I like the anarchist tendency to encourage thinking for yourself because I think outsourcing political opinions and generally the narrative that politics is too complicated for the layman to fully grasp goes a long way in enabling a world where everything is treated as sophistry leaving gaps for people to blindly follow ideologues. Something similar happened with science and now we have folks ‘debating’ things that are clear as day if you just look.
Encouraging each person to think for themselves isn’t to say everyone should live in a private conspiracy. I think everyone should take a course in propositional logic or higher because it truly helps your brain sort through information more clearly and quicker, and makes you much sharper at catching sophistry.
In ourselves we should try to note when we hit that point in an argument when we are arguing just to win. At that point we should (potentially apologize) and bow out. Arguing just to win is unhelpful.
Theory is much more helpful once you have your feet under you. You are committed to dignity for all. That is a strong position to assess the world from. The categories are quite clear. Once you are here reading theory, especially examples of successful revolutionary projects, helps you understand the types of tools and approaches you might use (or avoid) to bring about change. It also saves lives to avoid strategies that commonly fail.
Neither theory nor science should be gatekept, but that doesn’t mean studying both aren’t still necessary.
Agreed, I just think we need to nurture how people relate to/ground their opinions before theory can take root properly. Currently both science and politics are treated like sophistry—it’s all a matter of argument
What I think is especially unhelpful is people who have not read enough theory to understand what they are talking about (let alone considered it in the context it was written), but they are passionate about an issue so they try to debate people using the logic of that theory and they end up just making the theory seem like nonsense because they didn’t understand it. Only in the context of debate does it make sense to argue for a theory you don’t really grasp. Debate is about winning an argument but not about what is ‘true’ or ‘right’. I would rather that person just stick to their guns on the basics of whatever the argument is over (ie. genocide is bad no exceptions). This way they stand firmly on their own feet but can also have confidence in their reasons even without a nuanced historical perspective of how things got to where they are.
Anyway I love reading and discussing theory and philosophy (including your guides) and find it extremely rich and rewarding. It should be used as fodder to help you think rather than a guidebook to inform what you should think.
What I think is especially unhelpful is people who have not read enough theory to understand what they are talking about (let alone considered it in the context it was written), but they are passionate about an issue so they try to debate people using the logic of that theory and they end up just making the theory seem like nonsense because they didn’t understand it.
This is very common, well said! And thanks for the complement. My goal is mostly to make sure people unify theory and practice, theory is a guide to action.
I think there’s a decent proposition you could offer to people, who either don’t want to study theory or do that much praxis (which is a bit misleading because they’re both praxis) and that is to build a strong party structure.
100 people going into their own adventures and randomly forming parties, with similar ambitions, is good. It’s additive forces. A highly organized group of 10 cadres functioning in lockstep is excellent. It’s multiplicative forces.
Not only that, but each of the cadres can take command of the semi-organized adventurers. But the tricky part is I don’t know how to propagate this better, in our current environment. For instance, there’s a decent argument to be made how neo-liberalism erodes ones sense of self, which makes teaching alternative viewpoint really difficult. I hear a lot of talk about the problems of illiteracy, but we also have to remember the masses have been alienated more than ever. Of course it depends on the country, all of them are different, but in the “West” in the core countries of Empire the masses are very alienated and illiterate. At least from my experience, but it could be wrong too.
Maybe the material conditions simply make it impossible to bring the theory with praxis together, for now. It’s hard to imagine there to not be at least one decent group who knows how to do this, but they probably lack the means, would be my guess. Hopefully in the future that gets resolved.
Would be a fun experiment!
We need good analysis to guide good praxis, but you can literally learn a lot of more advanced stuff from just listening to comrades, even if reading with comrades is even better.
You can’t read a revolution into existence, but you can’t have a successful revolution without properly preparing for it and studying revolution. You wouldn’t want someone to perform surgery just because they want to help, they will almost certainly end up doing more harm than good. Revolution is the same way, we stand against the most brutal global system of imperialism, we must be prepared for it!
If anyone wants a place to start with theory, I wrote a new basic Marxist-Leninist study guide. Give it a look!
I appreciate the effort and I will check it out. However imo the original works (ie Marx, Engels, Lenin) are too dense for a begginer, I feel there has to be a softer learning curve, with more digested content. For example I’m reading the Vietnamese textbook and I think it does a very good job at explaining excerpts of the originals in accessible language. Denser doesn’t mean more accurate or better in all cases, just generally harder to read.
The Vietnamese textbook is phenomenal! It doesn’t touch the areas my list goes into though, and just focuses on dialectical materialism, historical materialism, and political economy.
Hey, I’m having the same issue with the denser works — what’s the name of the vietnamese textbook?
0·28 days agoPresumably “The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-Leninism”
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Curriculum_of_the_Basic_Principles_of_Marxism-Leninism_Part_1
Thanks.
This is again part of the problem. You can understand the fundamentals of ML in like an hour or less. A quick start guide being like 12 hours long is insane.
I don’t think that’s accurate, though. How do you explain dialectical materialism, historical materialism, imperialism, why capitalism is fundamentally unsustainable, revolutionary strategy, and more in under an hour?
However else you explain any other concept, these are very simple ideas.
How so? How can you simplify them to take less than an hour?
Explaining it to them without the fluff?
Elaborate, how do you explain all of them in under an hour, even without fluff?
What are you asking for? Like my method of teaching?
You can definitely explain most of those in a way a 5 year old could understand in under 20 minutes.
Not dialectical materialism though. I’ve read about it and had it explained to me more time than I can count, and my brain refuses to hold on to what it means.
From a Marxist-Leninist: there are some Marxist authors contesting the emphasis on the “dialectics” part of dialectical materialism. Paul Cockshott is a good example, you can search for Cockshott’s criticism of dialectical materialism, maybe if the concepts don’t stick to you you could have a more Newtonian materialist view
I wrote a basic guide on dialectical materialism. It’s missing a ton, but should be enough to hopefully make it make sense to start off with.
Thanks. I’ll try it, but I have zero faith it’ll stick this time 😅
Haha, no worries! Really, it’s about materialism in outlook, dialectics in method. The rest follows from there!
I read it. I’ve been reading a lot of complex systems science lately, and it seems to have a lot of overlap, so perhaps it will stick a bit harder this time. Thanks :)
I’ve read about it and had it explained to me more time than I can count, and my brain refuses to hold on to what it means.
I had the same problem up in until I had Stalin explain it to me:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
(It’s short, to the point and when one “hence” paragraph after the other comes, you will start to understand)
Alternativly if you’re not the reading type:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HAEgTPK-oiU
(Taken from a vietnamese schoolbook)
I’m starting to think you’re a fed. The dedication with which you’re telling people not to study Marxism is very unusual. I’ve never seen any leftist so militantly defend not educating oneself
Stop avoiding your homework OP, read the damn theory!
Knowledge is important, but values and character are more so, IMO. Many complex ideas are founded on the belief of/are distilled from basic humanity.
To be fair, big shoots has a very broad definition of friend, which is what they replaced “someone” with
Surprise twist: I am aware anarchists like reading; I like reading; and I’m not actually an anarchist!
It’s just a fun meme making fun of upright overly intellectual Marxist-Leninists (that part is sincere).
I know, I like the meme, and we can have fun here :)
I can just beat someone with praxis. Take that, theorists!
Anarchists wrote books too ya know, you can’t just escape reading by changing your allegiance.
The only real problem with the people who don’t want to read theory is they just love talking over the people who did. The Dunning Kruger effect exists in revolutionary spaces.
Reading theory ≠ being highly competent, though. Dunning Kruger states that people with low competence (in specific areas) overestimate themselves, and highly competent people underestimate themselves.
Reading doesnt necessarily make you better at things (though obviously it can help). A community organizer that’s been feeding the hungry for 40 years but has never read a political book will be more competent than someone who’s read hundreds of books but never gone out and done stuff.
Both will be less effective than someone that balances both. It isn’t either-or, but both/and.
Food pantries and soup kitckens have been feeding the hungry for more than 40 years and yet none of those places brought about political revolution. This is why theory is not negligible. If you wanna simply help the poor then a soup kitchen is fine, if you want a revolution you’re going to need more than that.
Food pantries and soup kitckens have been feeding the hungry for more than 40 years and yet none of those places brought about political revolution
You, uh, might want to consider how that argument applies to reading theory. I’m all for people getting well-read, but if there is one thing that I’ve picked up from successful movements that bring change, it’s that diversity of tactics is required because there are no golden roads to getting the work done, and you need many people all working in the ways they can towards the results the collective desires.
Depends what yah read though, doesn’t it
The all theory and no action crowd are definitely more annoying and proficient at taking over spaces and killing the vibe, in my experience (e.g. socialist alternative here in Aus)
This is me. Not into all the political theory, just want my fellow human beings to be treated with dignity and for everyone to have a comfortable existence.
Reading theory helps teach us how to best make that a reality.
Yeah, but so does just doing it. And talking to people about how to do it. The point isn’t that people shouldn’t read, it’s that the should do (and shouldn’t be prevented from doing because they can’t or won’t read).
One could say the same of surgery, that you can learn by doing, but like surgery, without studying what has already been discovered, you’ll be hurting a lot of people unnecessarily to get there, taking a lot longer too. We need to do both.
Eh. That’s the difference between a complex system (politics) and a complicated system (the part of a human body where surgery is relevant). It’s easier to write a manual for a complicated system and have it be correct and valuable. Complex systems not so much, not lease because every context is different and local knowledge is extremely valuable.
I agree that theory is often useful. I don’t think it always is though, and I think it can be misleading and wrong for a long time without anyone really noticing. I mean… Neoliberal economics also has a lot of theory…
Theory is written with a purpose. Neoliberalism is wrong, but useful for maintaining capitalist hegemony. Correct theory is very useful.
The US military is always asking for recruits. If you don’t read, you won’t know that “helping them” means killing civilians.
Putting on my D.A.R.E. T-shirt and clutching my state issued copy of the Ten Commandments and snapping an Amazon Ring Camera on my front door, so I help the state identify any of those nasty, America hating Antifa I’ve been hearing so much about.
I’m helping!
“Wait a second…is that from the ‘83 tour?!”
I’m in this meme and I like it.
Remember kids, you can’t be a good communist if you don’t have any skills. We already have people well practised at arguing on the internet.
The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is universally applicable. We should regard it not as a dogma, but as a guide to action. Studying it is not merely a matter of learning terms and phrases but of learning Marxism-Leninism as the science of revolution. It is not just a matter of understanding the general laws derived by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin from their extensive study of real life and revolutionary experience, but of studying their standpoint and method in examining and solving problems.
What did you say? I can’t read
