In this case, it is dialectical materialism, which Nathan Robinson thinks is stupid.
Assuming this is true, there's still no "danger" here. Almost any other socialist resource will tell you about dialectical materialism. Getting people interested in socialism (and making the word safe for mainstream politics) is important work even if you disagree with some of his ideas. Leftists disagree with each others' ideas all the time.
Plus, saying that the only reason someone could dislike part of leftist theory is that they are incapable of understanding it (or refuse to read it) is nonsense. That's the exact same energy as "to be fair you have to have an extremely high IQ to understand Rick and Morty..."
forgive the word dump. used your post as jump off point for some larger disagreements (but also pretty strongly disagree w/ this analogy).
the idea that Robinson isn't familiar with Marx is farfetched, as is the implication that well-read, well-meaning people can't disagree with "scientific" socialism, as is the contention that dialectical materialism (DM) should be treated like quantum mechanics (QM). if DM is a theory, strictly "scientific" in a traditional (and pre-kuhnian*) sense, (of a kind and worthy of our best theories for describing the physical world), well, then it should be making some falsifiable predictions about the world -- what are these exactly? . . . any number of smart people can handwave away why Marx's predictions have failed to materialize (the conditions are never just right, are they?; and notice: the 20th C.'s biggest (only) "Marxist" success stories occurred where predicted conditions did not); but at some point, the theory appears a bit wanting. it's not like quantum mechanics. the contention that the development of the world is already inscribed and is knowable prospectively (conditions of DM) is incredible, and certainly we should, at the very least, be open to viewing it with skepticism.
if DM is viewed rather more holistically (from the theses: the point is not to simply describe the world but to change it), then we need not evaluate the theory for its descriptive accuracy, but as to its usefulness. and here there simply must be room to reasonably disagree.
i know ya'll love to think that Marx has some kind of talismanic power, but he doesn't. he is an author of some very influential texts, we are his intellectual heirs, he provides the outline and framing of a useful heuristic, that fits rather loosely. we are all Marxist in that loose sense. but there are better and clearer and more robust and thoughtful descriptions of the role of capital and rationalization and exploitation and contemporary alienation. and it is certainly possible to be on the left and to advocate for the left, without bringing up Marx, when doing so would put one on their rhetorical heels. people can be open to healthcare, or a better minimum wage, or for regulatory intervention for the sake of the planet, but many are, for the short term, resistant to "Marxism", given all the baggage it entails. that's just a historical and cultural fact. speaking on Marx might just not be useful in those cases.
and so robinson doesn't find a lot of rhetorical value in going to Marx. his audience, at least for why you should be a socialist, is presumably the lib friends or family members of educated leftists. his audience will probably not be attracted to the metaphors of class struggle and antagonism. his role is to butter people up, not create a vanguard. DM is not useful for his project, and that alone is sufficient for him to bin it.
[two more related points against DM: Marx assumes that at some point (not yet, apparently), the exploitation by capital will reduce nearly all to the proletarian, thereby producing class consciousness, and inciting, necessarily, Revolution. but was Marx aware of the eventual development of the awesome technological power of the contemporary state, which would be able to destroy whole nations and the world, if threatened? and, was Marx cognizant of the possibility of ecological catastrophe which could very well occur before the Revolution manifests?
i’ll defer to the scholars, but the point is historical contingency has complicated the theory. it might very well be the case that we should do everything to avoid going down a path predicted by DM, to avoid the kind annihilation which could very well occur. reform (while being aesthetically and morally less than totally satisfactory) might very well be required instead of acceleration; it’s not unreasonable to seriously consider this.]
[and notice: even if we were to assume that DM had the same role and descriptive value of QM (which i strongly would argue it doesn't, above), the analogy doesn't hold: for it is obviously possible to bracket out a more rigorous description of the world when a simpler one will do; in some instances the framing of newtonian physics or galilean space-time is more useful and simpler than the theories of QM or general relativity. the mayans didnt' need einstein to make a calendar; a sophmore in highschool doesn't need to know about bell's theorem to launch and find his bottle rocket. and so it's not obvious at all that anyone needs Marx to develop class consciousness or empathy, or to display the strongest fraternal action. John Brown didn't need Marx, nor Louverture, nor Robespierre.]
look if ya'll want to just dunk on everyone who is not avowedly a vulgar historical materialist as revisionist or utopian or whatever, fine, you join a long and illustrious discourse of the left. but my goodness, i don't understand how someone could see an inane tweet by robinson, as above, and bring out the dunk tank for him. robinson, and AOC, could be wrong or misguided, but to assume they aren’t “socialists”, are ignorant or stupid, or that they would know better if they only had read ""Theory"", is incredibly cringe.
if we are avowed kuhnians (or worse), the above analogy doesn't really hold either, given that we should, i think, be quite a lot less doctrinaire wrt our respect for what would be provisional scientific theories, including QM.
My background is hard science, and to the extent anyone there knows about dialectical materialism, it's mostly to bash it (trying to tie it in with Lysenkoism, for example). As a result, I mostly considered it from a "is this a useful way to think about the world" perspective. I have to think more, but I think it will be helpful to me when I go to talk with others.
Nathan "doesn't understand Marxism and says Marx shouldn't have been born" Robinson
deleted by creator
Assuming this is true, there's still no "danger" here. Almost any other socialist resource will tell you about dialectical materialism. Getting people interested in socialism (and making the word safe for mainstream politics) is important work even if you disagree with some of his ideas. Leftists disagree with each others' ideas all the time.
Plus, saying that the only reason someone could dislike part of leftist theory is that they are incapable of understanding it (or refuse to read it) is nonsense. That's the exact same energy as "to be fair you have to have an extremely high IQ to understand Rick and Morty..."
forgive the word dump. used your post as jump off point for some larger disagreements (but also pretty strongly disagree w/ this analogy).
the idea that Robinson isn't familiar with Marx is farfetched, as is the implication that well-read, well-meaning people can't disagree with "scientific" socialism, as is the contention that dialectical materialism (DM) should be treated like quantum mechanics (QM). if DM is a theory, strictly "scientific" in a traditional (and pre-kuhnian*) sense, (of a kind and worthy of our best theories for describing the physical world), well, then it should be making some falsifiable predictions about the world -- what are these exactly? . . . any number of smart people can handwave away why Marx's predictions have failed to materialize (the conditions are never just right, are they?; and notice: the 20th C.'s biggest (only) "Marxist" success stories occurred where predicted conditions did not); but at some point, the theory appears a bit wanting. it's not like quantum mechanics. the contention that the development of the world is already inscribed and is knowable prospectively (conditions of DM) is incredible, and certainly we should, at the very least, be open to viewing it with skepticism.
if DM is viewed rather more holistically (from the theses: the point is not to simply describe the world but to change it), then we need not evaluate the theory for its descriptive accuracy, but as to its usefulness. and here there simply must be room to reasonably disagree.
i know ya'll love to think that Marx has some kind of talismanic power, but he doesn't. he is an author of some very influential texts, we are his intellectual heirs, he provides the outline and framing of a useful heuristic, that fits rather loosely. we are all Marxist in that loose sense. but there are better and clearer and more robust and thoughtful descriptions of the role of capital and rationalization and exploitation and contemporary alienation. and it is certainly possible to be on the left and to advocate for the left, without bringing up Marx, when doing so would put one on their rhetorical heels. people can be open to healthcare, or a better minimum wage, or for regulatory intervention for the sake of the planet, but many are, for the short term, resistant to "Marxism", given all the baggage it entails. that's just a historical and cultural fact. speaking on Marx might just not be useful in those cases.
and so robinson doesn't find a lot of rhetorical value in going to Marx. his audience, at least for why you should be a socialist, is presumably the lib friends or family members of educated leftists. his audience will probably not be attracted to the metaphors of class struggle and antagonism. his role is to butter people up, not create a vanguard. DM is not useful for his project, and that alone is sufficient for him to bin it.
[two more related points against DM: Marx assumes that at some point (not yet, apparently), the exploitation by capital will reduce nearly all to the proletarian, thereby producing class consciousness, and inciting, necessarily, Revolution. but was Marx aware of the eventual development of the awesome technological power of the contemporary state, which would be able to destroy whole nations and the world, if threatened? and, was Marx cognizant of the possibility of ecological catastrophe which could very well occur before the Revolution manifests? i’ll defer to the scholars, but the point is historical contingency has complicated the theory. it might very well be the case that we should do everything to avoid going down a path predicted by DM, to avoid the kind annihilation which could very well occur. reform (while being aesthetically and morally less than totally satisfactory) might very well be required instead of acceleration; it’s not unreasonable to seriously consider this.]
[and notice: even if we were to assume that DM had the same role and descriptive value of QM (which i strongly would argue it doesn't, above), the analogy doesn't hold: for it is obviously possible to bracket out a more rigorous description of the world when a simpler one will do; in some instances the framing of newtonian physics or galilean space-time is more useful and simpler than the theories of QM or general relativity. the mayans didnt' need einstein to make a calendar; a sophmore in highschool doesn't need to know about bell's theorem to launch and find his bottle rocket. and so it's not obvious at all that anyone needs Marx to develop class consciousness or empathy, or to display the strongest fraternal action. John Brown didn't need Marx, nor Louverture, nor Robespierre.]
look if ya'll want to just dunk on everyone who is not avowedly a vulgar historical materialist as revisionist or utopian or whatever, fine, you join a long and illustrious discourse of the left. but my goodness, i don't understand how someone could see an inane tweet by robinson, as above, and bring out the dunk tank for him. robinson, and AOC, could be wrong or misguided, but to assume they aren’t “socialists”, are ignorant or stupid, or that they would know better if they only had read ""Theory"", is incredibly cringe.
Thanks for writing this out.
My background is hard science, and to the extent anyone there knows about dialectical materialism, it's mostly to bash it (trying to tie it in with Lysenkoism, for example). As a result, I mostly considered it from a "is this a useful way to think about the world" perspective. I have to think more, but I think it will be helpful to me when I go to talk with others.
Clowns should definitely not write books about politics
Which, if he'd Engels or Mao, he'd know it's not just stupid, it's batshit.
THe UnIversALitY anD PARTicULariTY of CoNTradicTiOn