without actually constructing an argument of my own
The guy's literally written a book and started a magazine to convince people to be socialists. His point is that if you want to convince Americans in 2020 to be socialists, you want to give them an argument that speaks to them as Americans in 2020. It's not as if Marx is the only person who can articulate socialist ideas.
It's as much Nathan's responsibility to be willing and capable of actually engaging with Marx and Marxist works. Instead he's quote tweeting randoms to say nothing else except "old books bad".
It isn't a radical or new concept that Nathan could just read any number of other books on Marxism and Marxist economics if he actually seeks to learn about it rather than quote tweeting randoms on Twitter. He could actually ask in good faith without being dismissive about it. Instead, he does "old books bad".
Nathan could just read any number of other books on Marxism and Marxist economics if he actually seeks to learn
And here's exactly what he's criticizing in these tweets: people who fall back on "read these books if you want to learn anything, and if you don't, you're an idiot."
Did he say not to read any books, ever? Did he say not to read any books about socialism? Or did he say that relying heavily on a book from generations ago is worse than making a case for socialism today?
In early 1968, the [Black Panther] party sold copies of Mao's Little Red Book to university students in order to buy firearms. Soon thereafter, they made the book required reading and began adopting the Maoist “serve the people” model of political activity.
The Black Panther Party could teach people how to read, starting with Mao and Marx.
there’s newish short books written by people like Michael Parenti that summarize the concepts in the old books
He's not saying don't read those books; hell, he refers to a modern leftist author right there in the screencap. He's saying that we should be summarizing leftist ideas for modern audiences and for our modern situation, not just demanding people read something from the Civil War era.
He’s not saying don’t read those books... He’s saying that we should be summarizing leftist ideas for modern audiences and for our modern situation, not just demanding people read something from the Civil War era.
Again: he's not saying "don't read Marx." He's saying don't dogmatically demand that other people read Marx as a prerequisite to agreeing with socialism.
What makes you say that? He runs a magazine that publishes socialist literature and wrote a book called "Why You Should Be a Socialist." And he's not criticizing Marx's ideas here; he's saying not to treat Marx's writings as holy writ. I like Star Wars, but it weirds me the fuck out when people treat it as something near-spiritual.
Leftists can disagree about stuff without operating in bad faith.
I think he just generally dislikes how propagandised against Marx is and what a huge mountain of hostility and distortion there is to correct in order to forge a path forwards. He therefore wants to never ever mention the name for fear of the hostility it will create in those he is seeking to reach.
He is an opportunist trying to avoid the harder but correct path.
I refuse to believe you can’t decipher between somebody cherry-picking an argument to invalidate it and someone not being okay with a public figure portraying people who encourage others to read the works of one of the most recognizable and influential writers when it comes to leftist politics as crazy cultists. I agree with the overall message and I’m not even a Marxist, this is just bad faith, Comrade.
a public figure portraying people who encourage others to read the works of one of the most recognizable and influential writers when it comes to leftist politics as crazy cultists
who encourage
He's not talking about people who give you a friendly suggestion to read this or that if you want to know more. He's talking about people who repeat "read theory" a bunch instead of explaining how socialism could actually work. And if you interpret "religion" to mean "crazy cultists," that's something you're adding, not something he's saying.
I don’t see how someone saying read theory a lot is such a heinous crime and I say the cult part because of the “church pitch” and “Marxism is rejecting reality” bits.
I never said that he said to never read Marx. Again, I agree with the general sentiment, it’s the unwarranted and ridiculous assertion that being a Marxist means rejecting reality and the insinuation that Marxism is on the same level of rationality as religion.
From their other posts it seems to me that hogposting is arguing for Marx to be treated as Newton is in physics - the vast majority of physicists and engineers don't read Principia or Opticks. Newton's ideas are foundational, but no-one studies "Newtonism". The central, lasting concepts have been modernised and synthesised with the broader study of physics, and there is definitely pushback in some circles at the suggestion the same should be done for Marx.
I don't think this is really Robinson's point though; he just seems allergic to anything related to Marx.
Your instinct was right, he is thoroughly anti-Marx. Here's a clip of Nathan on his podcast saying that socialists would be better off if Marx didn't exist. He rejects just about all of Marx's contributions.
We don't call physics Newtonology, or make young physics students read Newton's unabridged original works. Nor do we pretend that Newton is the most insightful figure for a comprehensive understanding of modern physics. He's probably not even history's most famous physicist.
Marx should be treated precisely as physics treats Newton or biology Darwin - someone to be recognized as a giant in the field who fundamentally advanced our understanding of the discipline, but not to be understood as central to the very identity of the discipline. Incidentally, that's precisely what NJR is arguing for. There may be an unfair implication that many/most people who call themselves Marxists don't already see it that way, but it's hard to reasonably dispute that there's a branding problem at the very least.
no, njr is an explicit utopian. he has no interest in “understanding the discipline” beyond identitary lines. he does not understand and goes as far as rejecting the fundamentals. marx is not a building block to his brand of socialism, no matter how much he vaguely alludes at “liking some of what he said”, marx is nothing but an obstacle
The guy's literally written a book and started a magazine to convince people to be socialists. His point is that if you want to convince Americans in 2020 to be socialists, you want to give them an argument that speaks to them as Americans in 2020. It's not as if Marx is the only person who can articulate socialist ideas.
It's as much Nathan's responsibility to be willing and capable of actually engaging with Marx and Marxist works. Instead he's quote tweeting randoms to say nothing else except "old books bad".
Old books can absolutely be inaccessible to modern audiences. This isn't a new or a radical concept.
It isn't a radical or new concept that Nathan could just read any number of other books on Marxism and Marxist economics if he actually seeks to learn about it rather than quote tweeting randoms on Twitter. He could actually ask in good faith without being dismissive about it. Instead, he does "old books bad".
just tell him to read the modern socialism for dummies books
And here's exactly what he's criticizing in these tweets: people who fall back on "read these books if you want to learn anything, and if you don't, you're an idiot."
READING BOOKS IS HOW YOU LEARN THINGS IM GOING FUCKING CRAZY AT THIS STUPID BULLSHIT
Did he say not to read any books, ever? Did he say not to read any books about socialism? Or did he say that relying heavily on a book from generations ago is worse than making a case for socialism today?
The Black Panther Party could teach people how to read, starting with Mao and Marx.
Is he saying not to read any socialist literature? He runs a magazine that publishes socialist literature.
deleted by creator
He's not saying don't read those books; hell, he refers to a modern leftist author right there in the screencap. He's saying that we should be summarizing leftist ideas for modern audiences and for our modern situation, not just demanding people read something from the Civil War era.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Again: he's not saying "don't read Marx." He's saying don't dogmatically demand that other people read Marx as a prerequisite to agreeing with socialism.
deleted by creator
His take on Lenin is shit, but what does that have to do with this thread?
deleted by creator
What makes you say that? He runs a magazine that publishes socialist literature and wrote a book called "Why You Should Be a Socialist." And he's not criticizing Marx's ideas here; he's saying not to treat Marx's writings as holy writ. I like Star Wars, but it weirds me the fuck out when people treat it as something near-spiritual.
Leftists can disagree about stuff without operating in bad faith.
deleted by creator
The guy publishes a socialist magazine. Do you think he disagrees with everything Marx ever said, or is he maybe making a different point here?
I think he just generally dislikes how propagandised against Marx is and what a huge mountain of hostility and distortion there is to correct in order to forge a path forwards. He therefore wants to never ever mention the name for fear of the hostility it will create in those he is seeking to reach.
He is an opportunist trying to avoid the harder but correct path.
why yes i am certain he disagrees with the materialist conception of history
That would be fine if he actually said that instead of characterizing Marxists as religious fanatics.
He does actually say that, in the same series of tweets.
After characterizing Marxist’s as religious fanatics.
Wait, so if you pick out only one thing a person says, and ignore the rest of their statements on the same topic, they might sound bad? No way!
I refuse to believe you can’t decipher between somebody cherry-picking an argument to invalidate it and someone not being okay with a public figure portraying people who encourage others to read the works of one of the most recognizable and influential writers when it comes to leftist politics as crazy cultists. I agree with the overall message and I’m not even a Marxist, this is just bad faith, Comrade.
He's not talking about people who give you a friendly suggestion to read this or that if you want to know more. He's talking about people who repeat "read theory" a bunch instead of explaining how socialism could actually work. And if you interpret "religion" to mean "crazy cultists," that's something you're adding, not something he's saying.
I don’t see how someone saying read theory a lot is such a heinous crime and I say the cult part because of the “church pitch” and “Marxism is rejecting reality” bits.
Well good thing he explains his thinking, then, and the full statement isn't "don't tell people to read theory."
I never said that he said to never read Marx. Again, I agree with the general sentiment, it’s the unwarranted and ridiculous assertion that being a Marxist means rejecting reality and the insinuation that Marxism is on the same level of rationality as religion.
deleted by creator
From their other posts it seems to me that hogposting is arguing for Marx to be treated as Newton is in physics - the vast majority of physicists and engineers don't read Principia or Opticks. Newton's ideas are foundational, but no-one studies "Newtonism". The central, lasting concepts have been modernised and synthesised with the broader study of physics, and there is definitely pushback in some circles at the suggestion the same should be done for Marx.
I don't think this is really Robinson's point though; he just seems allergic to anything related to Marx.
Your instinct was right, he is thoroughly anti-Marx. Here's a clip of Nathan on his podcast saying that socialists would be better off if Marx didn't exist. He rejects just about all of Marx's contributions.
deleted by creator
He runs a socialist propaganda outlet. He's written a book to persuade people to be socialists. How is none of that theory or praxis?
It's beyond counterproductive to rip apart someone who's undeniably working to get people over to our side.
We don't call physics Newtonology, or make young physics students read Newton's unabridged original works. Nor do we pretend that Newton is the most insightful figure for a comprehensive understanding of modern physics. He's probably not even history's most famous physicist.
Marx should be treated precisely as physics treats Newton or biology Darwin - someone to be recognized as a giant in the field who fundamentally advanced our understanding of the discipline, but not to be understood as central to the very identity of the discipline. Incidentally, that's precisely what NJR is arguing for. There may be an unfair implication that many/most people who call themselves Marxists don't already see it that way, but it's hard to reasonably dispute that there's a branding problem at the very least.
deleted by creator
no, njr is an explicit utopian. he has no interest in “understanding the discipline” beyond identitary lines. he does not understand and goes as far as rejecting the fundamentals. marx is not a building block to his brand of socialism, no matter how much he vaguely alludes at “liking some of what he said”, marx is nothing but an obstacle
deleted by creator
that's right instead we need epic based aoc to do it instead