/reviews/010218.18senlt.html

Forgive me, not the NYT but it was hosted on their website and wasn't present while typing the last one, that argument is interesting precisely because of how vague it is. What do the author mean by broad economic policy? A colonial government that "cares?" How would you build that from an actively hostile state that favors the capitalists? Do they mean something liek FEMA or UN Aid?

>>20904
In the real-world example, it was some self-described 'liberal' that described likened the Palestinian liberation movement to the Native American one(and liberation movements in general), saying that they just "want to go back to a time before white people." On neo-colonialism more generally, "why don't the colonies just build trade allies outside the US if they want to succeed instead of crying to the UN?"

>>20906
>"why don't the colonies just build trade allies outside the US if they want to succeed instead of crying to the UN?"
Good opening to ask them about the BRI initiative.
>>20905
The vagueness is the point, I suspect.

>>20835
Quick update: Miraheze finally had a revolution and has completed the subdomain change request, so the links are now live at https://wellred.miraheze.org
I didn't work on improving articles until that change was made to ensure nothing went wrong, and now I have some time to revise them.

Could we add Roots of Rebellion to the list for being a mainstream source that shows that the political dominance of the Bolsheviks was overall reflective of the Russian proletariat's will rather than due to their "disagreeableness" or totalitarian will?

>if you do a communism your children will live in splendor long after the costs have been paid
>if you do capitalism you live in shit and so will your children but at least you didnt pay much
>Russia has better metro system because Joseph Stalin hated freedom and built it without regards to the cost, while New York metro is a product of capitalism and is the result of private-public partnerships built at an acceptable cost
<Democracy makes you rich!
This was vid rel's response to Tucker Carlson's visit and commentary of the Moscow Metro system. Pic 1 is that station and the irony of it all is that this was one of the Metro stations NOT built in Stalin's time, but built a year after his death.

The funny part about this for me is that only a few years ago the narrative was
>Communists are too cheap and always don't have money so that's why all their technology is bad and unsafe and uhhh broken!
To the point where they even had almost that specific line in Stranger Things Season 3, with the obnoxious, snarky black girl that kept repeating Ben Shapiro lines about Capitalism and Freedom.

Which is it? Were the commies spending too much and producing things that will last for centuries and can be considered works of art… or are they cheap retards who never built anything to last and were all soul-less and repressed art?

These are actually two separate prongs of ideological attacks. The first one attack the regulatory-bureaucratic state of the Soviets who are seen as excessive and decadent since they deviated from the social darwinic norms of the Free Market that let people die homeless if it's profitable. The second attack is just general contempt rich countries have against people they perceive to be poorer than them

>>21793
Common fashoid dualities that they switch depending on their attack angle.

>"Stalin was a JudeoBolshevik!"
>"Stalin was an antisemite who wanted to kill Jews!"

>"Lenin was a German agent!"
>"Lenin established a Red Russian Empire and invaded Ukraine!"

>"The USSR invaded Poland with nazi Germany!"
>"The USSR wanted to invade Europe, nazi Germany saved Europe from Bolshevism!"

>"Hierarchy is natural and based!"
>"Kill the Jews on top my fellow Aryans!"

>"The USSR was state capitalist!"
>"The USSR was totalitarian planned economy communism!"

>"The USSR was socially conservative and backwards!"
>"The USSR was morally degenerate and revolutionist that made women equal!"

>"China is based and fascist!"
>"China is a totalitarian Asiatic communist regime threatening the white race!"

>"NATO isn't encircling Russia and China, that's Putinist propaganda!"
>"NATO has encircled Russia in the Baltic, fuck off vatnik!"

>>21888
>Shitty /pol/ infograph placing real and myths on various and often incorrect tiers
What a waste of trip 8s.

Found this youtube short recently where a 'former' US Special Forces soldier talks about how the US populatio isn't ready for a war today. That's true, the US military today is not ready for a large-scale conventional conflict, which is why they aren't ready or willing to engage in all out war with Iran. However the rest of his statements are either ignorance or intentional revisionism.

The phrase "rifle behind every blade of grass" comes from a quote attributed to Admiral Yamamoto about the USA, not Japan (although to be fair this statement applied to Japan too). The more blatant revisionism is that "(the USA) won the war in Europe" and that the USA pushed into Berlin… It's one thing for ordinary US citizens to be utterly ignorant of the Soviet role in WW2 (see the RT interview from years back asking ordinary Americans about WW2) but a professional special ops soldier? He's not some jarhead grunt, military courses in the USA do (or did) teach about Soviet battle tactics including during WW2 and most certainly know that the USSR was the one that took Berlin and that the USA didn't enter the land war in Europe until 1944, when the back of Nazi Germany was broken already and they were a dying fascist animal.

Him being visibly proud of the indiscriminate bombing of German civilians by the USAF (and British RAF, though he doesn't mention the Brits over that) which were not only ineffective at stopping Germany but killed more innocent civilians than Nazis is just ghoulish.

His attempt to dismiss moral justification for starting a war is also nonsense. Yes war isn't without brutality, but there's a difference between the inevitable violence, and pointless slaughter.

Here's a pet project for leftychan: https://nintil.com/categories/soviet-union-series/

This guy writes for the Adam Smith Institute, so instantly suspicious, but his sources appear solid. I think the devil is more in how he analyzes the data, but it's such a vast quantity of assertions that my tired ass is losing track of what he's saying. Can the people with more time than me please help on this? There's certainly things that I've found inconsistent, especially in his attempt to deride Stalin's economic policies, mostly by using the same method used to attack China by pointing at other countries and saying "See! they rose almost the same rate too!" without any actual context for the data of those countries (Having a Marshall Plan or the USSR to fund them, being relatively untouched by war by comparison, etc.)

I've been seen the following talking point being repeated by anarchists and liberals. One guy cited pic rel which it stated that:
>"The Soviet Institute of the Economy estimates that as much as 3 percent of industrial production and from 5 to 25 percent of raw material output is falsified."
> "Statistics are also distorted by outright falsification of data. Not long ago the entire country was outraged by the "cotton affair": in Uzbekistan cotton production was overstated by a full million tons, almost 20 percent of actual production."
I think the important part is the lack of timeframe given, as the Cotton Affair wasn't the type of thing that happened all the time, it's why it was such a scandal of the late-Soviet economy to begin with, nor do I think that the citation of the Soviet Institute of Economy is being used correctly, as no specifics as to the type of industry or material output is being stated. Regardless I would like some assistance in debunking this anti-Soviet narrative. Some of this can be attributed to accounting error and discrepancies building up from a local to national scale. Furthermore, Capitalist companies cook their books too, often deliberately, so capitalism isn't looking any better.

>>21939
>(although to be fair this statement applied to Japan too).

Not really, they barely had enough guns for their army by the end.

The best important material to debunk the "holodomor" claims?

Like, does anyone have a good source by soviet population by year? I can't find it anywhere in the internet.

>>21939
>see the RT interview from years back asking ordinary Americans about WW2
Source?

>>22232
read this >>10444

>>22235
In the post you presented, there is also this claim:

>"In 2003, Dr. Conquest wrote to us explaining that he does not hold the view that Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put "Soviet interest" other than feeding the starving first thus consciously abetting it" (R.W. Davies & Stephen G. Wheatcroft. "Debate. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932 - 33: A Reply to Ellman.")

>What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put "Soviet interest" other than feeding the starving first thus consciously abetting it"

Is that true? Like, i have no difficulties convincing people that the USSR was not an "ethno state" trying to kill all the Ukrainians or any other group in specific, but i would like to know why people think the "soviet govnerment" forced people to starve to death, or did not care for them, etc. There are numerous accusations, i could not list them all.

>>22236
The claim was made in the 1930s by the Nazis and ran through Hearst News. It was part of the whole "evil bolsheviks eat babies and are coming to rape our women" hysteria from the Red Scare. Obviously this ranges from the caricature of Commissar Cletus and Jamal, to in depth narratives like the "Holodomor" where the evul sovjets only cared about controlling the people, and other shit that appeals to people; the idea of their freedom taken away is an effective way of scaring people and making them forget what freedoms they already lack under capitalism.

For the Holodomor Narrative I suggest pdf rel, it is by far the most in depth, objective overview of propaganda vs reality regarding the Holodomeme I've read in English.

TL;DR: Socialism is scary for porky, so its most prominent example has to be dehumanized and made into a caricaturesque villain (projecting capitalism's crimes) and portray them as an oppressor of ordinary people so as to appeal to the proletariat.

>>22234
It was a pretty famous video by RT news titled Americans Don't Know WW2 History. It used to be all over Youtube, but I'm guessing google scrubbed it in 2022 when it purged Russian channels and media content (Zvezda news and Vesti as well as RT had all their materials removed from the site both on and off their channels. I say this because search results don't bring it up anymore, it only gives a similar interview by the widely acclaimed speaker, writer, journalist, and political analyst Caleb Maupin, with similar results. The only remaining video I could find was a Russian dubbing of the Interview, vid rel.

No need to debunk shit when the USSR dropped their marxist program under Stalin lol.

>>22249
>"Muh evul Stalin dropped le marxism" strawman #43251
Read a book or go back, liberal
>Dialectical and Historical Materialism: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

>>22251
read a book Stalinist cocksucker
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/

>>22272
>Trotsky.
loser cope

>>22272
>ad hom
>trotsky
typical.

>>22275
rotsky ok

God why is reddit such a faggoty cuckshed… oh right because they're a NATO propaganda arm. leftypol needs counteraction.
https://archive.ph/5QFv4