Take a look through the rest of the thread -- the guy is the poster child for why we should actually investigate smears like "he hates Marx" instead of taking them at face value.
I say in Why You Should Be A Socialist that [Marx] had “a better understanding than almost anyone else of the way that economics determines the fabric of the social world,” and praise texts of his as “brilliant” and “profound,” full of “great insight.” I am not sure how that can be squared with thinking I have scant regard for him.
His issue with Marxism (in addition to anarchist critiques of it and the broader ML tradition) is basically that some Marxists are dogmatic almost to a religious degree, and can condescend to people who haven't read Das Kapital in its entirety.
He’s never going to be accepted by most people here, I think, simply because of his stance on AES (“atrocities of communist regimes” and “Stalin will never be redeemable, Stalin is socialism’s worst enemy”).
Close with this statement but needs to figure out that it's fictional Stalin in the minds of the people that has created this problem. The solution is correcting the fiction, not reinforcing it by agreeing with the opposition to socialism that he was bad.
The fictional Stalin they created is a punching bag boogieman rigged up to constantly give easy punches against socialism.
I agree with you, but some (many?) on the Western left would prefer not to be associated with the baggage of the Soviet Union. They believe it will turn people away from socialism.
...did you read Oppose Book Worship? Much of it is exactly Robinson’s point about how some Marxists are more obsessed with interpreting Marxist texts than with real-world engagement:
Whatever is written in a book is right — such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, "Show me where it's written in the book."...
The method of studying the social sciences exclusively from the book is likewise extremely dangerous and may even lead one onto the road of counter-revolution. Clear proof of this is provided by the fact that whole batches of Chinese Communists who confined themselves to books in their study of the social sciences have turned into counter-revolutionaries. When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly not because Marx was a "prophet" but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in our struggle.
See also "I haven't read Marx's Capital, but I have the marks of capital all over my body."
Yeah but that's not any real kind of refutation and not worth disregarding the hard fought for victories that Marxists have been able to achieve across the globe, a claim like that can be levied against any sufficiently motivated group. Someone considering themselves a leftist and refusing to engage with it's most expansive and liberatory history and theory calls into question the use of even calling people "leftists" in the first place, what's even the point?
It's fine to disagree with him, but when we're talking about fellow leftists the disagreement should be with what they actually said or did. Caricaturing their positions (or more blatantly misrepresenting them) does nothing but create bitter infighting.
This term only exists to obscure the difference between communists and liberal anticommunists like Robinson and his idol Chompsky. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that every other person involved in the Current Affairs mess was actually lying about what happened to them, and that the one contributor and personal friend of Robinson who wrote the giant counter-narrative passed around in this thread is actually the only one telling the truth about it. I'm not willing to entertain the idea that just because Robinson might not be as personally shitty in his business dealings as is widely believed, that this somehow vindicates his politics. I followed the guy for years, and his politics were absolutely no different than any DSA orbiting radlib like Bhaskar Sunkara who believed that the one true socialism could only be achieved by white Americans voting, going to rallies, buying magazines, and decrying the "authoritarianism" of every successful revolutionary workers movement.
there is room for leftists who don't worship at the alter of scientific socialism, and NJR has been a great, if perhaps slightly less than ideally radical, voice/publisher.
Take a look through the rest of the thread -- the guy is the poster child for why we should actually investigate smears like "he hates Marx" instead of taking them at face value.
His issue with Marxism (in addition to anarchist critiques of it and the broader ML tradition) is basically that some Marxists are dogmatic almost to a religious degree, and can condescend to people who haven't read Das Kapital in its entirety.
He’s never going to be accepted by most people here, I think, simply because of his stance on AES (“atrocities of communist regimes” and “Stalin will never be redeemable, Stalin is socialism’s worst enemy”).
Close with this statement but needs to figure out that it's fictional Stalin in the minds of the people that has created this problem. The solution is correcting the fiction, not reinforcing it by agreeing with the opposition to socialism that he was bad.
The fictional Stalin they created is a punching bag boogieman rigged up to constantly give easy punches against socialism.
I agree with you, but some (many?) on the Western left would prefer not to be associated with the baggage of the Soviet Union. They believe it will turn people away from socialism.
Well they are wrong and stupid and should be chastised for their idiocy not encouraged
Good? Why should we accept social chauvinists?
Not to mention he fully supports the genocide in Gaza and rejected a ceasefire.
"Does anyone else think Darwinian evolution is a cult?" same energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppose_Book_Worship
Mao: "SHUT THE FUCK UP RADLIBS LOL"
...did you read Oppose Book Worship? Much of it is exactly Robinson’s point about how some Marxists are more obsessed with interpreting Marxist texts than with real-world engagement:
See also "I haven't read Marx's Capital, but I have the marks of capital all over my body."
Yeah but that's not any real kind of refutation and not worth disregarding the hard fought for victories that Marxists have been able to achieve across the globe, a claim like that can be levied against any sufficiently motivated group. Someone considering themselves a leftist and refusing to engage with it's most expansive and liberatory history and theory calls into question the use of even calling people "leftists" in the first place, what's even the point?
It's fine to disagree with him, but when we're talking about fellow leftists the disagreement should be with what they actually said or did. Caricaturing their positions (or more blatantly misrepresenting them) does nothing but create bitter infighting.
Social imperialists aren’t leftists. Stop repeating this tripe or just admit imperialism isn’t that important to you
This term only exists to obscure the difference between communists and liberal anticommunists like Robinson and his idol Chompsky. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that every other person involved in the Current Affairs mess was actually lying about what happened to them, and that the one contributor and personal friend of Robinson who wrote the giant counter-narrative passed around in this thread is actually the only one telling the truth about it. I'm not willing to entertain the idea that just because Robinson might not be as personally shitty in his business dealings as is widely believed, that this somehow vindicates his politics. I followed the guy for years, and his politics were absolutely no different than any DSA orbiting radlib like Bhaskar Sunkara who believed that the one true socialism could only be achieved by white Americans voting, going to rallies, buying magazines, and decrying the "authoritarianism" of every successful revolutionary workers movement.
there is room for leftists who don't worship at the alter of scientific socialism, and NJR has been a great, if perhaps slightly less than ideally radical, voice/publisher.
Nope he’s a social fascist Jacobinite (as in the publication), a chauvinist and general weirdo