/edu/ - Education

Education, Literature, History, Science

catalog
Mode: Thread
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5

Captcha
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(45.35 KB 500x340 ear.jpeg)
Audio thread Anonymous 08/28/2019 (Wed) 14:29:26 No. 3931 [Reply] [Last]
Post audio sources
127 posts and 95 images omitted.
(25.06 KB 500x281 ca-A-Reed.jpg)
_Adolph Reed On Identity Politics, Reparations, And Removing Monuments_ <What politics is and what it isn't and what apolitical movement does look like and what it doesn't look like and how many things look like they are meaningful political action or are treated as if they are a meaningful political action but really aren't and can kind of delude us into thinking that we are making progress when we aren't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DirAIkDJ7H8
>>4058 can you say what text to speech software you used for narrating the texts ?
move thread to /edu/ ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIEFD257E4U Michael Parenti conspiracy and class power
>>4320 what Marx meant with Religion is the opium of the masses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4aKI66j9hw

(40.95 KB 554x380 trotsky.jpg)
Scientific Socialism and Dialectics Comrade 04/13/2020 (Mon) 22:23:20 No. 882 [Reply] [Last]
Alright so I've had a few interactions with people on /leftypol/ who seem to think that Dialectics means rejecting the Aristotelian law of non-contradiction. As far as I can tell this has no real basis in the work of Marx or Engels and is a good to not be taken seriously by anyone who understands logic or philosophy or mathematics. I was really confused about where this came from for a while. I have read Mao's "On Contradiction" many times and I suppose that text could be read that way, but I don't think that is what Mao meant by contradiction or "the unity of opposites". Last night though I read Leon Trotsky's "The ABC of Materialist Dialectics" and I think I've found my answer. In it, Trotsky straight up makes a case for why A=/=A, and does make a somewhat compelling argument until you examine it critically. This piece is well written like most of Trotsky's work, but his argument is full of non-sequitors and general misreadings of Marx and Engels. I want to make this thread to do some comparing and contrasting between four texts in particular, but we can bring in other lit if people want. Those four texts are... Anti-Duhring by Engels: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/index.htm The ABC of Materialst Dialectics: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/12/abc.htm Dialectical and Historical Materialism: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm On Contradiction by Mao Zedong: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm The first thing I want to note is in paragraph 12 of the general introduction to Anti-Duhring:

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

21 posts and 4 images omitted.
>>1402 True. There are plenty of namefags here too. I meant out of the 2017 cohort.
(263.82 KB 1600x970 cosmoedu.jpg)
Notes on Anti-Duhring section III in video form. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTF3HlZxicw&t=27s
(54.69 KB 724x345 vus.jpg)
Copy-Pasting some relevant posts I made from a different thread to here. Would just link but /leftypol/ has gotten pretty fast lately. OP: >>>/leftypol/908174 First Post Here, I intend to show that for Engels, science was a mater of empirical investigation. The following quotations are from the general introduction. >"The beginnings of the exact investigation of nature were first developed by the Greeks of the Alexandrian period, and later on, in the Middle Ages, were further developed by the Arabs. Real natural science, however, dates only from the second half of the fifteenth century, and from then on it has advanced with increasing rapidity." Engels--like the Philosophers of Science in the 1920s--viewed natural sciences as a model from which principles of method could be abstracted, but--unlike the Philosophers of science in the 1920s--Engels did not see the method employed in natural sciences as an idealized form to which any future science must conform, but rather as a stage in the development of science, subject to historical contingencies with it's own shortcomings. >"The analysis of Nature into its individual parts, the groupings of the different natural processes and natural objects in definite classes, the study of the internal anatomy of organic bodies in their manifold forms--these were the fundamental conditions of the gigantic strides in our knowledge of Nature which have been made during the last four hundred years. But this method of investigation has also left us as a legacy the habit of observing natural objects and natural processes in their isolation, detached from the whole vast interconnection of things; and therefore not in motion, but in their repose; not as essentially changing, but as fixed constants; not in their life, but in their death. And when, as it was the case with Bacon and Locke, this way of looking at things was transferred from natural science to philosophy, it produced the specific narrow mindedness of the last centuries, the metaphysical mode of thought." Engels had a vision of an approach to science which could overcome these limitations, and he worked to actualize this vision in his work.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Second Post The previous section illustrated a congruence between Engels' use of the word science and contemporary uses of the same word. This and all subsequent sections will instead repudiate the existence of any such congruence in use cases of the respective terms. First: metaphysics. In contemporary academia, metaphysics refers to a branch of philosophy which seeks to answer questions of the substance or fundamental nature of reality. In the previous quotation from Anti-Duhring we can see that Engels uses the term quite differently. For Engels, metaphysics refers to conceptions of systems or things as isolated from the world around them. In other words, the metaphysical outlook sees the internal relations of a things or system, but not the external relations. To view a system as static is metaphysical because it neglects to consider the system in relation to time. This particular metaphysical outlook is the cause for much confusion, because it is used frequently and sometimes taken as the whole picture. It is important to keep in mind that metaphysics includes all models which neglect either internal or external relations, not just static models. We pick up where we left off: >"To the metaphysician, things and their mental images, ideas, are isolated, to be considered one after the other apart from each other, rigid, fixed objects of investigation given once for all. He thinks in absolutely discontinuous antithesis." The opposite of metaphysics, that is to say, a view of objects and systems that considers internal and external relations, and the interrelations between these relations, IS dialectics. The aforementioned reduction of metaphysics to conceptions as static, consequentially reduces dialectics to an acknowledgement of change as constant. Hence, the common misconception that dialectics is the principle that all things are in constant motion.
Third Post In contemporary philosophy, idealism and materialism describe metaphysical schools of thought that respectively assert consciousness (or mind or concepts or will) and matter as the fundamental substance of our world. I will not mislead you, Engels does espouse a form of conventional materialism. In addition to this however, he gives idealism and materialism new meanings, I think best illustrated by this section from section "III. Classification. Apriorism" The quotation follows a lengthy section, paraphrased from Eugen Duhring which I will not subject you to here, but the beginning may be confusing as a result. >"What he is dealing with are therefore principles, formal principles derived from thought and not from the external world, which are to be applied to Nature and to the realm of man, and to which therefore Nature and the realm of man have to conform. But whence does thought obtain these principles? From itself? No, for Herr Duhring himself says: the realm of pure thought is limited to logical schemata and mathematical forms (the latter, moreover, as we shall see, is wrong). Logical schemata can only relate to forms of thought; but what we are dealing with here are only forms of being, of the external world, and these forms can never be created and derived by thought out of itself, but only from the external world. But with this the whole relationship is inverted: the principles are not the starting point of the investigation, but its final result; they are not applied to Nature and human history, but abstracted from them; it is not Nature and the realm of humanity which which conform to these principles, but the principles are only valid insofar as they are in conformity with Nature and history. This is the only materialistic conception of the matter, and Herr Duhring's contrary conception is idealistic, makes things stand completely on their heads, and fashions the real world out of ideas." This quote can be difficult to parse so read it over again if you need to. Engels unequivocally states here that the distinction between idealism and materialism is one of METHOD, rather than metaphysical substance. The primary difference between materialism and idealism for Engels is not metaphysical at all, it is epistemological! It regards principles, ie, statements, laws of nature, empirical claims. Let's break down his definition of the "materialistic conception" into three points: >The principles are not the starting point of the investigation, but it's final result. >They are not applied to nature and human history but abstracted from them >It is not up to nature to conform to these principles but rather it is up to the principles to conform to reality Clearly, materialism for Engels entails a particular method of empirical investigation. You might say, a scientific method. The first two points regard how empirical claims are apprehended. Karl Popper explicitly excludes any specifications in this domain from his criterion, so Engels method already has a wider array of applications, but the third point--upon careful consideration--contains the rational embryo for falsifiability! If principles are shown to not conform to reality, what are we to do with the? Throw them out! In this one line, Engels has implied Poppers criterion forty or more years before it's advent! Admittedly, it is not spelled out in Poppers characteristic autism, but I think what it lacks in rigor it makes up for in elegance.

General Education for Brainlets Comrade 09/10/2020 (Thu) 16:15:58 No. 3916 [Reply] [Last]
A lifetime of undiagnosed learning disorders, educational neglect and unproductive escapism has reduced my grey matter into a vestigial organ. I essentially missed out on the entirety of highschool but was able to work with what I had and managed to get a GED plus a tiny smattering of community college. But I started to hit the brainlet wall again and I realized how spotty and full of holes my whole foundation is. I was too ashamed at the time to ask for help and I no longer have access to professional educators so I might as well ask an anonymous imageboard. Do y'all have any good resources or books for someone looking to restart their education from basics? Assume that I don't know anything aside from basic literacy and numbers. Maybe not even that.
3 posts omitted.
>>3916 Did you look into khanacademy's courses? They have math from the 1st grade all the way to the high school and college level as well as any other topic commonly taught in school Also check out this https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki/Mathematics#Precalculus
>>3916 Try Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States ( https://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html ) It's easy to read and great at presenting at history from the point of view of the average person.
>>3916 It really helps if you specify what you're interested in (both in the sense of what entices you and what you think it would be useful for you to learn). "General education" is a meme outside of acquiring the most basic foundations. IMO it's better to pick something concrete and go for it
>>3919 >>3921 >>3922 Thank you very much. I will definitely check these out. I appreciate the time and effort you've taken to help me out, no matter how small. I even appreciate maths is fun's non-threatening child-friendly aesthetic. >>3923 Thanks for your guidance. To say that I've been unfocused is an understatement. So I have bits of an education here and there. I really enjoyed the history courses I took as an adult (mainly ancient history) because the professor was at least engaging and the content didn't have too many dates or dead people to remember. I also never really paid much attention in science. I'm not a flat-earther or anything but past a certain point I just don't really understand how or why the world functions.
>How to Read a Book >Atomic Habits >Make it Stick >Deep Work These create a foundation for consumption of information. Read these so that everything you read subsequently will be effectively absorbed. After that it depends on your interests. Like the other anon said, A People's History of the U.S. is a great start, but it's written with the assumption that you know the general U.S. propaganda history. How to Read a Book has a great list of books of the western cannon to read. It all really depends on your interests.

(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
This thread should have been called "Critique of labor" or "Critique of the value form". Bump nonetheless.

(18.03 KB 500x500 dasdasdas (2711).gif)
Anyone have a PDF of Charles Fourier's "The Hierarchies of Cuckoldry and Bankruptcy"? I need it because reasons. Comrade 10/02/2020 (Fri) 18:49:04 No. 4742 [Reply] [Last]
We should make a general history guide for an overview on leftists history movements/people/thinkers that type of thing
Learn to use the catalog: >>2112 >>2169

(10.79 KB 512x512 uni-painted-red.png)
University communists general Comrade 06/16/2020 (Tue) 15:32:42 No. 1943 [Reply] [Last]
This is a thread for communists who are (or are planning to) study at unnamed universities the world over. The thread is to serve as a mutual intellectual support system and meta-discussion for communist students to · share resources for picking and learning your object of study · discuss strategies for studies · weekly rhythms and scheduling outside of the classroom · organizing the student-body and/or spreading artistic agitation · all while ultimately staying safe and completing your studies ✊🚩🏴
20 posts and 1 image omitted.
>>3387 Don't go to New School for anything other than undergrad. Funding is a complete joke for grad students.
If I were to study web development, how broad is that field actually? I've always got the impression that it involves the standard http(s) website coding in HTML, CSS, JS, etc. but last night I laid wondering if other projects I'm somewhat interested in too, that also are very network-heavy in scope, would be included? For example something like RSS, instant messaging, P2P? I'm guessing the last one is a 'no' simply because it's not technically 'web', but then what is it? It's not standard software engineering since it involves very complicated networking as the bulk of what's being maintained? But does it then go under ICT? Does web development also go under ICT?
>>4385 ICT is a buzzword nobody outside government bureaucracies actually use. I think you are interested in this: https://roadmap.sh/frontend
What does /edu/ think of trying to classpill people in social justice type groups in university. At my uni (burgerstan) seems a lot of left-leaning liberals and Bernie types flock to organizations that promote LGBT, Black student orgs, and other idpol causes. But I think if they are small and relatively open minded it could be an opportunity to go in and subtly promote class analysis. Thoughts?
>>4391 What do you have to lose? The worst they can do if you try to classpill them, is that they sperg out and out themselves as Radlib. Don't reveal your Powerlevel at the very Beginning but don't compromise too much.

(1.64 MB mccannon1995.pdf)
Spanish Civil War Comrade 04/02/2020 (Thu) 08:26:40 No. 305 [Reply] [Last]
Thread for discussing the spanish civil war. I start the thread with a short paper on Soviet Union's involvement 1936-1939.
(77.43 KB 1180x585 Dare-Devil-Rides-To-Jarama-.jpg)
Morning Star review of an audio play about two volunteers in the Spanish Civil War. It might be worth a listen. (£2 per episode, or £6 for the whole thing.) https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/c/dare-devil-rides-jarama-pic-come
What do people here make of Orwell's interpretation of the war? His theory goes that the MLs shot themselves and the war effort in the foot by siding with the liberals instead of committing to full social revolution like what POUM and CNT were doing. He thinks if all the communists overthrew the Republican liberals, that they could've inspired a rural insurgency behind Franco's lines and eventually won.
I've been reading this recently: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/agustin-guillamon-theses-on-the-spanish-civil-war-and-the-revolutionary-situation-created-on-ju It has quite some hot takes about it and my general understanding of the events is not deep enough to tell how valid they are.

(18.78 KB 477x413 left-center-right.jpeg)
What DEFINES left-wing, centrist and right-wing Communism? Comrade 04/14/2020 (Tue) 16:24:42 No. 1043 [Reply] [Last]
I hear Deng and Bukharin be described as right-wing, Stalin as center, Bordiga as left -- but then where the fuck would people like Lenin, Trotsky, Mao and Cockshott fit in to this? Lenin had a big shift in positions (before vs after the revolution), Trotsky was clearly very similar to Lenin in positions after, but he often gets called "left" by Stalinists. Mao clearly was more sympathetic to Stalin than either Trotsky or post-Stalin right-wing revisionists, yet he is occasionally slandered as "ultra-left" (which is ridiculous), and then Cockshott went through "ML" (centrist, I suppose) parties, get kicked out for "ultra-leftism" and subsequently writes his seminal work TANS, including a critique of the scrapping of soviet cybernetics in the USSR, bourgeois elements of democratic centralism, and proposes to move towards communism immediately via the DotP through the revolutionary utilization of cybernetics instead of any market mechanisms (market mechanisms seemingly being supported by both right-wing and centrist Communists). To me, intuitively, it sounds like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Mao, in hindsight, had more in common than they were willing to admit (all "centrists", but how would one divide them into center-left-, center and center-right?), while Cockshott clearly drifted left (toward Bordiga). I may be missing something, That's why I want to open it up for collective discussion with you all here on /edu/.
23 posts omitted.
Add Wolff next to Tito.
>>1193 Theorists and people who've never been in power shouldn't be on this list.
>>1193 Kim Il Sung: center-c Jong Il and Jong Un: center-r Laos: right
>>1193 Raul Castro and Khrushchev are more like center-r. They did not shift towards privatization as much as Gorbachev and Deng did.
>>1108 It depends when. He is about the same as old Bukharin, and to the right of young Bukharin.

Comrade 09/18/2020 (Fri) 08:26:10 No. 4215 [Reply] [Last]
everything feels outdated what the fuck do I read to understand neoliberalism and all this shit, what can you even do at this point?
7 posts and 4 images omitted.
>>4348 Foucault belongs but not for the reason of the one who made that. Foucault wasn't neoliberal but does describe it before it was really a thing.
>>4350 >they conveniently leave out Points like his Hatred of Landlords. This. It shits me to tears. Same as how Smith basically infers that education, health, and essential public infrastructure should be free and yet these drongos try to privatise everything.
There is no need to understand neoliberalism. It isn't a thing. It's just a word people use who want to say that this society is shit without saying that capitalism is shit.
>>4347 its probably not what you want, but ive been reading some psychology-adjacent shit, like "dare to lead" by brene brown, been psyching myself up to read deluze&guttari shit, reading lots of shit on them. Been reading anthropology, recently "against the grain" by james c scott. Just started another book of his, less anthropology and more a study of the faces we put on towards power, and how that influences the sort of superstructure i guess, like the accepted notion of how things are. Also been reading "the violent technologies of extraction" by alexander dunlap and others. id say thats some 10/10 shit tbh. The way that i think of it, capitalism is all around us, so if we go into different adjacent disciplines, we'll get another angle on capitalism. Same with neoliberalism, tho i get the desire to have a good history of it specifically. (oh yeah also read Understanding the F-Word by david mcgowan, its... okay/good). Like neoliberalism is just imperialism/colonialism by another name. Yes it has certain unique characteristics, but its also the same expansion that all states have done since there was rich stores of people, livestock, or grain to exploit. The parasite tries to spread and feed. And so personally i really love a sort of wider lens on what capitalism is... i dont think its totally distinct from previous social forms, except that it is more deterritorialized n shit. Its like democratic feudalism, which in turn was like a more horizontal empire. So its fun to see the changes through time, and also the consistencies, anyways yeah like i read lotsa marxian shit and economics when i was younger, and im pretty done with it. Last economics shit i read (but didnt finish) was some mutualist shit (it was good). all in all i think anthropology and history is maybe the most important to me, and then i try to look out for shit that explains capital more as this organism or self-perpetuating arrangement, rather than an ideology that people believe, because the latter way of seeing it is more restriction and gives a more inside view rather than a look at the whole beast, and its evolution through history
>>4367 (me) id also recommend foucault, (((tiqqun))), ellul, camatte. I dont say that i fully endorse them all, but that you can learn something important from them all maybe. Fuck frenchies tho god damn they cant write

(201.95 KB 500x356 918921.jpg)
NEP and collectivisation period Comrade 09/21/2020 (Mon) 15:53:01 No. 4309 [Reply] [Last]
Does anyone have some good things to read about the NEP period and the collectivisation period and the transition between the two?
a quite popular narrative among anti communists, the so called resistance narrative that presents the soviet collectivisation of agriculture as a mostly or completely unpopular policy on the part of the peasants. The resistance narrative draws on OGPU reports and peasant letters and (mis)takes the peasant protests during winter of 1929-30 and passive resistance in the collectives as proof of widespread resistance to collectivisation. I go through the nature of the sources this narrative uses, the scope and nature of the peasant protests, and annual grain produce in the collectives during 1930s to show it is false. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1LlMjPsGFY
>>4331 Anyone know what happened to BadMouse's videos?!
>>4332 He took them all off. I don't know why he quit. The official line was that he was fed up with Breadtube not doing Praxis in real life and they only care about aestethics.
>>4336 Fuck that sucks. He had quite a few god videos debunking Prager U that were very handy

Delete
Report

no cookies?