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"?
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.
He did not make an error since socialism hasnt taken root anywhere is "AESCs".
How is this any different from “you need to read Newton’s original papers to understand Newtonian physics”?
Because you could end up reading people who misunderstand or misrepresent Marx like Wolff or Harvey. Just fucking read Capital. It's not impossible. Instead of binging on that next Netflix serial or gaming late in the night, just read the book. If you don't want to, at least stop calling yourself a Marxist.
If your position is that socialism hasn't taken root anywhere, that makes Marx more "wrong," not less.
Instead of binging on that next Netflix serial or gaming late in the night, just read the book.
Do you honestly think this approach is going to get anything done? We need tens of millions of more leftists to bring socialism to the U.S. Are tens of millions of people going to respond to "look, I know you're lazy, but buck up and read this 150-year-old econ text and that will totally address your immediate material needs"?
If your position is that socialism hasn’t taken root anywhere, that makes Marx more “wrong,” not less.
What does this even mean? Did Marx make some kind of prediction like "we wiill have socialism in 50 years" or something?
Do you honestly think this approach is going to get anything done? We need tens of millions of more leftists to bring socialism to the U.S. Are tens of millions of people going to respond to “look, I know you’re lazy, but buck up and read this 150-year-old econ text and that will totally address your immediate material needs”?
It's a simple fact that you can't be a Marxist without reading Marx. That's what the argument is about. It seems you are ready to write a million excuses instead of just reading. And yes, laziness definitely plays a part here. I'm not expecting you to lead the revolution, and my version of praxis isn't forcing people to read Marx. You started the argument that reading Marx is not important. I simply said that means you're not a Marxist. This seems to bother you for reason. You want to call yourself a Marxist without doing what is possibly the most basic thing to call yourself a Marxist. The reason is that Marxism has a privileged position in the Left, so people use Marx to give weight to some of the dumbest ideas ("China will be socialist by 2050 because Marx said to develop productive forces" or "we need the state to control all production") . I'm going to keep cajoling people into reading Marx, because it always ends up with that person developing a better and more nuanced understanding of capitalism and socialism. It also tends to cure people of their whatever -ism they identify with.
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.
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"?
He did not make an error since socialism hasnt taken root anywhere is "AESCs".
Because you could end up reading people who misunderstand or misrepresent Marx like Wolff or Harvey. Just fucking read Capital. It's not impossible. Instead of binging on that next Netflix serial or gaming late in the night, just read the book. If you don't want to, at least stop calling yourself a Marxist.
If your position is that socialism hasn't taken root anywhere, that makes Marx more "wrong," not less.
Do you honestly think this approach is going to get anything done? We need tens of millions of more leftists to bring socialism to the U.S. Are tens of millions of people going to respond to "look, I know you're lazy, but buck up and read this 150-year-old econ text and that will totally address your immediate material needs"?
What does this even mean? Did Marx make some kind of prediction like "we wiill have socialism in 50 years" or something?
It's a simple fact that you can't be a Marxist without reading Marx. That's what the argument is about. It seems you are ready to write a million excuses instead of just reading. And yes, laziness definitely plays a part here. I'm not expecting you to lead the revolution, and my version of praxis isn't forcing people to read Marx. You started the argument that reading Marx is not important. I simply said that means you're not a Marxist. This seems to bother you for reason. You want to call yourself a Marxist without doing what is possibly the most basic thing to call yourself a Marxist. The reason is that Marxism has a privileged position in the Left, so people use Marx to give weight to some of the dumbest ideas ("China will be socialist by 2050 because Marx said to develop productive forces" or "we need the state to control all production") . I'm going to keep cajoling people into reading Marx, because it always ends up with that person developing a better and more nuanced understanding of capitalism and socialism. It also tends to cure people of their whatever -ism they identify with.
How is this any different from "you can't buy into Newtonian physics without reading Newton's original papers"?
What textbook have you read that explains Marx's ideas? Practically all books have some kind of revisionism or inserts the authors own ideas into it.
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:
Did we just have a struggle session with a mutually productive conclusion?
That's just a conversation, comrade.
:heart-sickle: