/edu/ - Education

Education, Literature, History, Science

catalog
Mode: Thread
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(9.20 KB 268x188 big_ass_penis.png)
Anonymous 01/08/2020 (Wed) 19:21:00 No. 909 [Reply] [Last]
i am learning a few languages, for now it's not hard to learn'em at the same time But, all the autodidact learners recommends at some point reading and listening the language on the daily basis. what lefty media do you read? BTW, I'm learning german, italian, russian and japanese
Edited last time by comraderat on 01/21/2020 (Tue) 10:39:42.
147 posts and 40 images omitted.
Is German reaaally worth it? Sure, you get to read Marx and Hegel in their purest forms and all, but it's not like Lenin understood German. Plus, compared to Spanish and French, much lower amount of speakers.
>>1698 Not everything has to be about sucking Lenin's mummified dick.
>>914 >I'm learning finnish Perkele sisu Suomi benis :DDD 8==D~*
>>962 >watching French dubbed hentai rn The fastest way to learn & coom
>>1013 This. Truth is, most people dgaf about literacy per se, what they want is to be able to communicate. Fluency (or at least good enough, if you weren't immersed in it before four years of age or at latest seven then you'll never be truly "natively" fluent) is priority. I've traveled extensively because of work, a rare privilege, and while writing and reading has faded from most countries I lived in, the spoken and listening is more or less as good as ever (especially with regards to jargon, like scientific terms or "borrowed" language). India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh were amazing because they would drop in and out of perfect English because there was no "local" word, expression, or phrase for it. And once said "English" becomes commonplace and is "fir for purpose" it just gets absorbed. Very cool.

(239.04 KB 1536x2048 uib.jpeg)
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Comrade 05/19/2020 (Tue) 22:07:16 No. 1706 [Reply] [Last]
define needs. is it the bare minimum to survive?
(49.87 KB 960x784 cmon man.jpg)
>according to HIS needs >define needs. is it the bare minimum to survive? bruh

(92.79 KB 1214x697 5aad0c9117db7.jpeg)
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism Q&A Comrade 04/04/2020 (Sat) 03:36:51 No. 316 [Reply] [Last]
This is not a debate thread. I encourage debate on this topic to happen in /leftypol/, as it would have anyway. This is an /edu/cational thread only. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the third and highest stage of communist theory, was synthesized in 1982 by the Peruvian Communist Party (known in bourgeois sources by the epithet "Sendero Luminoso"). Here is the document they published concerning this: http://library.redspark.nu/1982_-_Maoism._On_Marxism-Leninism-Maoism Parties and organizations that uphold MLM theory in the modern day include: >Communist Party of Ecuador – Red Sun >Peru People’s Movement (Reorganisation Committee) >Communist Party of Brazil (Red Faction) >Red Faction of the Communist Party of Chile >Maoist Organization for the Reconstitution of the Communist Party of Columbia >Revolutionary Nucleus for the Reconstitution of the Communist Party of Mexico >Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist >Committee Red Flag, FRG >Maoist Communist Party, French State Red Flag Collective, Finland >Committees for the Foundation of the (Maoist) Communist Party of Austria >Tjen Folket - Communist League, Norway >Committee to Reconstitute the Communist Party of the USA

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

29 posts and 6 images omitted.
>>1555 Bump for this question
What is marxism and leninism and maoism Is it some form of system or different tactics to achieve communism
>>424 We don't know yet. Theory develops through practice and we haven't had a breakout Maoist movement in the first world yet. When we do we can evaluate their successes and failures.
Is the CR-CPUSA already operating and do they have any online presence I can read through?

/math/ general Comrade 04/04/2020 (Sat) 17:37:10 No. 344 [Reply] [Last]
All good communists study math. What are you studying right now? What is your favorite field of mathematics and why? Personally, I really like the book "Linear Algebra Done Right" by Sheldon Axler. It is on Libgen if you are interested and I attached a pdf.
93 posts and 19 images omitted.
>>1374 Huh >bc 3+2 returns <File 3+2 is unavailable I'm on arch.
i'm studying the finite element method
>>1646 I'm more of a finite difference man, have you ever studied that?
I personally find math incredibly boring, don’t care for it.
>>347 Linear Algebra Probability Calculus

Comrade 05/17/2020 (Sun) 23:02:39 No. 1677 [Reply] [Last]
any good books on the medieval period? yes i have already read the peseant war in germany, no i did not understood what the fuck it was saying
https://archive.org/details/historyofthemiddleages/ History of the Middle Ages. A 1988 Soviet work.

(240.49 KB 662x540 1475417084125.png)
Comrade 05/14/2020 (Thu) 05:00:09 No. 1617 [Reply] [Last]
Drop those PDF's or else
7 posts and 5 images omitted.
(1.06 MB shieldbook.pdf)
Books about the Russian Revolution/Soviet Union: https://www.leftypol.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=217 You can find a PDF of almost everything in that list on Libgen.
>>1672 Also, try the links before using Libgen. It's often not necessary to use the latter.

(841.69 KB 709x986 life.jpg)
How to get woke cheat sheet Comrade 05/03/2020 (Sun) 19:41:00 No. 1453 [Reply] [Last]
/Leftypol/ didn't bite, let's see if /edu/ acctually might read something. >Read capital and complimentary theory. >No! Really, READ capital and complimentary theory. >No, not like that! >Ok basically read this quote down below by fucking Karl Marx. >And at least read the text on point 1 down below. >Why? > To understand why your current party isn't even being shut down or disturbed by the Porky Police. >You are in your current state, totally harmless. >Let's not keep it that way. "It is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be. Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner." - Karl Marx 1: https://www.krisis.org/1999/manifesto-against-labour/

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

bump, props cus scientific socialism.
Michael Parenti Videos in youtube
Huh OP that's Robert Kurz in the pic, have you read him? https://libcom.org/history/expropriation-time-robert-kurz

The scientific value of materialism Comrade 05/12/2020 (Tue) 21:20:53 No. 1572 [Reply] [Last]
Hello comrades. I have doubts about materialism since the philosophical part of Marxism isn't my strength, but I want to be able to understand it better since materialism is the foundation of marxist theory and the communist movement. I've had arguments in the past with people who claim that modern science doesn't prove materialism or that materialism cannot explain things like the origin of the universe or quantum mechanics. Well, where do I begin with this? Is materialism the truth? The most basic part of marxist philosophy is the assertion that matter is objectively real, right? How do I prove this then? Maybe one of you STEMlords around here can help me out with this. Any resources on this is appreciated.
2 posts and 1 image omitted.
>>1573 Thanks for the response >Quantum mechanics explains how the small (atomic) scale functions, and general relativity explains 'large' scale things, there is a bit of a disparity between these two theories though, as we've covered 'small' particles don't really play by the same set of rules (as it seems). The big question of physics right now is tying these two theories together into one big unifying theory. I've found Cockshott videos on materialism, and there's one on quantum mechanics where he explains that "whether atom particles are probabilistic or deterministic does not matter for materialism" and a bunch of other things. https://youtu.be/cOe-7GH83Us Also here's an excerpt from a 1978 soviet textbook on philosophy I've been checking out >When these and other unusual laws of the microcosm were discovered, scientists evolved, in the mid-20th century, a new branch of physics, the quantum theory. Again, the idealists hastened to take advantage of its unusual character and insisted that quantum objects and processes did not really exist, being merely concepts invented by scientists to explain their experiments. That was, however, rejected by leading physicists. One of the authors of the quantum theory, Louis de Broglie, wrote that whether he studied macro-objects or micro-objects a physicist was sure of their objective existence, for "it is doubtful that he would be able to pursue his research usefully, by abandoning all belief in objective reality". Einstein pointed out time and again that the certainty of the external world existing independently of the researcher underlay the whole of natural science. Planck and Born, who made significant contributions to quantum theory, held the same view. Concerning microparticles, Born wrote: "I maintain that we are justified in regarding these particles as real in a sense not essentially different from the usual meaning of the word' As for the ambivalent opinion accepting the reality of things of everyday experience (macrocosmic objects) while denying the reality of microcosmic objects, Born wrote that "there is a continuous transition.... Where does that crude reality, in which the experimentalist lives, end... and where does the atomistic world, in which the idea of reality is illusion and anathema, begin? There is, of course, no such border; if we are compelled to attribute reality to the ordinary things of everyday life including scientific instruments and materials used in experimenting, we cannot cease doing so for objects observable only with the help of instruments. And, Born concludes, quantum theory "calls for new ways of describing the physical world, but not the denial of its reality https://archive.org/details/ABCDialecticalHistoricalMaterialism I guess I could go and ask Cockshott the questions in this thread later. >Now going off a bit, I see no reason why materialism HAS to be right for Marx to still be accurate and communism to still be correc I've thought about that. So that would make marxism a sort of methodological materialism, which would still make it correct but my mind tells me we must go deeper and prove that materialism is the ultimate reality. >>1610 Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't materialism at its core nothing more than an observation, that the world is made up of matter and atoms? This was pointed out first by Leucippus/Democritus and hundreds of years later proven to be correct by the natural sciences. Doesn't this mean that materialism is at least partially right? Like I said, I have doubts on materialism but idealist counterarguments seem unconvincing .
>>1573 >The most basic part of marxist philosophy is the assertion that matter is objectively real lol what. No one denies "that matter is objectively real". That would be absolutely silly. Do you think non-materialists go around believing they are in some sort of simulation? Materialism states that our ideas are a reflection of the material world and that the world is knowable. Knowable in the sense that the laws we identify about the world are a reflection of actual processes in the world. Idealism is kind of the opposite. Idealists believe the world we know is a reflection of our ideas. They don't believe the world is "not objectively real", they just believe we can never know the truth about the world because we project our ideas onto it. That's the quick and dirty on it, there's more to it of course, I just wanted to jump in on the claim that non-materialists belive the world isn't real. I'm a materialist, btw.
(39.85 KB 766x680 bohmian-mechanics.jpeg)
>>1572 There is a materialist explanation of quantum mechanics, it's called pilot wave theory or Bohmian mechanics, it's probably better than idealist explanations of quantum-mechanics because it uses fewer assumptions, like you don't need an Observer, which does has some theoretical advantages like not going into solipsistic territory, and also some practical advantages like it's not inspiring quantum woo woo charlatans to distort scientific understanding with mysticism There's another thing, you can still propose that the physical world is composed of fundamental indivisible components, even if atoms turned out to be divisible after-all and not the end of the search for the most fundamental component of matter: You can consider that we have to go deeper yet. I don't see how you can at this point do science from anything other than a materialist point of view, while you can find a number of scientists that will proclaim to not be materialists, all of the work that is being done towards producing theory that underpins actually functioning technology assumes the materialistic monism, that matter physically exists and that there is nothing beyond it, there simply is no other game in town. Obviously pop-science media does not adhere to this, and you get explanations that include stuff like a cosmic consciousness creating the material world, but try using this to derive to build a machine, and you'll quickly find out that it's at best decoration that is not necessary, and at worse it can obfuscate reality to stifle innovation.
>>1619 >That would be absolutely silly. Do you think non-materialists go around believing they are in some sort of simulation? You think there aren't people who think we live in a simulation? I mean religion isn't far from that. Idealism can be a hell of a drug >Idealism is kind of the opposite. Idealists believe the world we know is a reflection of our ideas. They don't believe the world is "not objectively real", they just believe we can never know the truth about the world because we project our ideas onto it. Even some scientists believe natural phenomena isn't determined by nature but by the consciousness of scientists. Like, we look at their interpretation of nature and just "choose" to call it science. I'm looking for ways to refute this line of thought, and general scientific arguments for materialism being ultimately the truth.
>>1614 Thanks for these resources. What are your thoughts on the video? It would seem if he is to be trusted (I'm more of a mathematician or physicist than a philosopher) he answers your question of 'does quantum mechanics disprove materialism'. This is interesting for me, as a mathematician I would tend towards concepts not actually existsing, but just being concepts to explain experiments (or perhaps the other way around). Like I mentioned earlier, Newton's equations explained experiments very well on the human scale. But when we began to look out on astronomical scales, the equations did not hold up. It would be quite difficult to prove that the theory of relaitivty is the 'truth'. The only way we know that relativity is consistent is because of advanced mathematics, and those are just based off arbitrary axioms. We then look to experiments to validate theoretical claims. It was years before we actually measured the light bending from far away stars, proving Einstein's theories correct. Ignore this if you're familiar, but I'd recommend reading about Kurt Godel for this (more specifically his incompleteness thoerems), he proved the limitations of axioms and mathematics as a whole, basically some problems may be unsolvable, and we could never know which are or aren't, quite Earth shattering results. >>1619 While I am no expert on materialism, I think you have it a little wrong here, it's not that non-materialists think reality isn't really 'real'. Depending on what smallest building block makes up the univerise, the world may not be 'knowable'. We are still discussing it, but it seems some (quite reputable) physicists believe that the recent studies of atoms pretty much being a probability distribution, in the abstract mathematical sense, implies that materialism is wrong. From the Cockshot video posted above >Classical materialism had been based on the idea that the atom was indivisble If atoms were just probabilistic waves then would you call that 'objectively real'? When people created materialism they figured there was some building block of which all things are made (the atom) in a literal sense. This isn't trivially true so is worthy of discussion. >>1620 For the record, as we understand it currently, atoms are divisible, since protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, unless we're talking about the same thing here, but yes I agree this doesn't imply materialism is wrong. I'm not super familiar with all the different intepretations of quantum mechanics so I'll go research that, but in regards to science and materialism: like I mentioned earlier, I think mathematicians tend to look at it from a idealist view, with physicists more materialist, since mathematicians are usually the first people to discover anything, they don't have much 'functioning technology' to look to do base their work off.

(49.47 KB 550x367 here-we-are.jpg)
Comrade 05/05/2020 (Tue) 11:30:09 No. 1502 [Reply] [Last]
this is bunkerchan anybody knows how people build a bunker can you make a diy bunker by yourself
2 posts omitted.
>>1504 >who has the keys for bunkers like these? Porkies >Is there someone employed by municipalities that administer bunkers? Does it even matter?
>>1508 Huh?
(18.92 MB nwss.pdf)
>>1502 Nuclear War Survival Skills is supposed to be the best civil defense manual out there. PDF attached.
>Live in a house with a large basement >wall's should be Three standard bricks / paver's thick and go up either till the ceiling if the celiling itself is concrete / brick / stone etc or fully enclose the top with more bricks / paver's if the roof of you're basement is anything weaker then that >Should be large enough to have a bed / bag for each person whose residence is at the dwelling food and water and anti EMP shielded electronics
>>1539 An apartment building with a subbasement should be good enough, and most 60s era buildings usually had an area that was designed to be used as a fallout shelter, and even though most public fallout shelters have been decommissioned and the supplies have expired and been thrown away and the room repurposed, the rooms or areas themselves are usually still there and their thick walls will protect you from radiation, you just have to bring your own supplies.

(305.02 KB 1741x2560 81LOxJ+qS9L.jpg)
Comrade 05/13/2020 (Wed) 16:07:07 No. 1603 [Reply] [Last]
I'm looking for book recommendations on Operaismo, Operation Gladio and the Marshall Plan. If anyone has suggestions, then it would be much appreciated.
here's the obvious one

Delete
Report

no cookies?