I feel like I have read all I need to have read and can adequately explain the point of radical leftism and I've read less than 1000 pages of theory, but I have also listened to a lot of material and engaged in a lot of conversation so :shrug-outta-hecks:
You only have to read as much as you want, reading isn't a requirement to be a leftist, nobody sane thinks that. It's just that reading is encouraged in leftism, which is as I've said, a good thing.
The problem is, in my view, reading only radical leftist texts leaves you ignorant of the flaws of leftist theory, it means you are essentially just indoctrinating yourself rather than actually engaging with the topics the text is about.
And if leftists only read leftist texts, leftist theory does not improve, it stagnates because it does not answer or even understand the criticism towards it, and instead dismisses it for being bourgeois.
Now I obviously don't expect the average person to write 500 word long academic books and invent completly new leftist concepts, but I do think a leftist community (commune, party, whatever suits you) that is critical of itself is the key to a leftist community that prevails.
It's leftist criticism from a leftist perspective, which is fine, but you are still ignoring 90% of criticism made. And besides, forget criticism and advancement of theory, without reading non-leftist figures, you can't even fully understand the current leftist theory in the first place, as a lot of it draws from non-leftist philosophy.
At least 90% of that 90% is not constructive, that's the thing. When someone doesn't share your goals whatsoever and has a completely different value system and perception of how things work and should work, they're gonna produce loads and loads of critique but it won't contain anything of much value to you, it's mostly just gonna be stuff you have to debunk or ignore. For instance, if you try to read Austrian school critiques of marxian economics or whatever it's mostly just nonsense about obsessively trying to destroy, say, the labor theory of value or the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (both of which are questions which have been argued a lot about by leftist economists and even marxist economists but with far more nuance) with facts and logic because they imagined that if they manage that then that's just the Achilles heel and if you "debunk" these two marxism will just implode, or just completely missing the point and complaining that it's not good for running the kind of system they want to create. Even the stuff they do end up offering half decent critiques to are stuff that you could have found someone else make a case for, but less stupid.
This... I'm sorry to say this is nothing but dogma, reading nothing but those you already agree with is dogma at it's purest. You are presupposing that leftism is correct, and then dismissing all non-leftist criticisms of it. Yes, different people have different values, the whole point of the dialectic is that we should still engage with these people and aim to understand where exactly our worldviews diverge and why they diverge. Simply saying "we have different values and can never understand each other" isn't enough.
You say that most of the criticism towards leftism is not constructive, which may be true just because of how much trash is being pumped out, but that doesn't mean a lot of valid criticism isn't being made. I think that the "postmodern" criticism of Marxism (that Marxism is simply another Christianity influenced European philosophy that fall for the grand narrative trap) for example is very strong, let's not forget all arguments based on psychology (as cliche as it is, Communism doesn't work because of human nature is a legitimate argument that needs to be had). And the example you gave was of the Austrian economists, which is an unfair example as they are a fairly fringe group relative to the rest of economic thought.
And once again, forget criticism, how are you planning on understanding leftism if you have never read any of the thinkers that it is based on?
Anyways, I think there seems to be a core disagreement in our worldviews and how we view the world, I don't believe that simply knowing political philosophy is enough, I think that ethical philosophy is also very important if you want to do any politics, and if you are someone who for example believes in dialectical materialism, then you should also need to be educated in metaphysics, so that you can defend your beliefs or outgrow them.
What I'm trying to get to is, good luck studying all that while reading only leftists.
The psychological angle isn't that people randomly kill each other(?), and equating pre-agricultural human societies with industrial ones is a big mistake, just because primitive communism existed in small tribes doesn't mean fully industrialized communism can exist in a world with billions of people.
I ofcourse agree with you, I don't agree with their arguments, but we can't just ignore them and act like it's all "pseudoscience" especially when most of us aren't experts on the topic.
You just edited your comment to include the criticism of postmodernism, the grand narrative thing isn't a stretch imo, infact I actually agree with the postmodernists on that one. And simply saying "it doesn't matter all I care about worker's emancipation" isn't a very wise take if you are aiming to use Marxism to emancipate workers. Because if postmodernism is true, Marxism (in it's traditional form) is false.
Sorry, I was sleeping, but, "Postmodernism" doesn't reject material reality existing(?) I don't really know what you're talking about. In fact "Postmodernism" isn't really a coherent ideology at all, all it is a rejection of grand narratives, which is something most people believe in.
Anyways I don't really want to restart this argument.
Postmodernism couldn't be true by its own standards precisely because it rejects narratives of truth. Calling postmodernism true would be precisely nonsensical
reading nothing but those you already agree with is dogma at it’s purest.
But again you presuppose that you agree with all these people which is really not the case.
And the example you gave was of the Austrian economists, which is an unfair example as they are a fairly fringe group relative to the rest of economic thought.
It's not so true any more. Neoclassical economics are very close to the Austrian school these days.
What I’m trying to get to is, good luck studying all that while reading only leftists.
I didn't say that. I said that it's not a good point to say that it would mean you don't read criticsm as if there isn't tons of criticism within the left. Also that most CRITICISM of the left (not most things that are said in general) outside the left is really not constructive at all.
I feel like I have read all I need to have read and can adequately explain the point of radical leftism and I've read less than 1000 pages of theory, but I have also listened to a lot of material and engaged in a lot of conversation so :shrug-outta-hecks:
You only have to read as much as you want, reading isn't a requirement to be a leftist, nobody sane thinks that. It's just that reading is encouraged in leftism, which is as I've said, a good thing.
The problem is, in my view, reading only radical leftist texts leaves you ignorant of the flaws of leftist theory, it means you are essentially just indoctrinating yourself rather than actually engaging with the topics the text is about.
And if leftists only read leftist texts, leftist theory does not improve, it stagnates because it does not answer or even understand the criticism towards it, and instead dismisses it for being bourgeois.
Now I obviously don't expect the average person to write 500 word long academic books and invent completly new leftist concepts, but I do think a leftist community (commune, party, whatever suits you) that is critical of itself is the key to a leftist community that prevails.
This presupposes that there isn't endless and often vicious criticism of leftist texts within the left which as we all know is not really the case.
It's leftist criticism from a leftist perspective, which is fine, but you are still ignoring 90% of criticism made. And besides, forget criticism and advancement of theory, without reading non-leftist figures, you can't even fully understand the current leftist theory in the first place, as a lot of it draws from non-leftist philosophy.
At least 90% of that 90% is not constructive, that's the thing. When someone doesn't share your goals whatsoever and has a completely different value system and perception of how things work and should work, they're gonna produce loads and loads of critique but it won't contain anything of much value to you, it's mostly just gonna be stuff you have to debunk or ignore. For instance, if you try to read Austrian school critiques of marxian economics or whatever it's mostly just nonsense about obsessively trying to destroy, say, the labor theory of value or the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (both of which are questions which have been argued a lot about by leftist economists and even marxist economists but with far more nuance) with facts and logic because they imagined that if they manage that then that's just the Achilles heel and if you "debunk" these two marxism will just implode, or just completely missing the point and complaining that it's not good for running the kind of system they want to create. Even the stuff they do end up offering half decent critiques to are stuff that you could have found someone else make a case for, but less stupid.
This... I'm sorry to say this is nothing but dogma, reading nothing but those you already agree with is dogma at it's purest. You are presupposing that leftism is correct, and then dismissing all non-leftist criticisms of it. Yes, different people have different values, the whole point of the dialectic is that we should still engage with these people and aim to understand where exactly our worldviews diverge and why they diverge. Simply saying "we have different values and can never understand each other" isn't enough.
You say that most of the criticism towards leftism is not constructive, which may be true just because of how much trash is being pumped out, but that doesn't mean a lot of valid criticism isn't being made. I think that the "postmodern" criticism of Marxism (that Marxism is simply another Christianity influenced European philosophy that fall for the grand narrative trap) for example is very strong, let's not forget all arguments based on psychology (as cliche as it is, Communism doesn't work because of human nature is a legitimate argument that needs to be had). And the example you gave was of the Austrian economists, which is an unfair example as they are a fairly fringe group relative to the rest of economic thought.
And once again, forget criticism, how are you planning on understanding leftism if you have never read any of the thinkers that it is based on?
Anyways, I think there seems to be a core disagreement in our worldviews and how we view the world, I don't believe that simply knowing political philosophy is enough, I think that ethical philosophy is also very important if you want to do any politics, and if you are someone who for example believes in dialectical materialism, then you should also need to be educated in metaphysics, so that you can defend your beliefs or outgrow them. What I'm trying to get to is, good luck studying all that while reading only leftists.
deleted by creator
The psychological angle isn't that people randomly kill each other(?), and equating pre-agricultural human societies with industrial ones is a big mistake, just because primitive communism existed in small tribes doesn't mean fully industrialized communism can exist in a world with billions of people.
I ofcourse agree with you, I don't agree with their arguments, but we can't just ignore them and act like it's all "pseudoscience" especially when most of us aren't experts on the topic.
You just edited your comment to include the criticism of postmodernism, the grand narrative thing isn't a stretch imo, infact I actually agree with the postmodernists on that one. And simply saying "it doesn't matter all I care about worker's emancipation" isn't a very wise take if you are aiming to use Marxism to emancipate workers. Because if postmodernism is true, Marxism (in it's traditional form) is false.
deleted by creator
Sorry, I was sleeping, but, "Postmodernism" doesn't reject material reality existing(?) I don't really know what you're talking about. In fact "Postmodernism" isn't really a coherent ideology at all, all it is a rejection of grand narratives, which is something most people believe in.
Anyways I don't really want to restart this argument.
Y'all rn
Postmodernism couldn't be true by its own standards precisely because it rejects narratives of truth. Calling postmodernism true would be precisely nonsensical
But again you presuppose that you agree with all these people which is really not the case.
It's not so true any more. Neoclassical economics are very close to the Austrian school these days.
I didn't say that. I said that it's not a good point to say that it would mean you don't read criticsm as if there isn't tons of criticism within the left. Also that most CRITICISM of the left (not most things that are said in general) outside the left is really not constructive at all.