/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


BOOKS, THEORY, VIDEOS, DOCUMENTALS ABOUT CENTRAL AMERICA Comrade 08/04/2020 (Tue) 02:50:17 No. 2862 [Reply] [Last]
NICARAGUA COSTA RICA PANAMA HONDURAS EL SALVADOR Frankly I wanted more info and knowladge about these part of the world.
You want something cringe and fucking. See this documentary about the chief defender of child molestors visiting Nicaragua https://invidio.us/watch?v=RAFSwv_5Uc8

(14.65 KB 250x396 Althusser[1].jpg)
Comrade 07/22/2020 (Wed) 01:18:54 No. 2647 [Reply] [Last]
why do leftists generally dislike Althusser?
26 posts and 2 images omitted.
>>2801 he's unironically a great mathematician and programmer. I just find it annoying when people shill him on anything philosophy related.
>>2788 Can a mod or someone reach out to him and have him do an AMA here on a pinned thread? That would be cool
>>2811 Zizek is a fucking joke and the fact that you cite him favorably in a thread like this speaks volumes.
>>2820 Oh really? Compared to a non-theorist blogger? Zizek has serious work other than cultural takes.
>>2827 You're a silly person and I'm ending this here.

Comrade 07/22/2020 (Wed) 22:50:08 No. 2678 [Reply] [Last]
is there a literary historian that gives a structuralist reason as to why the Soviet Union fell without blaming "revisionism" or "totalitarianism"?
I guess Cockshott in "How the World Works". I described this take before quite a few times on /leftypol/ over the last month, so I am a bit tired of re-writing it here. The gist is this: >Falling rate of growth kicks in once the economy matures and all the labor available is mobilized from rural jobs into industrial ones >This causes a stagnation in economic growth >This causes real wage growth to slow down to a crawl >This pisses of the middle class, which is becoming envious of their western counterparts that have yet to experience the start of the death of the capitalist middle class >This, over the course of Brezhnev's premiership, ferments a political crisis of sorts >Different factions arise to solve the problem, mainly neo-Stalinist hardliners, Centrists and Reformists. >Statistical chance lands the power in the hand of reformers in 1985 >Their policies, while having some good points, accidentally also wreck the command economy, only deepening the crisis, while the decision to make the country more "democratic" lets reactionaries like Yeltsin, as well as nationalists, get more influence >This sets of the first few secession, causing more instability, which reactionary forces, specifically having influence in the army, use to seize power >USSR is undemocratically dissolved
>>2741 In this scenario what should have been done to solve the crisis? Was stagnation inevitable and just apart of socialism or was the solution just computerization like Cockshott proposes?
>>2678 repost from my posts at /his/ The problem of socialist economy was not output distribution, but input allocation. During 1930s, while the victory in economic front was significant, there was a sign of problem. With the appearance of new production sectors (due to completion of industrialisation), came the problem of fighting for input (funding and manpower). For example, the fight between Stalin and Trotsky was the precursor of that kind. Behind the ideological struggle was actually an economic problem. Trotsky wanted to turn USSR into an full military-industrialised country (similar to Nazi) in order to carry out world revolution (expansionist), while Stalin wanted to focus on building a robust autarkic economy that could survive the onslaught of enemies (isolationist). But why didn't they combine both approaches, wouldn't it be better than adopting only one approach? The answer was because of limited resources. If we thought of Stalin faction and Trotsky faction as two socialist enterprises, then it's actual a fight for funding. Another example was the fight between Lysenko school and Western genetics school in biology. Actually, nothing prevented both directions of research to cooperate with each other, but why they didn't? Because in a condition of limited of resources and manpower, if the Lysenko school gained a new researcher, it meant the genetics school lost a researcher (researchers as rare resources). The winning of one faction meant the losing of another one, in the condition of limited resources. As Lenin had said, we need to see the real economic struggle behind every ideological struggle, without doing so, history is still a picture shroud in mysteries. In the late 1950s, the problem was even more grave. With the advent of many new important economic sectors (nuclear, plasma, advanced agriculture, computing, rocket, space, etc.) the fighting for funding and input came to new level. Every sectors were important, but who would receive the most funding? After the disastrous failure of Khrushchev in his agriculture experiment, everyone was aware painfully that much resources thrown into a project didn't automatically mean success. The question of how to allocate resources raged fiercely. Eventually, the Kosygin's reform returned a mechanism of capitalism, that is, funding would be allocated accordingly to the PROFIT indicator. Of course, there were exceptions (military science, education, healthcare, etc.) but it's a beginning step for turning USSR (and also Russia) into oil-exporting country. In the 1980s, the oil crisis threw USSR into a crisis (which was understandable because they were socdem capitalist economy then). Due to the 2nd world nature of USSR (no colony), social welfare system and evenly distributed economy, it made USSR the bottom in the hall of fame of profitability. What to do, what to do? What happened was history, but I think everyone understand what I want to say here. What happened to USSR in 1985-2000, was a giant profitability crisis similar to the great 2010s crisis, the solution was also similar, disbanding most of social security system (a profit drain), discarded all unprofitable sectors (deindustrialisation) and finally turned USSR into a oil needle (the most profitable sector) As Engels had said, mankind made history, but the result most of them didn't turn out to what they wanted

(41.21 KB 450x363 Capitalism1.jpg)
Marx on "Arbitrary Profit" Comrade 07/15/2020 (Wed) 23:19:26 No. 2478 [Reply] [Last]
In Section VI of Wages Price and Profit, Marx explains that prices approximate the true value of a commodity, but only over time as supply and demand average out. Having established this, he goes on to argue against the fallacy that profit is obtained by selling commodities above their value: >If then, speaking broadly, and embracing somewhat longer periods, all descriptions of commodities sell at their respective values, it is nonsense to suppose that profit, not in individual cases, but that the constant and usual profits of different trades spring from surcharging the prices of commodities, or selling them at a price over and above their value. The absurdity of this notion becomes evident if it is generalized. What a man would constantly win as a seller he would as constantly lose as a purchaser. It would not do to say that there are men who are buyers without being sellers, or consumers without being producers. What these people pay to the producers, they must first get from them for nothing. If a man first takes your money and afterwards returns that money in buying your commodities, you will never enrich yourselves by selling your commodities too dear to that same man. This sort of transaction might diminish a loss, but would never help in realizing a profit. Marx's argument against a fallacy rampant in the present day seems like it would be incredibly useful to learn, I cannot for the life of me parse what he is talking about. Thus, instead of ignoring this aside I come to /edu/'s help in making sense of it. To break it down: <What a man would constantly win as a seller he would as constantly lose as a purchaser. If every transaction in capitalism can be understood abstractly as buyers and sellers entering a marketplace - representing supply and demand by changes in stalls, shoppers, and salesmen, for instance - then each transaction with an arbitrary percentage of profit x applied would even out. This is what I assumed this sentence to mean at first. But even if this were the case, could each successive capitalist in the line from raw material to finished product not add a surplus onto the successively increasing true value of the increasingly complex commodity? Marx might say that the competition between capitalists (ignoring supply and demand, which self-cancel) would force this arbitrary "profit" to increasingly diminish to almost nothing if it were to ever exist at all, and force them to reduce the labor cost of their commodidies by increasing their productive forces. But I don't see a point where this bastardization of Marxist theory would reach a contradiction, resolving itself into the correct understanding. Where is the error here? Either way, it turns out the rest of the paragraph seems to have nothing to do with any of this. <It would not do to say that there are men who are buyers without being sellers, or consumers without being producers. It feels like it ought to be phrased the other way around - sellers without being buyers - when talking about a business making profit during sales, which must of course buy raw materials, land, and the MoP from another source. But I ignored this as a stylistic deviation, until the next sentence: <What these people pay to the producers, they must first get from them for nothing. "These people"? Who? The capitalists? The sellers of labor power? Who are the producers? Why is there a dual-transaction taking place here? <If a man first takes your money and afterwards returns that money in buying your commodities, you will never enrich yourselves by selling your commodities too dear to that same man. This sort of transaction might diminish a loss, but would never help in realizing a profit. This is the point where the absolute abstraction loses me entirely. Is the man "taking my money" another capitalist, who makes a profit off of me in selling me raw materials but loses his profit as he buys from me? Would this really even out, if you were to take it to its logical conclusion mathematically? It seems this cursory, metaphorical refutation is much harder for me to grasp than a refutation in the form of a full analytical explanation of how the system actually works, which makes up the rest of the text. If someone could put it to me in plain terms I would greatly appreciate it, and I would hope other anons could use it to teach others as well.
you faggots really don't know the answer to this? this is considered one of the easiest marxist works and you don't get it? back to /leftypol/ then.
>>2819 The reason no-one answered is precisely because its so easy, idiot.
>>2819 It's a dead board man; I don't know what you were expecting

The Leninist root of Third Worldism (Maoism) Comrade 07/10/2020 (Fri) 18:27:40 No. 2263 [Reply] [Last]
>Those workers (proletarians) in the developed countries who benefit from the superprofits extracted from the impoverished workers of developing countries form an "aristocracy of labor". The phrase was popularized by Karl Kautsky in 1901 I'm noticing this really is a recurring theme with Lenin, but I'll leave this for another thread... >and theorized by Vladimir Lenin in his treatise on Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. According to Lenin, companies in the developed world exploit workers in the developing world where wages are much lower. The increased profits enable these companies to pay higher wages to their employees "at home" (that is, in the developed world), thus creating a working class satisfied with their standard of living and not inclined to proletarian revolution. It is a form of exporting poverty, creating an "exclave" of lower social class. Lenin contended that imperialism had prevented increasing class polarization in the developed world and argued that a workers' revolution could only begin in one of the developing countries, such as Imperial Russia. By contrast, the definition within revolutionary syndicalism is that trade union bureaucracy, 'yellow unions', or social democratic unions were labelled 'labor aristocracy', (the IWW for example instead being a revolutionary industrial union, created within the orthodox Marxist theories of De Leonism).
1 post omitted.
>>2264 This thread addresses Leninism primarily cunt.
bump
What is to be done as class-conscious proletarians of the developed countries if Revolution can only arise from developing nations, and those populations do not desire our adventurist migration there?
>>2734 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neI-ol2AowM >How to Think Like a Vietnamese Communist: An Intro to Dialectical Materialism!
>>2263 >The increased profits enable these companies to pay higher wages to their employees "at home" (that is, in the developed world) has anybody verified this using data if possible? doesn't this imply that as places like China become more 'developed' and wages rise, wages will balance out between the developed/developing world and perhaps agitate the proletariat in developed countries to revolution?

early burger history Comrade 07/31/2020 (Fri) 11:14:32 No. 2784 [Reply] [Last]
I'm teaching US History I to high schoolers next year; if I can pill the more curious students (in a non-obnoxious way), that's obviously ideal. Things I'm looking for: 1) Rapidly catching up on my own knowledge of the period. I know a bit, but US history I'm weaker on than in most subjects despite being a burgerlander myself. 2) "Antiracist" teaching resources that don't suck. I'm in a metropolitan area in the northeast so the hold of radlib thinking over the profession is quite strong; but this seems more of an opportunity to me than a problem in this case because there's a lot of overlap in themes (settler colonialism, exploitation in slavery, the construction of race, skepticism towards "patriotic" narratives, &c.) and that gives latitude to introduce things related to that even when it doesn't slot in easily to the official curriculum. Books are good, but non-book resources are better, since I love books but most high schoolers don't. 3) From those who teach HS or lower, anything more generally that they'd recommend re: navigating the profession etc (although maybe that's something that deserves a separate thread)
There is some stuff on the MEGA libraries on >>/leftypol/668814
>>2784 >>2784 1) & 2) Where to even start American history is so rich with examples of racial and capitalist development in how America was discovered at the very beginning of capitalism as a system. It would not be hard to put America into context the need for capitalists to generate wealth to fuel their home industries and put into place racist, violent systems to divide the working class. Capital Vol 1 (Part VIII) has a section describing the basis for colonization on the early history of America. >The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation. On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theatre. It begins with the revolt of the Netherlands from Spain, assumes giant dimensions in England’s Anti-Jacobin War, and is still going on in the opium wars against China, &c. ... These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the state, the concentrated and organized force of society, to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power. You most likely know about this but I would recommend A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. -The American Political Tradition And the Men Who Made it by Richard Hofstadter -An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz -The Road Not Taken by Lerone Bennett ( https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/essays/bennettroad.html ) Not a book and is a short one. >What makes this all the more mournful is that it didn't have to happen that way. There was another road -- but that road wasn't taken. In the beginning, as we have seen, there was no race problem in America. The race problem in America was a deliberate invention of men who systematically separated blacks and whites in order to make money. This was, as Kenneth Stampp so cogently observed, a deliberate choice among several alternatives. ... Back there, before Jim Crow, before the invention of the Negro or the white man or the words and concepts to describe them, the Colonial population consisted largely of a great mass of white and black bondsmen, who occupied roughly the same economic category and were treated with equal contempt by the lords of the plantations and legislatures. Curiously unconcerned about their color, these people worked together and relaxed together. They had essentially the same interests, the same aspirations, arid the same grievances. They conspired together and waged a common struggle against their common enemy -- the big planter apparatus and a social system that legalized terror against black and white bondsmen. -The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic by Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker >the authors show how ordinary working people led dozens of rebellions on both sides of the North Atlantic. The rulers of the day called the multiethnic rebels a ‘hydra’ and brutally suppressed their risings, yet some of their ideas fueled the age of revolution. -An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles Beard 3) As someone who went to high school in the same region as you're working in and recently graduted, I would not hesitate to assign reading short passages because it opened my eyes to so many different interpretations and it made me a better reader. All of the material earlier is what I can remember from being in a US history class taught by an anti-racist, (openly) Marxist. He was so bold he assigned reading the Communist Manifesto as homework assignment and to either affirm/deny the predictions made in the Manifesto in the modern era which gave an out for the students who disagreed with the reading. The point, maybe you can't be so ambitious in your school as to give the Manifesto, is that it's definitely possible to create a historical anti-racist, working class, multi-racial narrative in the school system. Good luck ! Hope you follow up on your results
Oh and to add on to that there is a fair amount of relevant writing that Marx did on race/ethnicity and the American Civil War. He was a journalist for the NY Tribune https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/newspapers/new-york-tribune.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm >And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland. >This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this. https://marxists.catbull.com/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm >The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world

(2.91 MB 500x200 untitled-15.gif)
Is it possible that magic and myth are true? Anonymous 07/21/2020 (Tue) 22:51:05 No. 2633 [Reply] [Last]
Inspired by my reading of the book, Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn How do we know myths, stories, magic, etc. are not real? Assuming what we know scientifically is true, how does this negate myth, legend, etc? Why are dinosaurs not simultaneously animals and also monsters when they fit what we would have called monsters? Why are overriding social systems not tantamount to a spirit or God when they control our actions and shape our life histories even if they don't act consciously? Are they not what we'd call an egregor, i.e., a presence brought into existence by the actions and beliefs of a large number of people? Is our Sun not a God when it is responsible for all life on Earth? Is the biosphere not some sort of Earth spirit when it encompasses all living things yet influences each individually and can be destroyed through harming the Natural (non-human) World. Are spirits not the electrical currents moving through your brain? Do we not tell history as a story? In the beginning there was nothing but the One, then the One expanded into the Everything, as the Everything continued to expand soon the beating hearts of the Everything, the Stars began to form from the energy of the Beginning, the stars coalesced into huge interstellar communities, galaxies; in the nuclear core of the stars more building elements were created, and from the stars came the planets; in the deep seas of one planet around one star life formed out of the energy of the planet's iron core, over the course of billions of years life arose in complexity in a way matching the Everything until finally from Life emerged the Someone, a complex arrangement of the Everything capable of consciously perceiving itself. Why isn't our understanding of the Universe, even being scientifically true, a myth? Myths were once truths, after all.
14 posts and 1 image omitted.
(495.61 KB 450x192 Get Out Snape.gif)
>>2724 Go back to your chamber logician, you have no power here ya unimaginative killjoy.
>>2724 There is no difference between the natural and the supernatural What separates the Sun from an unconscious creator god?
This is what happens when you don't read Marx
>>2731 And this is what happens when you read Marx poorly. Reread the chapter on commodity fetishism. Magic is materialistic and structural, it has no need for idealism.
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God.”

Gulag Archipelago Comrade 07/17/2020 (Fri) 21:44:22 No. 2493 [Reply] [Last]
According to Gulag Archipelago, torture, rape, and killing of peasants and political dissidents was common practice in soviet gulags. Was this really the case?
4 posts and 1 image omitted.
>>2499 The irony is that Stalin's paranoia about the fragility of the communist project is what made the project so fragile.
>>2769 Considering that it lasted more than 2x his life-time and was the second world superpower of its time... nope.
>>2776 Considering that people starved in the 30s and eventually it failed... yep.
>>2799 Considering natural and regular famines were eliminated (along with homelessness, illiteracy, etc.) and only came back after US neoliberal sabotage... nope. The Soviet Union wasn't perfect, but if you compare it with most third world government then AND now, it was surprisingly functional and much better. Are people who criticize the Soviet Union all rich cunts from the third world and fist world middle upper class? Nigga, they're kidnapping our sisters and daughters and selling them, we're getting shot at on the regular, either by "clean cops", regular dirty cops, drug dealers, by petty thieves who are usually kids, by politicians who don't like "activists", we're getting run over by cars, dying from shitty food (because healthy food is expensive), overwork, stress, anxiety, lack of access to medicine and medics. All these things did not exist for the majority of the people in the soviet union for the vast majority of its existence. Yeah maybe Stalin was a paranoid cunt and a totalitarian leader, but ffs, the quality of life was much much better than it is now for MOST OF US. Fucking privileged pricks, I swear.
>>2497 > a better critique of the soviet gulags and other abuses under the Soviet system, without falling to anti-communist propaganda, I recommend The Revolution Betrayed by Leon Trotsky. LOL the same Trotsky who referred to Stalin as an uncultured beast... push off

Lets Study Cinema History Comrade 05/05/2020 (Tue) 08:51:47 No. 1499 [Reply] [Last]
Quote from the Soviet film "The Great Citizen" (1937): "Oh, twenty years after a GOOD WAR, get out and take a look at the Soviet Union - composed of lets say thirty or forty republics." On January 1, 1937 as part of the so-called USSR there were only 11 republics, implying that that USSR has planned to annex at least 20 European states during WW2. Communist propaganda also portrayed total war as something "good". After the war the propaganda has drastically changed, now claiming that USSR is the "Bastion of Peace" (СССР оплот МИРА). But there is a catch, since in Russian language both "peace" and "world" have the same word "mir" (МИР). So when a Russian says "we need mir", he can mean botch "we need peace" and "we need the whole world".
1 post and 3 images omitted.
What the fuck does this has to do with cinema history?
>>1499 Nikita, please take your meds
>>1499 I've been meaning to look more into the history of Russian and Japanese cinema. Does anyone have reading recommendations on Sergei Eisenstein or Edogawa Ranpo?
>>2753 >I've been meaning to look more into the history of Russian and Japanese cinema >reading recommendations Study their movies and read what they wrote themself. Eisenstein wrote tons of theory. Eisenstein is just a small fish in a big pound of revolutionary filmakers at the time. But you need a bit of general cinematic culture tho, to say the least

I don't like reading Comrade 04/04/2020 (Sat) 13:18:46 No. 333 [Reply] [Last]
I'm a highschool drop out who never had the tension span to read anything more than 200 pages, why should I now read some 700 pages of confusing dialectics? isn't it enough to read some wikipedia articles or something? aren't there any movies that explain all the theory?
26 posts and 5 images omitted.
>>1889 Wait
>>333 >I'm a highschool drop out who never had the tension span to read anything more than 200 pages I'm in the same boat friend. undiagnosed learning disorders. My path was to listen to audio lectures by various people. Richard Wolf is a good entry point as he has all this on youtube. Just listen to these while you're on the job or go for a walk or whatever you need to do to keep listening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wkO3qsZY_U&list=PLPJpiw1WYdTNMCC0ypXHZ-kW7yCz4T0Zg Joining a reading group helped, and I was able to read on my own for a while when I was on medication, but those ran out and were too expensive to maintain so I just kind of gave up on reading. Still feel pretty confident in my knowledge on this stuff. Asking questions on leftypol of course also useful for learning.
I also don't read or like doing it a whole lot either but unfortunately it spells the difference between being cultured or not and the same also for achieving material wealth. I find a good way to absorb written works is by listening to audiobooks while going along with the text of it without obsessing too much over trying ti process every last word.
Build your attenion span up by reading genreshit that interests you and work your way up to big boy books.
You're not sufficiently bored by the modern consumerist life yet. You don't have to like reading, it's just better than any other form of "entertainment" these day.

Delete
Report

no cookies?