Where are people saying that Lenin/Marx were infallible? The outlined the existing structures of power incredibly well. It's not like they'll always be relevant, just in our current time, with the current power structures, their model is still incredibly applicable to revolutionary movements.
Those people are weirdos lol, not representative of the greater leftist currents across the world or even in the imperial core. Cults of personality and such.
Of course they won't say it, but there's a persistent undercurrent of stuff like "you're not a True Leftist unless you've force-read Das Kapital" that accomplishes the same thing. No science in the world places such emphasis on a 150-year-old text, and rightly so.
It's more like you're not a true Marxist if you haven't read Capital, which is kind of obviously true. You're still a leftist, but a non-Marxist leftist.
No science in the world places such emphasis on a 150-year-old text, and rightly so.
No science is the same. What exactly is your issue here? Do you think that Marx is wrong? If he is right, then what's wrong with emphasizing the foundational text of scientific socialism?
Can you believe Newtonian physics is a useful model without having read Newton's original work? You can -- everyone here probably does -- and you can just as easily be a Marxist without having read Capital.
No science is the same.
No science demands that every adherent read the original works of foundational thinkers who have been dead for over a century. Sciences constantly re-write their textbooks to include recent development in the field, and constantly rephrase and reframe the ideas of their foundational thinkers.
And of course Marx was wrong about some things (to the extent "wrong" even makes sense when you're talking about non-falsifiable predictions of the future of humanity). He was not a prophet, and his writings were not handed down by some unerring divinity. He got a lot "right," which is why his ideas are still so useful, but it's those ideas that are important -- not their original textual packaging.
Can you believe Newtonian physics is a useful model without having read Newton’s original work? You can – everyone here probably does – and you can just as easily be a Marxist without having read Capital.
If only it were that easy. You have people saying China or North Korea or Cuba are either already socialist or on the path to socialism. You have people whose idea of praxis is "community building" or "protesting". You have people talking about science fiction shit like FALGSC in an unironic manner. You have people claiming "worker ownership" is the goal of socialism. And this is just Chapo, where people are nominally better read. In real life, most socialists are just liberals of different flavors.
You absolutely need to read Capital to understand Marxism. It's ok to admit you're not a Marxist socialist. But my issue is when people call on Marx for their arguments without ever actually understanding Marx (MLs being a major culprit of this)
And of course Marx was wrong about some things (to the extent “wrong” even makes sense when you’re talking about non-falsifiable predictions of the future of humanity). He was not a prophet, and his writings were not handed down by some unerring divinity. He got a lot “right,” which is why his ideas are still so useful, but it’s those ideas that are important – not their original textual packaging.
Great! And it's time to read those important ideas. Why read someone else's interpretation of Marx, when you literally have the original writing available for free? I can guarantee if people actually read and understood Marx, it would be impossible to still be an ML or an anarchists, at least for those who are intellectually honest.
You have people saying China or North Korea or Cuba are either already socialist or on the path to socialism.
None of these governments existed while Marx was alive, and Marx famously erred in predicting that the imperial core would be where socialism first took root. This is just one example, but on virtually any topic there's been so much development since Marx that your best sources on any given matter are likely something newer.
You absolutely need to read Capital to understand Marxism.
How is this any different from "you need to read Newton's original papers to understand Newtonian physics"?
Marx is to socialism what Newton is to physics. In order to understand what comes after, you still have to understand their works.
Yes, socialism has progressed. Our understanding of the nuiances of struggles and intersectional politics under colonial hegemony have expanded. Lenin provided a lot of expansion of Marx (specifically in the realm of colonialism and racism as a factor in capitalist opression) which is why a lot of people are Marxist-Leninists and not "orthodox" Marxist.
Beyond Lenin, many more have expressed their voices and explained their struggles against capitalism and how the base tenants of oppression outlined by Marx and Lenin manifest to them. Socialism is a living, organic movement that seeks to incorporate all struggles into itself and provide liberation to all, and no one person can understand the intricacies of every struggle.
So yes, it's important to understand the teachings of past socialist figureheads, but in no way does socialism end with them.
It's important to understand Marx, but -- much like you can understand Newtonian physics without ever reading a single word written by Newton himself -- you can understand Marx's ideas without reading the way Marx originally phrased them.
Yeah, but it's not harmful to read the book lol. I've only ever skimmed Das Kapital because I have terrible patience when it comes to reading and Marx is definitely not a light read.
Stuff like Black Shirts and Reds, the Manifesto, even State and Rev are a lot more approachable and you can infer the important points Marx makes from them. The idea that Kapital is the end all of leftist literature is dumb, but it's still something you can learn a lot from if you read it.
Oh totally, read the book if you have the time and attention. I'm mostly speaking to the occasional leftist you'll find who places such importance on Marx's original writings that they think throwing an economics textbook at people is a good strategy for growing the left. It's simply not accessible to most people, and there's nothing wrong with that because people have recast the key ideas in much more digestible formats.
The idea that Kapital is the end all of leftist literature is dumb, but it’s still something you can learn a lot from if you read it.
Meme doesn't work as well as the one about Christian sects because Marx didn't claim to be handing down the infallible word of God.
Yes but everyone is claiming to hand down the infalliable word of Marx
If that was true, then wouldn't Marxism-Leninism be a heresy?
Well, Catholicism was Heresy once
deleted by creator
Where are people saying that Lenin/Marx were infallible? The outlined the existing structures of power incredibly well. It's not like they'll always be relevant, just in our current time, with the current power structures, their model is still incredibly applicable to revolutionary movements.
deleted by creator
Those people are weirdos lol, not representative of the greater leftist currents across the world or even in the imperial core. Cults of personality and such.
deleted by creator
Agreed haha, as Castro would say, it's historical simplism.
Of course they won't say it, but there's a persistent undercurrent of stuff like "you're not a True Leftist unless you've force-read Das Kapital" that accomplishes the same thing. No science in the world places such emphasis on a 150-year-old text, and rightly so.
I was taught Pythagorean theory in junior high. Science does that shit all the time.
What did you read from Pythagoras himself? Or did you read the core concept of the Pythagorean theorem out of a modern textbook?
The second but a lot of emphasis was out on who came up with it.
It's more like you're not a true Marxist if you haven't read Capital, which is kind of obviously true. You're still a leftist, but a non-Marxist leftist.
No science is the same. What exactly is your issue here? Do you think that Marx is wrong? If he is right, then what's wrong with emphasizing the foundational text of scientific socialism?
Can you believe Newtonian physics is a useful model without having read Newton's original work? You can -- everyone here probably does -- and you can just as easily be a Marxist without having read Capital.
No science demands that every adherent read the original works of foundational thinkers who have been dead for over a century. Sciences constantly re-write their textbooks to include recent development in the field, and constantly rephrase and reframe the ideas of their foundational thinkers.
And of course Marx was wrong about some things (to the extent "wrong" even makes sense when you're talking about non-falsifiable predictions of the future of humanity). He was not a prophet, and his writings were not handed down by some unerring divinity. He got a lot "right," which is why his ideas are still so useful, but it's those ideas that are important -- not their original textual packaging.
If only it were that easy. You have people saying China or North Korea or Cuba are either already socialist or on the path to socialism. You have people whose idea of praxis is "community building" or "protesting". You have people talking about science fiction shit like FALGSC in an unironic manner. You have people claiming "worker ownership" is the goal of socialism. And this is just Chapo, where people are nominally better read. In real life, most socialists are just liberals of different flavors.
You absolutely need to read Capital to understand Marxism. It's ok to admit you're not a Marxist socialist. But my issue is when people call on Marx for their arguments without ever actually understanding Marx (MLs being a major culprit of this)
Great! And it's time to read those important ideas. Why read someone else's interpretation of Marx, when you literally have the original writing available for free? I can guarantee if people actually read and understood Marx, it would be impossible to still be an ML or an anarchists, at least for those who are intellectually honest.
None of these governments existed while Marx was alive, and Marx famously erred in predicting that the imperial core would be where socialism first took root. This is just one example, but on virtually any topic there's been so much development since Marx that your best sources on any given matter are likely something newer.
How is this any different from "you need to read Newton's original papers to understand Newtonian physics"?
Marx is to socialism what Newton is to physics. In order to understand what comes after, you still have to understand their works.
Yes, socialism has progressed. Our understanding of the nuiances of struggles and intersectional politics under colonial hegemony have expanded. Lenin provided a lot of expansion of Marx (specifically in the realm of colonialism and racism as a factor in capitalist opression) which is why a lot of people are Marxist-Leninists and not "orthodox" Marxist.
Beyond Lenin, many more have expressed their voices and explained their struggles against capitalism and how the base tenants of oppression outlined by Marx and Lenin manifest to them. Socialism is a living, organic movement that seeks to incorporate all struggles into itself and provide liberation to all, and no one person can understand the intricacies of every struggle.
So yes, it's important to understand the teachings of past socialist figureheads, but in no way does socialism end with them.
It's important to understand Marx, but -- much like you can understand Newtonian physics without ever reading a single word written by Newton himself -- you can understand Marx's ideas without reading the way Marx originally phrased them.
Yeah, but it's not harmful to read the book lol. I've only ever skimmed Das Kapital because I have terrible patience when it comes to reading and Marx is definitely not a light read.
Stuff like Black Shirts and Reds, the Manifesto, even State and Rev are a lot more approachable and you can infer the important points Marx makes from them. The idea that Kapital is the end all of leftist literature is dumb, but it's still something you can learn a lot from if you read it.
Oh totally, read the book if you have the time and attention. I'm mostly speaking to the occasional leftist you'll find who places such importance on Marx's original writings that they think throwing an economics textbook at people is a good strategy for growing the left. It's simply not accessible to most people, and there's nothing wrong with that because people have recast the key ideas in much more digestible formats.
:100-com:
not really
Not at all actually...