/edu/ - Education

there has long been a tendency online that can only be described as 'vulgar hardline' – an attraction to superficially similar, hardline/'anti-revisionist' states that appear to be cut from the same cloth, but in reality were often opposed to one another.
the main contemporary example would be the attitude that many self-proclaimed 'maoists' and 'anti-revisionist' MLs (they're virtually the same, one just primarily praises mao while the other stalin) have towards cuba and the dprk: they hate khrushchev, usually consider the ussr and co. post-1953/56 revisionist, but support historically pro-soviet cuba and the fence-sitting dprk. however during the cold war when socialist countries were plentiful and things were happening in real time; alliances more clearly defined and happenings more clearly understood by various followers in the west; maoists were highly critical of cuba, to put it lightly. to many, it was nothing more than a soviet sugar plantation helmed by a fascist puppet. the dprk was also disliked, but how intensely depended on how much of a red guard you were.
of course there are still those niche gonzaloites with more awareness of the maoist tradition, who continue this negative attitude towards castro and the kims, but for the majority of 'anti-revisionist' communists they're recieved very well.
this vulgar hardline position becomes even more confusing when we further examine actual relationships between the key 'BASED' hardline countries (china, albania, dprk, east germany) and their 'CRINGE' opposites (ussr post-stalin, yugoslavia, the broad cmea.) getting the obvious out of the way, east germany was naturally 100% ride and die soviet until gorbachev and considered fellow revisionists by maoists/hoxhaists of the time, but nontheless you do see plenty of corn critial characters who think the ossies went hard.
now on to the rest…
the dprk in the 60s was both pro-soviet and pro-chinese, depending on the present situation. here's a pro-soviet example from 1960: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/journal-soviet-ambassador-dprk-am-puzanov-16-june-1960
and here's a pro-chinese example from 1966: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.oPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Mao’s Contributions to Communist Theory and Human Emancipation Are Truly Profound—
But the “Mass Line” Is Wrong
The Chinese revolution, and in particular the revolutionary upsurge of the Cultural Revolution in China (a revolution within socialist society itself!) and the role of Mao Zedong as the leader of that Cultural Revolution, in the 1960s and into the early 1970s, had a major positive impact on masses of people around the world. This included large numbers of oppressed people and educated youth in the U.S. The Red Book of quotations from Mao was in the hands of literally millions of people in countries all over the world, including in the U.S., as well as providing basic revolutionary orientation for the masses of people in China itself.

(I am speaking of the actual role of Mao and the essential emancipating character of the Cultural Revolution in China, not the crude distortions of this by people speaking out of gross ignorance and those anti-communist political functionaries engaging in deliberate and systematic distortion. A serious, scientific analysis of the necessity, the objectives, and the course of the Cultural Revolution in China—including the contradictions it was seeking to address and the contradictions characterizing the process of this Cultural Revolution—can be found in works of mine, and others, at revcom.us.)

Mao’s further development of communist theory was expressed in a number of dimensions, most of all in the understanding of the danger and basis for revolution to be reversed and capitalism restored in a socialist country—and the means for combating this, which was given concrete expression in the Cultural Revolution.

One significant aspect of Mao’s thought (and a chapter in the Red Book) was what Mao referred to as the “mass line.” This was taken up as a significant tool by those of us who, in those times, became not just revolutionary-minded in some general sense but revolutionary communists inspired and influenced above all by the Cultural Revolution in China. Yet, as has become clear in the decades since then, this concept of “mass line” is not correct and actually runs counter to Mao’s overall adherence to, and further development of, communist theory.

As I have learned in a continually deepening way, communist theory must be taken up and applied as a scientific method and approach to understanding and transforming reality. It must continually develop as the larger world continuesPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Why would the vast majority of capitalists benefit from colonialism? They obviously benefit more from decentralized, competitive, non-monopolized supply chains, and keeping costs down isn't their only economic interest. Maybe I can get how the aristocracy and some settlers benefitted from it, but for the bourgeoisie as a whole, it just doesn't make sense. I don't like the vulgar "Marxist" attempt to connect European colonialism to the rise of capitalism, instead of seeing it as a more pre-capitalist historical attempt at accumulating mercantile wealth which was eventually overtaken by industrialization which itself catalyzed the century-long process of decolonization.

Another newfag thread. Interact with accordingly.

Their is, unsurprisingly, a large contingent of the worlds population, still hinging on old Red Scare propaganda, that are convinced of many lies about the relationship between socialism and artistic freedom. Too them, socialists are violent fearmongers who will, at the first chance given, desecrate art, destroy art, and attempt to lead a truly bleak life. One confined purely to the factory or work, where 'labor' is everything, where the individuality of life is wiped out in an instant. Of course, we all understand here that capitalism is the force that sucks up our individuality in favor of making productive workers. Art is not something that can be usually seriously pursued: gone are the days when feudal lords used to commission artists for year long paintings, sculptures, and portraits. We live in an atomized society.

That's not the point. What is the point is that to decide that socialism and art are inherently polar and incompatible is a brainwashed way of thinking. This is most often applied, arguably, to our conceptions of the Cultural Revolution in China. We all have heard about the four olds: Old Ideas, Old Culture, Old Customs, and Old Habits. And people who have even a surface level understanding hear alot about the destruction of cultural heritage during the 10 year period. Modern China even refers to the Cultural Revolution as "Shi nian haoji". "Shi nian" means 10 years, referring to the period of which the Cultural Revolution is generally regarded as lasting. "Haoji" is ambiguous, but generally can refer to the term "holocaust" in modern settings: destruction by fire. Images of a human horde (orientalist hogwash) destroying valuable historical pieces of art come to mind and are used today in the US to scare conservatives over the spectre of vague 'modern art'.

The accusation of destruction of culture and tradition during those 10 years, which i'll be examining, is incredibly overblown in face of the massive artistic achievements and leaps in cultural creativity during the event. An excerpt from "The Battle For Chinas Past: Mao and the Cultural Revolution", page 28.

>Take the example of the fine arts. During the Cultural Revolution years of 1972 to 1975 China held four national fine arts exhibitions, with more than 2,000 pieces of art selected from 12,800 works recommended from all over China. The exhibits in Beijing attracted an audienPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Are there any books that are for normies which are nonetheless good to read from a leftist perspective

Off the top of my head:

Good to Great
7 Habits of Highly Effective People
48 Laws of Power
Man's Search for Meaning

Hey /leftypol/. Why does proletarian organization even matter (except of ethical considerations), if revolutionary development of society is determined by the fact of productive forces expanding and destroying the previously established property relations? I mean, yes, exploitation is horrible, but it's not solidarity of serfs that ended the Middle Ages? By this logic, shouldn't communists focus on pushing technological development to pump the productive forces to drive the bourgeoise property relations to the revolutionary breaking point? Sorry if this is a common question that arises during studies of Marx, just wanted to hear your opinions - or you can just refer me to a secondary source, would be thankful otherwise! Cheers.

newfag thread; engage with accordingly, and point out any level of moronocy

The USSR engaged in huge amounts of primitive accumulation that was no different then what bourgeois governments; especially those of England and France; engaged in. If anything, the parallels are comically striking, especially after the fall of the NEP (New Economic Programme) and the failure to develop a solid alternative. The USSR under Stalin lead arguably one of the largest and most efficient attempts at primitive accumulation in history. And while they arguably helped create the economy that ended up beating the Nazi menace, the path there was mired in nothing but bloodshed.

First, some background: the NEP had offered the USSR a significant rebound from the civil war conditions of War Communism. While richer peasants continued to hoard and manage a significant amount of grain, the ability to sell it on a market let prices generally lower and allowed for some form of access to food, cooling the woes. However, in 1928, the situation fell apart. From PDF:

>In fall 1928, the economic situation grew worse. Harvest collections fell again, and the price of food and grain on the free market shot up. Workers’ riots intensified, and peasants, spooked by earlier confiscations, reduced their sown area. In early 1929, V.M. Molotov and Stalin visited the Urals and Siberia to oversee grain collections, impose delivery quotas on kulak households, and arrest hoarders. These “extraordinary measures”, extended throughout the country, allowed the state to meet its procurement and export targets.

The collectivization campaigned that followed, however, was not just hurt by the clear backwardness of the peasantry (especially the clerics), but by a rushed decision.

> That summer, an emboldened Party mobilized 25,000
workers to go into the villages to organize collective farms. The hasty decision, made under pressure of urban strikes and rural disturbances, produced a cascade of unanticipated consequences. Neither Party leaders nor worker activists were prepared for the intensity of resistance. Rumors swept the countryside. Angry, frightened peasants slaughtered rather than collectivize their livestock, and village priests warned that the Apocalypse was at hand.

This isn't totally Stalin's fault; this was well aided by the internal peasant woes by all means; but the fact of the mattePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

For example, did you know that the Gulag myth (the one of forced labor) originated in the 1920s in Finland and Sweden. Soviet lumber industry outperformed the Scandinavians and out-competed it on the European market. They then slandered the Soviet republic.

In a capitalist mode of production, scientists are downstream from economics. They are merely workers hired to produce a commodity called research. In capitalism the seller of a commodity (whether that commodity is a good, a service, or labor power) doesn't have the power to tell the buyer (whether end consumer or capitalist) what to do with it. Since it is the capitalist (or their bourgeois representatives in government) who are buying the research (labor commodity) from the scientists (workers), they can use the knowledge in the research however they like. They can withhold it from the public. They can use it to make weapons. Under capitalism, no matter how strictly a scientist obeys the scientific method, or how consistent their personal set of ethics are, they are at the end of the day, merely workers hired in a capitalist mode of production. This is why liberal appeals to "science, logic, and reason." fall flat under capitalism. It is the bourgeoisie who decide what to do with the knowledge (commodity) produced by scientific research (labor).

Pascal’s Wager is the best argument for Christianity and is only said to be the worst by those who have not read Pascal. Pascal in his Pensées shows why other religions are false and shows why Christianity is the true religion so the common objection against his wager is wrong.

There are too many unanswered questions in the universe to take a chance on eternal hell.

The cosmological argument. Why is there something rather than nothing? The only explanations from atheists are supernatural explanations. Silly reddit sci-fi explanations like multiverses and eternal universes both of which are not shown in nature at all and are just as likely as a creator of the universe existing.

DNA is which is more complicated and structured than you can possibly imagine created out of stardust for the first microbes in the universe. Consciousness. Where does it come from? Quarks? All this created randomly from nothing? It’s a bigger leap to say the Big Bang, DNA for microbes, consciousness, and everything else in the universe came out of nothingness and random chaos. All of it seemingly so perfected crafted where even a centimeter of difference would mean nothing would exist in the universe. Really. How does something so perfectly crafted and complicated as DNA come out of nothingness and stardust for microbes and every living thing on the universe?

None of this means you have to be absolutely 100% sure a God exists. It’s just enough of a doubt that it’s worth trying to find faith in God.

Think of it like percentages. 20% from the cosmological argument. 20% from the teleological argument. 20% from the argument of beauty. All of these arguments combine into a reason to justify having faith without evidence.


_
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is….
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.