What are some topics in sociology, economics, philosophy, anthropology,...

Nathaniel Carter
Nathaniel Carter

What are some topics in sociology, economics, philosophy, anthropology, psychology, or history you think leftists should explore more often, and why?

What would make a good topic of exploration if, say, you were writing a graduate thesis from a leftist perspective in the humanities or social sciences?

Attached: Nymph-young-girl.jpg (207.91 KB, 636x1000)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Class_Struggle_in_the_Ancient_Greek_World
necsi.edu/research/social/foodcrises.html
hooktube.com/channel/UCutCcajxhR33k9UR-DdLsAQ
complexitylabs.io/books/
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/

Kayden Long
Kayden Long

marine biology

Cameron Nelson
Cameron Nelson

urban revolts vs. peasant revolts
concepts of time
Marxist conceptions of wisdom
siege mentality
how egalitarian communities last
psychology of capitalist vs pre-capitalist societies
women in revolution
religion in revolution
socialist theories of the family
Marxist understanding of truth

Ryder Davis
Ryder Davis

The role of myth would be a good one.

Landon Edwards
Landon Edwards

Pick what interests you
Applying dialectical and historical materialism as a basis for your exploration of the topic will assist you far more than you might suspect
You may need to elide and obscure these high power research tools from your supervisor if you want the piece of paper and they're unsympathetic to actual real Marxist theory however

Jackson Butler
Jackson Butler

sociology, economics, philosophy, anthropology, psychology, or history
It's all connected, you tard.

Attached: Merks.png (65 KB, 247x237)
Attached: althusser.png (108.17 KB, 307x331)

Isaiah Murphy
Isaiah Murphy

entymology

William Ortiz
William Ortiz

urban revolts vs. peasant revolts
this is what i did at uni

Aiden Foster
Aiden Foster

Funny that you post Althusser who actually threw out the concept of Marxist totality.

Jack Sullivan
Jack Sullivan

People on the left should finally read fucking post modernists like baudrillard an Foucault for their analysis of the postmodern society and its power dynamics since, and it hurts me that I even have to say it, a revolution like 1918 will never ever happen in a first world country again which these retarded ☭TANKIE☭ larp about 24/7

I mean at least read society of the spectacle since it pretty much did that, not much in detail but from a marxistic perspective

Attached: b6593af0c28f9c88d4ed27646f1151a2eefd2fdc-hq.jpg (12.88 KB, 300x300)

Isaac Long
Isaac Long

Architecture and aesthetics

Attached: FEA977B6-595F-498E-8FC8-29D1989126CD-11544-0000099C05AF7040.jpg (267.46 KB, 1500x1201)

Isaiah Johnson
Isaiah Johnson

I think Marxists need to analyse in a deeper context the dialectical shifts prior to the development of capitalism: slave society into feudalism, proto-communism into slave society ect. You never see Marxist analysis of ancient history.

Oliver Martin
Oliver Martin

You never see Marxist analysis of ancient history.

David Graeber and John Zerzan are the first people to pop into mind. Might want to do some more research.

Jayden Ortiz
Jayden Ortiz

Tbf they're both anprims, I mean more you'll find loads of essays on say proto-capitalism in Russia in the pre mongol period but not class relations in the Achaemenid Empire.

Nolan Rodriguez
Nolan Rodriguez

a revolution like 1918 will never ever happen in a first world country again which these retarded ☭TANKIE☭ larp about 24/7

t. no one

we study revolutions of the past because we are scientific socialists. if we did not study the past, but instead fell into pomo bullshit, we'd end up in the exact position of the mainstream """left""" today, virtue signalling and failing to accomplish literally anything.

if you actually read Left-Wing Communism, you'd know Lenin talks specifically about this point: revolutions do not happen in the same way and trying to apply the lessons of the Bolsheviks move-for-move is incorrect and doomed to failure (look at the Hungarian Soviet). but what Lenin does talk about is the lessons that can and will apply in every revolutionary situation.

Easton Barnes
Easton Barnes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Class_Struggle_in_the_Ancient_Greek_World

Parker Garcia
Parker Garcia

if we did not study the past, but instead fell into pomo bullshit, we'd end up in the exact position of the mainstream """left""" today, virtue signalling and failing to accomplish literally anything
implying pomos didn't study the past
implying pomo has anything to do with the neoliberal left of today (Foucault specifically said that he was against identity politics)
Thanks for being a prime example for ☭TANKIE☭s with the exact same understanding of postmodernism as a JP fanboy
One could almost think I was samefagging to illustrate my own argument

Attached: 01fb578f1c2006bd526c414a8ec56c8d717464501d72788bbd55841a76437d24.jpg (17.49 KB, 255x255)

Jayden Cooper
Jayden Cooper

Sup sorelfag

Joshua Rodriguez
Joshua Rodriguez

As an ex-Muslim I'd like to see Marxists write about the rise of Islam and the Khilafah/Caliphate based on all the new evidence we have today, i.e. that the Qur'an is probably a lot older, and "Islam" was most likely a combination of local traditions which became a state religion after the Empire came into existence.

Caleb Wood
Caleb Wood

Book recommendations pls.

Christian Bell
Christian Bell

I haven't heard of any theories like that? I mean Muhammad was a bloke that united the Arab tribes and launched a conquest. Is the theory that he merely united various beliefs and did that? I mean that would still make him like Abraham tier as opposed to Jesus tier (in terms of theological origins).

Connor Brown
Connor Brown

The theories I've heard are that "Muhammad" was a legendary figure who was based on a real guy, probably a Samaritan from Babylon. The Lakhmids (who practiced a form of non-trinitarian Xtianity) overthrew the Persians and then later teamed up with the Ghassanids to defeat the Byzantines and go into Egypt and whatnot. Mecca as we know it today didn't even exist until the 800s and the Qur'an is most likely describing events which occurred in Palestine and Mesopotamia.

Lucas Green
Lucas Green

Would you be the same ex-muslim leninist fem-user I recall from about a year ago? Or am I crazy and mixing up my comrades? Never the less, I'm always curious as to people's opinion on the confrontation of communism and religion. Are you of the opinion that it needs to be systematically dismantled, de-fanged and reintergrated into a socialist society, or simply left free so the religious can do as they may providing they don't contradict a communist society's laws and constitution?

Dominic Reed
Dominic Reed

Finger painting

Attached: fingerpainting.jpg (467.27 KB, 866x577)

Benjamin King
Benjamin King

I feel like the dogmatic view of dialectical materialism in terms of revolution that was stratified by Stalin needs an overhaul. Marx was wrong about revolution occurring in advanced capitalist countries, and the Third Worldist explanation that this because they are "bought off" by imperialism is, while partly true, certainly not satisfactory. I feel like Marxists need to stop to shy away from Weberian sociology and try to find out what exactly creates a revolutionary situation, and what creates a situation in which fascism is likely to win. This ideological, superstructural aspect of social movements is either ignored or underestimated by modern Marxists. Because clearly, a collapse of capitalism into turmoil and torrents of blood, such as WWII, was not sufficient for a global socialist consciousness.

I know Debord and Baudrillard have tried to address this but their explanations are lacklusters as well.

This. Most Marxists know shit about pre-capitalist societies. Whenever you see Marxists try to talk about the Middle Ages or Antiquity you get takes that are nothing short of a disaster. I mean it is not really relevant for revolutionary thought, but it is interesting to me.

Hunter Ward
Hunter Ward

That's me, yes.

I would also add Marxists (western Marxists in particular) know jack shit about non-western cultures and our psychology. They universalize modern western norms and values on everyone and only bring up cultural differences in a superficial manner ("the Ottoman Empire wasn't a REAL empire because it wasn't western and empires are ONLY a western thing!"). That needs to stop ASAP.

Brayden Morris
Brayden Morris

the Ottoman Empire wasn't a REAL empire because it wasn't western and empires are ONLY a western thing
People actually say this?

Juan Walker
Juan Walker

I'd break your jaw if I knew who you were, kid. You don't know anything. Slice open your wrist and put it into very hot water and bleed out, cunt.

Jacob Richardson
Jacob Richardson

Is this a meme?

Isaiah Wilson
Isaiah Wilson

Two memes one modern; one ancient.

Anthony Perry
Anthony Perry

Apparently there was an school of historians in the soviet union founded by V.V. Struve that looked at ancient Mesopotamia but that isn't in english as far as I know. There is also Reinhard Bernbeck

For Greece there is De Croix (already mentioned) & Jean-Pierre Vernant who's more of an structuralist bent.

I think part of the problem is that studying ancient history is extremely specialized & often requires learning dead languages that an handful of other poeple know. Nobody has the time for that except for the intelligentsia stratum. I would love to be an expert in ancient Mesopotamia but I would have to learn Akkadian & Sumerian for that to happen. Sadly Marxists are an extreme minority in the classical antiquity scholarship.

Brayden Lewis
Brayden Lewis

Everyone who considers themselves in favor of revolution needs to be studying the emerging science of complex adaptive systems. It's essentially a formalization of the work Engels started with 'Dialectics of Nature', and the fact that neither Marxists nor complexity scientists seem to realize this infuriates me. I firmly believe that systems thinking is the key ingredient that will help Marxism graduate into a full-fledged science, as concrete as evolutionary biology or ecology. It will certainly help us understand what has gone wrong in the past, and what the necessary conditions for future success will be.

As an example: necsi.edu/research/social/foodcrises.html
Researchers from the New England Complex Systems Institute were able to "identify a specific food price threshold above which protests become likely". This is an extremely basic example from a field in its absolute infancy. I invite you to imagine what could be achieved if Marxists were well-versed in this field, and turned these analytical methods to the question of revolution.

If you want to learn more, Complexity Labs has an introductory video series, and their website has quite a few free study materials:
hooktube.com/channel/UCutCcajxhR33k9UR-DdLsAQ
complexitylabs.io/books/

Other research outfits include the Santa Fe Institute, and the Institute for the Study of Complex Systems.

Attached: Complex-systems-organizational-map.jpg (204.69 KB, 1142x1143)

Jackson Sanchez
Jackson Sanchez

emerging science

If you read Hegel you'd know he's the first one to come up with this "system of systems" approach and with a rigorous method as well.

Robert Foster
Robert Foster

why are you still here when you've been btfo'd several times?

Hudson Torres
Hudson Torres

That I got bored of you people does not mean any btfo of me ever happened. I've kept doing my usual things just fine.

Attached: lol-at-u.png (370.06 KB, 600x600)

Juan Price
Juan Price

ok whatever you say anal water

Jaxson Hill
Jaxson Hill

Unironically economics.

Brandon Howard
Brandon Howard

Psychoanalysis.

Nolan Bailey
Nolan Bailey

Oh goddamn it, now my super smart post bringing attention to an underappreciated emerging scientific discipline has been undermined by anal water's loud, content-free slurping on Hegel's dick. Of all the (You)s I could have gotten, why did it have to be (You)rs, Anal Water?

Easton Lee
Easton Lee

he's actually correct tho, what you see as a connection between Engel's and systems theory is also a connection between systems theory and Hegel's analysis of history because Engels drew from this source in his research
See if you can dig up the lecture notes Hegel's students kept from his lectures and you'll see it, they should be in the public domain
have you brought up your observations with some of the sharper students, tutors and lecturers in private where they can be more candid?

Jonathan Williams
Jonathan Williams

Of course he's correct, but he's trivially correct. There was literally no need to bring Hegel into the discussion, since I already very clearly noted that an early form of systems thinking existed in the Marxist tradition (which obviously descends from Hegel). I'm talking about making historical materialism a concrete, quantitative science on the level of evolutionary biology when Anal Water comes in with 'hurf durf ackshually HEGEL is the ultimate source of everything you just said'.

Anal's post pissed me off because it's exactly the kind of shit I intended to rail against with my original post. Complexity theorists are working hard to develop quantitative methods to understand emergence, phase change, system dynamics, etc. Marxists should be at the forefront of that field, but we're not because pseuds like Anal Water think an idealist philosophical framework qualifies as a 'rigorous method'.

And no, I haven't gotten anywhere bringing up the relationship between complexity and dialectics with complexity scientists, because we fundamentally don't have all that much to offer them at the moment. They've already taken all the useful bits of the dialectic and integrated it into their body of theory. Years of being shuffled off to the soft sciences wing, and the attendant corrosion by psueds like Anal Water, has left the scientific side of Marxism in woeful disrepair. The hard sciences have left us behind.

That's the other reason for my post - it's meant to be an appeal to bring people with a Marxist research agenda into the field. That's why I posted some of the prominent research institutes in the field. There are a lot of university-aged posters here, and a few STEM students among them. Studying complexity science and applying it to revolutionary goals is a rare opportunity to simultaneously advance revolutionary theory and build a lucrative career (consultants well-versed in systems thinking make beaucoup bucks).

Noah Wright
Noah Wright

And no, I haven't gotten anywhere bringing up the relationship between complexity and dialectics with complexity scientists, because we fundamentally don't have all that much to offer them at the moment.
There are a few things Engel's and even Hegel grant them

*prestige from a 19th century historical scientific grounding you would be surprised at how important this is to get your curriculum into first year subjects
*tools to beat up the competing subjects in the field of social science and claim more academic turf
*a dialectical and historical materialist lens on the development of their own field

I suspect the founders of your discipline were far more familiar with Marx, Engels, Hegel and diamat than is commonly assumed BTW

Chase Jenkins
Chase Jenkins

PS. Could you translate systems theory into diamat terms for the benefit of us here if you have the time?

Zachary Edwards
Zachary Edwards

making dialectic "scientific"

You people never learn. Dialectical Science > science already if you comprehend it, to make it what you want is actually to demean Science and make it yet another positivist bungling enterprise. Don't take my word, take Marx's and Hegel's. All of you people attempting to make dialectic an empirical science have no idea what dialectic is, if you did you wouldn't be trying something so stupid.

Keep science and leave Science, stop pushing dialectical bullshit.

Leo Perry
Leo Perry

Almost forgot
quantitative methods

hahahahaha. Leftoid, read the logic of quantity, like it's right there in the book. Your obsession with numbers is a delusion absolutizing quantity. You want to do real quantitative science? Develop a qualitative math of quantity as opposed to the formalist garbage unintelligible systems that exist. Get the bourg mathematics out of your head.

Andrew Smith
Andrew Smith

2019
being a Hegelian
Why?

Gavin Evans
Gavin Evans

I'm advocating something more here subsuming systems theory into diamat

necsi.edu/research/social/foodcrises.html
So how to expand out from
Being steady unreflective life
Negated to non-being as the strange loop we call consciousness becomes aware of itself as a lack of all determinate thoughts
Negating this negation by becoming and reaching out and grasping things

How do we get from this beginning of the dialectic to what systems theory has grasped in a concrete manner, great Hegelian master?

Nolan Scott
Nolan Scott

Why are you anti-postmodernist types always so retarded? almost always burgers. it actually hurts my brain.

Attached: Nietzsche-watercolour.jpg (11.03 KB, 189x267)

Ayden Perez
Ayden Perez

88
Boy do I have something for you, go to your favourite search engine, type in the following terms together in the input field; postmodernism, Heidegger, ecology, fascism

Come back and tell us what you've learnt

Gabriel Peterson
Gabriel Peterson

Cold & Dark Stars? Dat u?

Asher Sanchez
Asher Sanchez

I'm not, but thank you so much for pointing him out to me. He's a bit wordy for my taste, but he seems to be saying the shit that I'm trying to get across here. It makes sense that we've got similar viewpoints, it looks like we were both physicists concerned with nonlinear phenomena. Very glad to come across this guy to wash the taste of anal water out of my mouth.

Jeremiah Sanchez
Jeremiah Sanchez

pomo bullshit
t. Jordan Peterson

Read Hegel.

Benjamin Richardson
Benjamin Richardson

Warning idealist, DON'T READ THIS BOOK, IT IS FATAL TO IDEALISM:
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/

Nathan Nelson
Nathan Nelson

That's actually the subject of my master's thesis

Jaxon Parker
Jaxon Parker

You start out by not being completely wrong about what Being is, duh.

It's not you, it's not me, it's not physics, it's not consciousness, it's not mind. It's just Being, the absolute immediate as immediate. If you comprehended just that much you would comprehend how that is already immanent system. Think, user, *think*. That's all the logic is about, being capable of thinking the most basic thought possible.

Also, Cold and Dark Stars is alright. Better than most Leftists, but lol at your joy of finding a fellow blind man to walk off a cliff with. You've never really questioned "science," you've surely never dared to imagine that you could even question physics, and further it is certain you have never had the thought that math itself can be questioned. You're the poor 'intelligence' that Ilyenkov worked against his whole life, that he argued should be stamped out early in "Our schools must teach how to think."

But hey, it just werks amirite? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nevermind that you actually know no rational basis, you people don't care about the truth.

inb4 I didn't explain it: it's literally right there on page 1 of chapter 1 of the Logic, if you can't figure it out you're just not cut out for this.

Oliver Hughes
Oliver Hughes

Tell you what, how about a detente? I think you're ignoring the next great paradigm shift in our understanding of the world, you think I'm educated stupid for trying to concretely understand (and hopefully predict and manipulate) nonlinear phenomena.

How about we just…separate? Like, you keep doing your dumb bullshit, I try to do my dumb bullshit, neither of us talk to or about each other, and both of us (but mainly me) end up happier? The alternative is that I angrypost harder, you smugpost even harder in response, and everyone ends up unhappy. Life's too short for that, you know? It's really no skin off my nose if some posters end up…reading lots of Hegel? And it shouldn't be too much skin off your nose if a couple of Zig Forums chucklefucks do a graduate project with the Santa Fe Institute on my recommendation.

Aaron Bailey
Aaron Bailey

You need to stop being so arrogant. No wonder everyone on this board hates you.

Leo Mitchell
Leo Mitchell

the next great paradigm

You're literally half a century late. Systems thinking is not new, it's been around for a long time, more in some disciplines than others. What you're spouting isn't the next great revelation, systematic reality already pushes the recognition that the world is a system of systems. This recognition isn't because of some discovery by anyone, it is a myriad of discoveries immanent to experience itself in all scientific endeavors.

My only argument with you is that 1) you think this new, it isn't even for metasystematic thinking; 2) you want to bring dialectics into it, why the fuck would you? This comes from a supreme ignorance of the systematic thinking you're praising and the dialectical thinking you believe you comprehend yet clearly don't. That which is systematic *is* already dialectical, there is no revelation to be made about it. No one NEEDS to call it dialectic or recognize it as such, it's pointless. It's just silly posturing, you don't help anything along. Good science is always already dialectical science just as good philosophy is always already that, to come in and want to push a terminological religion of yours so that everyone worships your hero is retarded. No, Marx nor Hegel have no insights into whatever you're working on—THINKING does. No, dialectical thinking has no productive relation to any endeavor you're trying to achieve, if you think genuinely you've always already thought dialectically.

My point is what I've said for years: quit fetishizing what you don't comprehend, quit being empty echo chambers of ideology and jargon because none of it is useful or good. Nobody wants that shit.

Jonathan Fisher
Jonathan Fisher

Holy shit I've missed you. It has felt all too cold and stagnant since you've left. though I assume you just popped in to shit on the scientism and bad philosophy

Tyler Kelly
Tyler Kelly

If you want to keep up with me I'm not hiding. I've started to upload more to my philosophy channel lately. Just check my twitter @aw_hegel. I won't link it since people would say I'm spamming or something.

Ayden Hernandez
Ayden Hernandez

Mr. Anal Water. I'm interested in watching your videos and reading more about Hegel, but your microphone quality is a crime against humanity tbh. And stop recording outside.

Jonathan Walker
Jonathan Walker

I'll upgrade if you're willing to pay for that microphone and a room that's quiet. Be thankful I'm not annoying you for likes and patreonbux

Hunter Brown
Hunter Brown

Just become a twitch thot. It's not hard.

Or are you trying to go for that Varg Vikernes approach by filming in the middle of no where?

Attached: 1512073336215.gif (112.12 KB, 403x360)

Adrian Nguyen
Adrian Nguyen

Oh and read Spinoza you cuck.

Jeremiah Cook
Jeremiah Cook

Do you comprehend how monumental that is? Shit's like 75 pages, but that's 75 pages of the density of a pure Hegelian logic outline. The effort I have to put into getting through the Ethics is going to be at least a year for any decent comprehension, and no I'm not going to read secondary lit.

I told myself I wouldn't do what I do with Hegel with anyone else, but fuck I can't not. I hate Schelling and yet I'm doing it for one of his essays and I'm genuinely having fun with the relatively tame mind fuck this is compared to Hegel once you realize the guy is making analogical shifts left and right under the hood of what he's saying because he literally wanted the surface text to be nonsense if you couldn't figure out the argument flowing underneath.

Attached: Human-dogs.jpg (47.87 KB, 543x431)

Christian Wright
Christian Wright

You have done nothing but mock principled leftists.

Then again I have never met a sincere Hegelian who wasn't a crypto-reactionary or neocon.

Camden Hall
Camden Hall

Name one. Theory kids don't count. Youtubers don't count. Student union kids don't count. Party kids don't count.

There are no respectable Leftists in the 1st world, they're a dead breed and you're a parody of them.

Brody Garcia
Brody Garcia

Yessss

Attached: 2C15F9FB-F87E-42B2-A5C1-780963D6B12A.jpeg (15.41 KB, 249x182)

Luis Flores
Luis Flores

Attached: Islam-BTFO.jpg (2.44 MB, 1696x6224)

Chase Scott
Chase Scott

Never mind Anal Water, Hegel himself has been BTFO'd a number of times.

Defending Hegel today is almost like trying to claim China is still socialist, or that Israel isn't "really" apartheid.

Thomas Hill
Thomas Hill

Hegel has been BTFO'd a number of times
Oh yeah, let's hear about this - tell me all about how Hegel has been intellectually and theoretically trounced, because it certainly hasn't much of an impact on literally the most important philosopher in modern history

Justin Garcia
Justin Garcia

Yes

Daniel Brown
Daniel Brown

A distinctive feature of Marxist philosophy is the dialectical-materialist conception of truth as a process and result of cognition. In Anti-Dühring, we find a deep understanding of the relativity of objective truth, due to the development of knowledge—the progress that is constantly correcting seemingly final results, recognized truths, and even absolute truths that were thought to be indisputable. This concept of the relativity and historicity of the truth is contrasted with the antidialectical conception of absolute truth as the exhaustive knowledge of a subject, as the ultimate, eternal truth. However, the existence of a small number of eternal truths or the attainability of absolute truths is not denied, if the latter are understood as the totality of relative truths, and hence relative to their borders.
The central point of this theory of truth is the relative opposition between truth and error, if the latter is understood not simply as a logical error, but as a meaningful mistake, which always has a place in scientific knowledge. “Truth and error,” wrote Engels, “like all logical categories, moving in opposite directions, have an absolute value only in an extremely limited area….” However, after stating this sound position Engels suddenly makes a rather dubious, to put it mildly, conclusion: “Therefore, truly scientific studies usually avoid such dogmatic-moralistic expressions as error and truth….” This conclusion, made in the context of his polemic with E. Dühring, is not consistent with the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge.
One of the most difficult problems of the theory of knowledge is the problem of the criteria of truth. Idealism constantly sought to identify the irrefutable aspect of truth in the process of cognition, and more than that, in the statements recognized as true. Thus, Descartes argued that true judgments differ by such clarity and distinction that any doubt of their truth is excluded. Critics of this view have justly argued that it then becomes necessary to define the criteria of clarity and distinction. This requirement in effect shows that the criteria of truth exist outside statements recognized as true. However, the need for such a formulation of the problem was not recognized by philosophers who continued to search for the criteria of truth in knowledge itself, in its content or logical form.
Unlike the idealists, the materialists tried to solve this problem by analyzing the relation between judgments and external objects about which judgments are made. However, this potentially productive approach was never fully developed.

Ryder Robinson
Ryder Robinson

external objects

lol

Cooper Nelson
Cooper Nelson

Paganism

Brandon King
Brandon King

more like niggerism

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit