/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


(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.

23 posts and 5 images omitted.
(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.
>>883 the socialist materialists are idealists dialectical materialism is nothing else but idealistic materialism ascribing history and change to dead matter brings forth the concept of god the truth of the matter regarding A ≠ A is the following: the reversal of metaphysics https://i.imgur.com/FoV4omw.png 1.if everything is becoming then nothing is being if nothing is being then nothing can become 2.if everything is trying to overcome being it will always revert into being 3.being is becoming, becoming is being

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

(237.52 KB 424x433 Friedrich_Engels.jpg)

(183.91 KB 1200x1200 ggs.jpeg)
Historian 03/10/2020 (Tue) 17:18:29 No. 207 [Reply] [Last]
What are your opinions on this book? I'll keep mine to myself for now, I'm genuinely curious to see how it is viewed in leftist circles.
2 posts omitted.
Baby's first book in revisionism. But its an okay book but very over simplified and doesn't really go too much in depth. The author himself is a classic revisionist historian so keep that in mind.
More Marxist than Marx himself.
There was another thread that popped up about this, and it was fairly decent, so I will copy paste the replies here: --- There are many critiques of this book, it's very controversial, but good read non the less. I think you should read it and then read some critiques. There are often threads on /his/ about it /lit/ and /pol/ also love to hate it. You can find a bunch of reviews and critiques of it with a little bit of googling, so I recommend read it, think about it, and read some critiques. Here: https://www.marxist.com/a-review-of-jared-diamonds-guns-germs-and-steel.htm --- The author himself is not a Marxist, but from what I can gather, the book is a decent layman introduction to the concept of historical materialism and how it can be applied as a lens to assess the comparative development of civilizations. Unfortunately, some of the claims made by the author are backed by research that's more than a bit shoddy, and reactionary critics love to pick on the book for that reason, but it's pretty clear most of their ire stems from the fact that they are uncomfortable with having their racial essentialist worldview attacked so directly. ---

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

While I agree with the other posters here, I think that since no one else has posted about the problems with the book, I will do so briefly. I don't mean to dissuade anyone from reading it, and if memory serves most of the problems are concentrated towards the end: Ultiamtely Jared Diamond works within a liberal paradigm/discourse, and this paradigm is enamored with competition conceptually. Ultiamtely this stems from liberalism being wedded to capitalism historically and ideologically. Therefore, the book is rather myopic about imperialism and colonialism (which are logical consequences to coutnries competiting with one another, since being able to extract excess resources from a faraway third region that is colonized gives advantages in war, trade and domestic stability); That certain countries are poor because they have been plundered and continue to be plundered by others does not cross his mind all too much. Further, that the totalizing nature of competition under capitalism can actually result in constraints on economic development, including on technogical discovery and innovation are mostly passed over. And this is why the book is often accused of geographic determinism (though i nreality it isn't stricly); That is to say, in order to avoid outright racial or cultural chauvinism, he defaults to saying that the problem is the lack of liberal institutions in poor countries, and that this lack has near exclusive geographic determinants ultimately. This is the consequence of not having an understanding of capitalism and imperialism as systems with internal logics, combined of course to middle class first world apologia.
I think he's too determinist and doesn't focus enough on economics apart from technology trade. Like sure, Europe based on geography will be in a much better spot than Subsaharan Africa but if we're just going off technology, resources and geography, China would have "won".

Translators Wanted! Traducteurs recherchés! Übersetzer gesucht! Anonymous 04/18/2020 (Sat) 10:17:17 No. 2534 [Reply] [Last]
If you know French or German, please contribute a chapter to /leftypol/'s first crowdsourced translation project! This project started on >>>/edu/840. The book is Karl Kautsky's history of the French Revolution, originally published as Die Klassengegensätze im Zeitalter der Französischen Revolution in 1889. Coming from the "Pope of Marxism", as Kautsky was then known, this text likely had an immense influence on Lenin and other revolutionaries of his day. It was approved by Engels himself, and may have been foundational in establishing the Marxist theory of bourgeois revolution, yet it has never been translated into English. The original German is available here: https://www.marxists.org/deutsch/archiv/kautsky/1908/frev/index.html and an old French translation is available here: https://www.marxists.org/francais/kautsky/works/1889/00/antagonismes-table.htm What makes this work especially good for us to translate is that it's relatively short - just around 60 pages in total, divided into 10 chapters. With each chapter being 5-7 pages each, it is conceivable to translate a chapter in one day's volunteer work. Comrade Akko has already translated the preface, and is working on chapter 1. That leaves 9 chapters to complete: Preface: Complete! Chapter 1: Second draft complete (French) Chapter 2: Draft complete (French) - Proofreading complete (English) Chapter 3: Draft complete (French) - Proofreading in progress (English) - Proofreader needed Chapter 4: Draft complete (French) - Proofreading complete (English) Chapter 5: Draft complete (French) - Proofreading complete (English) Chapter 6: Draft complete (French) - Proofreading in progress (English) - Proofreader needed Chapter 7: Draft complete (French) - Proofreading in progress (English) - Proofreader needed Chapter 8: Complete! (Copyrighted work, permission secured) Chapter 9: Draft complete (French) - Proofreading in progress (English) - Proofreader needed Chapter 10: Translator needed

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Edited last time by krates on 09/02/2020 (Wed) 05:03:12.
88 posts and 28 images omitted.
>>2936 Oh snap, the project has come back to life! I'll finish proofreading your chapter by the end of tomorrow, I promise. TBH, I had gotten out out of the habit of checking this thread regularly at this point. >>2938 Chapter 3 is currently taken, although work has been put on hiatus for more than two months now. Chapter 10 is still available for translation. Alternatively, if you're not confident enough in your language you could do another pass of proofreading / sentence revision on the earlier chapters that I proofread. Chapters 6 and 7 need the most work.
>>2967 >Chapter 3 is currently taken, although work has been put on hiatus for more than two months now Yeah sorry, the whole lockdown and other covid related shenanigans have really hindered my ability to focus on such a task. I have done a few paragraphs today but at a snail pace. If for some reason I'm not done by the end of this month, someone else can take the mantle and I would of course share with them what I'd have already done.
I finished the first draft of chapter 3, took me long enough... Translation notes: - I started coverting livres in current Euros (in brackets) but I gave up early on, those can be erased or I can finish converting every values if need be. -"[...]la production marchande où avait sombré la majeure partie de la noblesse." that I translated as "[...]commodity production which had subsumed the major part of the nobility" seems to imply by the use of the verb "sombrer" (to sink), which figuratively is used in French to say that someone has become an alcoolic or criminial among other nefarious things, that the nobility had become, with the rise of capitalism, commodity production "junkies" I don't know if that is what Kautsky literally implies in German or if it's due to a liberal translation from the French translator, moreover I didn't know how to convey that in an elegant manner in english so I chosed a more "neutral" translation. - In note 4, I left "gouvernements généraux de province" (literally head governors of provinces)and the other State positions in French, I didn't find any scholarly english translation for what are unique official positions in the Pre-Revolution France, it would be like trying to translate Shogun or Daimyo. - "Countryside squires" (hobereaux de campagnes) is here used sarcastically to refer the old fashioned feudal lords mentionned previously, I added myself the quotation marks to make this clearer. - Glowiepedia translated "États Généraux" by "Estates General" so I went on with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_General_(France) - I took the liberty of adding note number 6, which is an infamous Voltaire quotation and a good exemple of what Kautsky pointed out in this paragraph. - It seems that "Gardes Françaises" is kept as is in English (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9giment_des_Gardes_Fran%C3%A7aises).
This thread and the leftywiki thread need to work together more.
Has this project been abandoned? A shame as it seems nearing completion.

Lefty Archive Comrade 10/22/2020 (Thu) 22:19:37 No. 5088 [Reply] [Last]
Purpose This is supposed to be an archive of literature that is relevant to left wing political ideas. Share whatever .pdf files you have. Conduct 1. Please mention the title and authors of the books you post as well, so if people search for something specific via ctrl+f, they will find what they are looking for. 2. If possible upload more than one book at a time when you choose to upload any, because with a maximum of 500 posts this thread could theoretically contain 2500 books. 3. This thread is not meant for discussion. It is solely for sharing literature. 4. When people ask for a specific book in another thread that happens to have already been uploaded here, direct them to the relevant post in this thread.
Edited last time by ghostixo on 10/22/2020 (Thu) 22:23:54.
18 posts and 27 images omitted.
Henri_Lefebvre_Survival_of_Capitalism Isaak Illich Rubin Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value, 3rd Edition (1928)
Maksakovsky - The Capitalist Cycle
Mike Davis - prisoners of the american dream
Against Empire by Michael Parenti In Search of Enemies by John Stockwell The Revolutionary Philosophy of Marxism: Selected Writings on Dialectical Materialism by Alan Woods

(235.07 KB 1360x765 iu copy.jpeg)
/edu/ checkpoint Comrade 08/24/2020 (Mon) 16:25:44 No. 3434 [Reply] [Last]
Hello comrades. I propose a general thread in an attempt to get the /edu/ ball rolling again. Everytime you visit /edu/, post in this thread. Tell us about what you're thinking about, what you're reading, an interesting thing you have learned today, anything! Just be sure to pop in and say hi.
81 posts and 25 images omitted.
Rafiq thread was excellent. My collection of his compilation of posts grows and I am very happy with the discussion there.
>>5022 Did you get your stuff done anon? Did you at least get some sleep? It's all gonna be okay bud.
>>5053 Thanks for taking the time to read it, Comrade
(391.57 KB 1000x1000 Poltoid book burn.jpg)
Saw this in the OP of some poltoid bait thread on /leftypol/ where OP claims he tricked a Marxist professor into gifting him his old books and then burned them. Wondering if there are copies of any of them in socialist website/newspaper online archives, libgen, internet archive, wayback machine etc
>>5082 go check on libcom, im pretty sure i saw something like radical america there

(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.
the unseen by nanni balestrini
can anyone recomend books about asian (korea and japan) and western eruopean far left movements in the 70s and 80s

(144.12 KB 750x430 youtube.jpg)
What History YTers do you like, which ones do you hate? Comrade 07/05/2020 (Sun) 11:42:08 No. 2196 [Reply] [Last]
There's already a thread about Lindybeige but I find him a bit of an insufferable right wing anticommunist fuck, granted there's plenty of that kind of thing in the YT historian community, but we can try to pick out the diamonds, relatively speaking. I'm kind of afraid to give my recommendations since I've just been going off Youtube recommendations so I'll let you go first.
3 posts omitted.
Cynical historian is pretty good, although he's quite liberal. His video on the "Death of Stalin" was very good.
>>2196 I watched a few videos by this channel called "whatifalthis" and while I didn't agree with some of his conclusions he clearly researched a lot so I subscribed. Then he came out with a video about what if North Korea won the Korean war and it was complete bullshit. I recommend watching if you want to see unfiltered retardation.
>>2196 Simon Roper, very interesting man with interesting facial hair, does videos on Historical linguistics https://youtu.be/J-WjIVxyR5c
indy neidell
We already have a YT historian thread m8s. Learn to use catalog

(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 ✊🚩🏴
23 posts and 1 image omitted.
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.
Tangentially related in regards to school protests of the 1970s >On May 17, 1972, ten thousand British kids walked out of school to protest corporal punishment — and force authorities to change the law. >themselves from school in reply to a call from the Schools Action Union (SAU): a children-led movement that existed between 1968 and 1974, and made significant gains in shifting the corporal punishment debate in Britain. >The SAU planned from the offset to be able to raise enough funds to rent an office. They published two magazines, Vanguard and Rebel, each sold for a three pence fortnightly subscription fee. They also held film nights and “Guerrilla Theatre” performances, and eventually raised enough money to obtain a space in North Gower Street, next to Agitprop — the “radical information agency” — and the newly established Gay News. Having a place of their own meant that the students could write, organize, and discuss issues with a degree of autonomy that had previously been impossible. >No, absolutely not. I mean, we accept advice from anybody, people who respect us we respect. There’s no person pulling strings, paying us. I wish someone was, we haven’t got any money! We’re just working, we’re school students who are fighting for revolutionary change. https://jacobinmag.com/2017/10/scotland-corporal-punishment-britain-schools-action-union
>>5058 It's one thing to have paddling and having your knuckles struck with a ruler, that's perfectly legit TBH, unless the teacher is outright using the edge to do damage (in which case parents get involved), but Anglos bring a whole new meaning to child abuse in schools. Roald Dahl's novel Boy, tells of many horrors, of which a bleeding bruised backside was only the most prominent.
>>5058 Something similar is brewing up in Burgerstan too, y'know? Possibly in calling more attention to military recruiting programs and school cops. https://tribuneofthepeople.news/2020/10/09/oxnard-high-school-students-release-first-issue-of-anti-imperialist-newsletter/ https://www.instagram.com/oxnard_rsn/

Pls need help Cinoscraft 03/28/2020 (Sat) 12:19:43 No. 69 [Reply] [Last]
Please guy You can recommended book of history of africa ? in pdf format of course Pls... in spanish much better
1 post omitted.
>>69 There is a nice book on the country of Burkina Faso (from independence to after the 2014 revolt) called «Burkina Faso: A History of Power, Protest and Revolution» by Ernest Harsch, really good read.
"Libgen" es la mejor página para conseguir libros digitales y gratuitos. Algunos archivos podrían no subirse aquí por estar muy pesados, busca allí por tu cuenta.
>>5020 Basado
Para una historia semi-biografica de Sankara especificamente, el libro de Ludo Martens es muy bien y creo que hay una traducción en castellano.

(287.46 KB 732x1024 8df3c00570.jpg)
Rafiq/Ecology Discussion moo 07/20/2020 (Mon) 22:46:11 No. 2532 [Reply] [Last]
So some of you may have read the quite popular pdf where Rafiq dunks on eco fetishism, in that thread he references a previous thread where he had spent a lot of time focusing in on eco-fetishism, however this thread has been lost from Revleft. It's available on internet archives but to preserve it I've made this in the style of the previous popular pdf. Hope you guys enjoy! This thread could serve to discuss this work if anyone ever dedicates the time to read it, or we could debate the place of ecology in modern day Marxism. To provoke discussion: does nature have any value outside how it immediately serves human interests?
53 posts and 3 images omitted.
Nice work keeping the thread alive, will post some responses when less busy
(51.16 KB 374x541 bruh.jpeg)
>>4333 >Countered all the time Maybe, with varying quality. In these 2 big ecology posts there is not nearly enough effort to counter his points for what they are. The problem is that these people don't actually understand what he's saying, not because he is a genius, or because they can't handle it, but because they don't try very hard. >>4334 Coke and nature are the same in the fact that they give a number of people pleasure. This makes no bearing on whether or not we should take it into the communist future. >Science says we can't live without nature Does it? It does it say we need oxygen to breath (a biological process that happens independent of the human thinking process)? >>4339 This is a very very poor reading of that paragraph. He is not saying humans don't feel any emotions and therefore should give up 'feeling' for communism or some stupid shit. He's in fact saying the exact opposite! He's saying 'so-called' emotions (i.e. 'natural' emotions in this context) don't exist >a genuine human 'emotion' is that IT CANNOT be reduced to anything natural, because it shakes the foundation of any and all kinds of representations of the natural world in the first place, it SHAKES the very foundations of the ethical imperative and injunction to reduce it to something natural >I can't read therefore everyone else is a pseud Nope sorry >>4340 >Neolithic revolution destroyed people's help

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

(189.19 KB 900x565 iu-4.jpeg)
>>4342 <"So yes, the 'Earth' will have to be taken into account if for the simple reason of keeping those services stable until they can (can they?) be replaced by artificial means." >The answer is, yes, they can be. Other than that, I generally agree, but to even pursue this requires a recognition that there is no mystique, no emotional, ideological or superstitious investment in what we call those "natural processes" - we must purely approach them from the standpoint of practicality, and convenience. Soberly, of course. >A science is the opium He doesn't really refer to ecology as the science of what plants grow well with other plants. He means the ideology of it. To be honest ecology in the scientific sense can just be referred to as biology. However I agree it is a poor word choice, but if you know 'ecologists' or people invested in the 'ecology' movement you know how absolutely drowned in anti-scientific mysticism they are. >Utopian thinking that isn't based in what people want Why do people want things? Obviously because of the ideology of the society. This is a nothing argument. People don't 'want' communism right now. Shall we give up? >He rejects knowledge about the environment Again, no where does he deny any facts of environmental science. We know why tsunamis form, this has no baring on whether or not we should try and stop them. Idiots would claim that we shouldn't try and stop them because that would be 'interfering with nature'. As communists that's exactly what we do, we destroy the current 'nature' of things. Should I also stop living in a house because the house 'gets in the way' of the oh so natural wind? Nature has no consciousness, has no agency, it doesn't care whether it exists or doesn't. To say otherwise is by definition mysticism. >Anyways yes anyone who is okay with exploiting and destroying all nature So how much nature are you okay with destroying then? Just enough so that the western world can develop, but not enough so that the whole world can live pleasant lives? >Rafiq is pretty explicit that anything that could die to serve Humanity SHOULD die Why not? >Muh exploitation

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

(225.74 KB 2048x1152 Depressed Unruhe.jpg)
>>4364 >Only libs think like this That's only the majority of the western world... no need to critique that... >ONLY libs This thread is extremely clear in disproving this fact. You may not literally kneel every night and pray for nature, but it is still your God. It is the Other that you dare not disobey. >if it happens at the expense of the old, then really i dont trust it. You are scared of going against nature, even though it is all we have done throughout human history. The mere existence of humanity goes against nature. The idea of a communist society is AGAINST NATURE. What you're saying doesn't come from a place of critical thinking, and what you call 'science' it comes from a place of deep ideology. You are just inventing this random utopian society in your head like it is in anyway possible. >No you can't be cold to nature! >You must respect other 'creatures'! >NOOO DONT MOVE THAT ROCK MOTHER NATURE PUT IT THERE Only libs believe in this shit? You're a lib then, or a deep ecologist (I like how you say 'super deep eco', as if deep eco isn't fucking moronic and reactionary in itself by very definition). We can't go back to monke. You think the majority of people are going to follow you to your shitty little commune where you all 'respect' nature and braid eachothers hair? Where you gonna get your health care then? Are you going to have plumbing? What central system are you connecting this plumbing too? If not, you're going to need the dreaded TECHNOLOGY to collect water. Or even more advanced technology to synthesize water when mother nature says >'no rain this year!' >yes dear...

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

(8.98 KB 248x203 bruh zone.jpg)
>>5043 oof

Delete
Report

no cookies?