/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


(41.52 KB 304x201 cast.jpg)
Socialist Grenada Historian 03/11/2020 (Wed) 12:27:28 No. 33 [Reply] [Last]
Does anyone here knows any book or more information, about the socialist revolution, that happened in the Caribbean island of Grenada. And also, what are your thoughts on Maurice Bishop
I already talked about this on leftypol(>>347039), but I'll share the thoughts of a Grenadian on Bishop here too >"As far as the common person goes, people seemed to really like Maurice Bishop. Both sides of my family say a lot of positive things about him (most were living in the country at the time he was Prime Minister). Many people went to free him from house arrest after members of his own party detained him. And, as was mentioned in an earlier comment, the island’s airport was named after him. I think it’s safe to say he was well-liked, but for those who think that’s a stretch, we can at least say a lot of people past and present like(d) him." >"Why was Bishop so well-liked? There are a few reasons, but I’m going to boil them down to the most essential: <His predecessor, Eric Gairy, was abusing in a way that frustrated the Grenadian people. <Bishop and his party members worked in a very grassroots manner, giving them face time with people such that people would feel heard. <Bishop was pretty charismatic, so that always helps with being liked. <After Bishop and his party took power, things were getting better in Grenada. I understand “better” is subjective, but here’s what I’m defining as better: GDP was up, illiteracy was down, and unemployment was way down." >"A lot of the “better” results came from Bishop wanting Grenada to be a more self-sufficient nation (a goal you see a lot with revolutionary/socialist leaders of third-world countries). He figured there’s a lot that Grenada can do for itself and not rely on other countries for. Why import so much food when you can produce it yourself? Why send your fruits/vegetables out of the country to be refined into goods when you can build the proper infrastructure to do it yourself? If you want a country with a thriving tourism industry, why not have a standard, up-to-snuff international airport instead of having people fly into another country, then fly/boat from there to Grenada? Being more self-sufficient is a dream anyone would buy into, so it’s not a shock that the people of Grenada (at least a sizable amount of them) bought into it, liking Bishop in the process." >"Obviously, everything wasn’t all perfect. After the government was taken down, there were people who said that they were imprisoned for speaking out against the government (which is believable, given that happens with a lot of socialist governments). There were plots to overthrow the government during its time, and the final plot was actually successful. It was actually members of the ruling party turning on Bishop. I won’t lay out all the details, but just know that it ended with Bishop and a few other Bishop loyalists being killed, followed by a US invasion to topple the whole thing about a week after the killings."

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKhRE61VE0E Here is Michael Parenti talking about Grenada
After the Venezuela Shitpost of Pigs. I was looking for info about coups foiled like that. And found this book, I posted some days earlier. It's a noovelized history of the "Bayou of Pigs". The failed neo nazi coup in Dominica. But according to the book, it started as an anticommunist coup idea to Maurice Bishop and the JEWEL goverment. So in 2 chapters (even 3) they make mention on the situation of Grenada and the rise of power of Bishop.
>>34 >I already talked about this on leftypol(>>347039), but I'll share the thoughts of a Grenadian on Bishop here too >>>/leftypol/347039

(28.78 KB 640x591 1154754758732.jpg)
Pedagogy and /leftypol/ Comrade 04/17/2020 (Fri) 17:25:33 No. 1136 [Reply] [Last]
Are there any teachers here? If so, how do you work with your curricula to insert your chosen beliefs? And what is the most based methodology and pedagogy? >t. Primary School, Y 4-5, we play "Red Leader" which is basically capture the flag but with special rules, and I put up lots of posters about "working together" and "team work".
23 posts and 4 images omitted.
>>1450 I'll take anything that is good. From theories to fully fledged session material. I'm trying to broaden my horizon on any subject in this regard. Sculpting is the field where I'm probably have the greatest challenge to come up with meaningful lessons. But if you have anything good, just drop it, noatter which subject. Classes 5 to 13 is it for my case.
>curricula insert your chosen beliefs Don't do this. Education is always meritocratic. It has nothing to do with democracy or justice. Teach them the joy of learning, for them to attain intellectual mastery. Sounds easy but it's actually hard to do. Knowledge is unfortunately a regime of representation, but it's neutral in itself. It's something you are ethically forbidden to meddle in politically, lest you want everything to turn into bloody politics.
>>1510 Out-fucking-standing stuff
>>1514 >Education is always meritocratic. Have you seen what's happening? It's all good and well, but the idea that politics doesn't have a place in education is naive. I don't want to burden students either with the worries of the world, nor turn them in to political sectarians, but look at the fucking state of it all. The motherfuckers pouring in the money know full well what they're doing and as educators we surely can't idly stand by and let it happen.
>>1514 >Education is always meritocratic I wish it were so, but it certainly isn't

(4.38 MB 4798x3183 gettyimages-567613523.jpg)
The British Empire Comrade 04/30/2020 (Thu) 15:16:47 No. 1430 [Reply] [Last]
Britbong here, As a brit, I believe it's necessary to educate myself on the history of the previously vast British empire to understand how the modern Britan evolved from that. If anyone has any good resources on this, especially the Empire's exploits in India, Africa, China and Ireland, please leave them below. Bonus points if they are Marxist works.
I read Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis when I was just becoming a leftist and it was some hard hitting stuff for me.
>>1433 This looks fantastic, thank you for the recommendation! (The epub you attached is corrupted, the chapters are blank.)
>>1430 To add to the other Anon's post, End of Empire is a pretty good overview of the end of the british empire, and while not terribly detailed in any particular area, it gives a pretty thorough overview of the bush conflicts and dirty wars that made up the Empire's death rattle after the Second World War
>>1454 Who would be the author for that?
>>1505 Brian Lapping The Decline and Fall of the British Empire by Piers Brendon might be better though, covers from Yorktown to the end

(196.98 KB 389x416 0.png)
Comrade 05/04/2020 (Mon) 08:05:43 No. 1456 [Reply] [Last]
recommend me books of underground socialist/anarchist movements, files and biographies of people who were involved.
>>1488 Check'd, Nazi. Bonnot Gang were just a bunch of gangsters and murderers.

(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.

18 posts and 3 images omitted.
>>1206 Are you the same guy who does those music videos, I know one was about Kaczynski.
(15.13 KB 255x255 skmk.jpg)
>>1400 Yeah that's me. One of the only avatar or namefags left in this wretched den. God I miss afroplasm.
>>1401 >One of the only avatar or namefags left in this wretched den I could point you to several websites where everyone is a namefag.
>>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

(69.34 KB 1280x720 maxresfefsdefault.jpg)
Comrade 04/28/2020 (Tue) 05:19:34 No. 1380 [Reply] [Last]
Anyone have a PDF of Charles Fourier's "The Hierarchies of Cuckoldry and Bankruptcy"? I need it because reasons.
>>1387 https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/fourier/works/ch29.htm I found the bankrupts, but not the cucks. I looked all over libgen, it's not there. I don't know where else you'd find it.
Bump >Not on libgen Then was it ever even real?
I've been looking for it as well, and it is indeed difficult to find online.
>>1393 It's real: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12400532-the-hierarchies-of-cuckoldry-and-bankruptcy I've been looking further and it appears there isn't even a commercial eBook available for purchase. Honestly at this point I think the best route is to find a library that carries it. It's only 90 pages, so if you go that route, please consider scanning it for all of us.

Comrade 04/27/2020 (Mon) 06:51:53 No. 1360 [Reply] [Last]
My problem focuses on history and humanities, but I guess it could apply to other subjects. How do you guys "use" sources? How should leftists approach primary and secondary sources when studying or debating? How should we approach anticommunist ones? How do you make sure sources are correct? For example: Say you have 2 books on the Russian revolution, the first one is more left wing and the second is more anticommunist. How do you prove who's right and wrong? What do you do if the two books contradict each other? Sorry if that's too many questions, but I have a lot of doubts when it comes to learning from books and using them for debates.
>>1360 >How do you guys "use" sources? By quoting them in the text, referring to them, and then listing them in the bibliography. The key here is to be true to the sources. It is bad historic writing to use a source that does not say what you want it to say, but pretend like it does. >How should leftists approach primary and secondary sources when studying or debating? Critically. >How should we approach anticommunist ones? Even more critically. >How do you make sure sources are correct? You don't. You can never know something for sure, but corroborating sources are usually a good sign. When reading historical works you have to be aware that a lot of it is conjecture. Not made up, but kind of pieced together to make sense, often by generalising what we know of the time. Like for example you can say a particular Consul in 50 CE Rome had a bath in his house without having evidence of that Consul having a bath, but having evidence that rich people in Consuls in Rome in 50 CE generally had a bath. >Say you have 2 books on the Russian revolution, the first one is more left wing and the second is more anticommunist. How do you prove who's right and wrong? You don't "prove" anything, but you can do two things: 1) attack the book you disagree with, which can be anything from attacking the sources, criticising the way the author uses sources, criticise the author himself (ad hominem, despite its bad rep is a legit argument, e.g. Ancient aliens guy has no business speaking about aliens cause he has a bachelor in communication, not history or something relevant); 2) find sources that corroborate an opposing view. >What do you do if the two books contradict each other?

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

>>1361 Much appreciated, comrade!

/cybersoc/ critical edition Comrade 04/15/2020 (Wed) 07:28:15 No. 1063 [Reply] [Last]
ITT we post links and pdfs to critical or constructive takes on Cockshott and cybersocialism, as well as works or authors who wrote in the fields of cybernetics, systems theory, or operational research in general. >>>/leftypol/438911 >>>/leftypol/438923 >>>/edu/850
14 posts and 10 images omitted.
>>1078 >>1079 >>1080 Lit! /edu/ is a pretty slow board so I think we should be able to keep it alive.
>>1077 I think there are a couple different takes you could have on that. I don't exactly think Cockshott's framing is coherent as it relates to that question, and I'm not really sure if he fully grasps what democratic centralism means, at least as I understand it. MLs will probably disagree with me, but I think there is a distinction between centralization as it relates to the vanguard, and centralization as it relates to the state that he is missing. This gets into a major sectarian issue in interpreting Lenin: is democratic centralism meant strictly for the vanguard, or is it also a principle that the workers state is supposed to follow? Or put a different way, is the vanguard supposed to retain control of the workers state after the revolution? I think this distinction between vanguard and workers state is important, but some might not agree. Whether you read Cockshott's conception of centralization as coherent or not is going to depend on that to a large degree.
>>1063 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-96kJSFFVI A scientific defense of the LTV. I am skeptical of his model of planning, but for this alone he is extremely based IMO.
bump more pls
>>1345 I'll see if I can find something interesting. The project that inspired this thread is on the backburner rn in favor of >>882 but it is broadly related so I'll be contributing more to this thread in the future

(57.26 KB 616x440 MarkFisher-616x440.jpg)
Western Marxism Comrade 04/18/2020 (Sat) 23:09:09 No. 1170 [Reply] [Last]
What are some essential western Marxist works? Which work(s) would you classify as your favourite(s)
16 posts and 3 images omitted.
(924.69 KB 1577x2541 91rHVIJMOIL.jpg)
>>1170 Anybody have any thoughts on this? Seems really neat just to get a different perspective. The way it reconciles marxist thought and the individual seems fascinating. http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/critique1313/10-13/
>>1181 I guess being head of the Italian Communist party doesn't count.
>>1229 >He claims that they seek to draw a distinction between the theory of Marx and that of Engels. Lukacs points out some differences between Marx and Engels in History and Class Consciousness (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/), for example: >The statements of Marx and Engels on this point could hardly be more explicit. “Dialectics thereby reduced itself to the science of the general laws of motion – both in the external world and in the thought of man – two sets of laws which are identical in substance” (Engels). [5] Marx formulated it even more precisely. “In the study of economic categories, as in the case of every historical and social science, it must be borne in mind that ... the categories are therefore but forms of being, conditions of existence ....” [6] If this meaning of dialectical method is obscured, dialectics must inevitably begin to look like a superfluous additive, a mere ornament of Marxist ‘sociology’ or ‘economics’. Even worse, it will appear as an obstacle to the ‘sober’, ‘impartial’ study of the ‘facts’, as an empty construct in whose name Marxism does violence to the facts. <end notes: 6. _A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy_ , (my italics). It is of the first importance to realise that the method is limited here to the realms of history and society. The misunderstandings that arise from Engels’ account of dialectics can in the main be put down to the fact that Engels – following Hegel’s mistaken lead – extended the method to apply also to nature. However, the crucial determinants of dialectics – the interaction of subject and object, the unity of theory and practice, the historical changes in the reality underlying the categories as the root cause of changes in thought, etc. – are absent from our knowledge of nature. Unfortunately it is not possible to undertake a detailed analysis of these questions here. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm) The other work I see mentioned (although I haven't read it) is Marx and Engels: The Intellectual Relationship by Terrell Carver. I couldn't find a PDF of the book, but I have attached a review that should give you enough info to decide whether you want to read it or not. For what it's worth, it seems that Carver is somewhat of an Engels scholar. He published a book called Engels Before Marx this year (https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030423704). Other than that I found a paper called Engels as Interpreter of Marx's Economics, by Christopher J. Arthur: >This paper is concerned with Engels's work on Marx's critique of political economy. As is the case in general, Engels was originally taken as a reliable guide to Marx's work in this area; but the claim has been made that Engels's views as a commentator and popularizer are to be rejected, and that, in the editorial work Engels did on Marx's Capital, he abused (consciously or unconsciously) the trust Marx placed in him as the literary executor of the Marxian legacy. While the main interest of the paper lies in its consideration of Engels's interpretation of Marx's method, I shall first consider the charges pertaining to his work as Marx's literary executor. >Before considering such charges it is worth noting that the habit of taking Marx and Engels as one person is so deeply ingrained from earlier times2 that traces of it survived in places until very recently. As a prime example of this tradition let us take the well-known textbook by M.C. Howard and J.E. King on The political economy of Marx, which appeared in 1975. Treating of what they assume is Marx's 'logical-historical method', they give passages as if they quote from Marx (e.g. 'in history ... development as a whole proceeds from the most simple to the most complex relations') when the passages in question are really the work of Engels!3 They are from a review Engels wrote in 1859 of Marx's Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. (I deal with it extensively below.) (attached)
>>1290 Thank you anon! I will be taking a look at those.

(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/.
22 posts omitted.
>>1201 Oh okay, excuse me.
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.

Delete
Report

no cookies?