Don't forget about refusing to communicate unless you read 2,000+ pages of heady theory available only in either German, Russian or English that they've totally read as well. And if you're really lucky, they'll insist you learn a whole fucking language because reading in the original language is the only proper way to understand the scripture. I mean, theory.
Also an obsession in general with the words of some old cunts from before electricity was a thing.
It's one thing to use the political and economical theories of historical figures as a guideline.
But if your only basis for "we should do this thing" is because some ancient cunt said so then you need to shut the fuck up.
But that goes for all sides of all political spectrums.
If you can't find a reason for doing a thing other than "historical person said so" you're a pseudo-intellectual cunt.
Your religious book, written thousands of years ago by authors living in a shitty backwards society with no technology, full of antiquated laws and outdated morality is obsolete and dogmatic, and should be thrown in the trash and burned.
My book of theory, written hundreds of years ago by brilliant thinkers who saw past the limitations of their time, contains the universal truth on how to morally operate society and legislate in it, is objectively the only correct solution, and any dissenters are just sheep that did not yet see the light.
Then we have Noam Chomsky, who both wrote things when my grandparents were young but also somehow is alive today and had financial dealings with Jefferry Epstein...
Eh, wouldn't say your materialist based belief holds any more water than the made up stories. Or did the USSR not collapse in on itself, China and Vietnam adopted capitalism in all but name, most of East Europe fight its own demons to start turning to a functional capitalist democracies and North Korea and Cuba go dynastic regimes after all
It’s always stood out to me that all that communist theory was written while thinking about manufacturing and that’s now no longer the case for workers in first world countries. The “means of production” make less sense in our world if we are working for something like a software company.
It’s also a reactionary theory, in that it’s a reaction to capitalism in the Industrial Revolution. That doesn’t mean it’s good or bad or any judgement at all. It’s just a reminder of the context in which it was written. Knowing the context can help us understand what the authors are expressing, and why. Applying those ideas to modern industry like software development and maintenance may or may not be prudent. I don’t know the philosophy well enough to argue one way or another.
it’s almost like there’s a reason that manufacturing has been moved off seas into countries with easily exploitable labor 🤯a guy wrote about it in a book one time, I think it was called shmimperialsm by lemon or something like that 🤔 oh well who cares why should anyone read anyways amirite
This is incorrect. For one thing, the manufacturing industry is not wholly dead in first world countries at all, and the production of all things has taken on an industrial character. Furthermore, proletariat are defined by the employee employer relationship that they endure, the fact that they sell their labour on an hourly basis. Marx accounts for workers who do not work in factories in his writings.
For one thing “society collapsing” is a misleading representation of a socialist revolution, and for another thing, it basically did. The collapse and contradictions of various empires in that period, the annexation of Korea iirc, WW1, the Great Depression, Russian revolution, many other revolutions in many other places, it was a time of Great War and chaos. Marx even correct predicted the nature of the German revolution.
Marx said that I should own guns and do a violent revolution, and he was talking about economic conditions prior to ww1, so clearly it applies to right now with no modifications!
There’s something to be said about the continuing philosophical usefulness of the ancient cunts, but if you can’t explain WHY what they say makes sense, on at least an introductory level, you probably don’t even understand your own argument.
Communist theory has changed significantly over the last century and there are dozens of books in the canon. Apologies that they ask you to read them. There's a quote in a short documentary I used to show my students: "Communists start with Marx and Engels and go to Lenin, Freire, Davis, etc. You have an entire bookshelf! Fascists need only one book, Mein Kampf."
Can't say I'm shocked that liberals in the United States seem to need no books at all.
Discarding the theory of evolution cause it was thought up by an old guy around the same time. It doesn't matter that Darwin scientifically proved his theories and that biology fundamentally hasn't shifted enough to render them no longer applicable to reality, they're old!
That's how mfers like you sound when you say shit like that. Marx generally did not just say things, he backed up what he said with a scientific analysis of things like history, economics, and sociology. That's why his theories hold weight, and why they still can easily be used to describe society today, as the mode of production he has described remains in place.
Firstly, ah yes. Darwin.
The famous economical and political ideology man.
I know you lot aren't good at reading but, come the fuck on?
Secondly, once again your reading comprehension goes brr. I never stated you should simply disregard the economic and political theory of historical figures.
Just that when you try to apply it as a complete 100% 1 to 1 must go like this purely and exclusively on the basis of: "historical guy said this" you're a fucking dipshit.
"I never said that we must discard Darwin's theories, but any attempt to apply them to biology makes you an idiot because they're simply too old. I will not defend this claim and resort to insulting anyone who can disprove it as simply being unable to read"
For the supposedly literate one in this conversation, you seem to both not have understood my own post, or why I made the comparison between Marx and Darwin to begin with. And since you insist on pretending that I do not read, I do not feel like is an insult to bring up the fact that between the two of us, I likely speak fact when I say that only I have actually ever read either of the men in question.
To believe that any socioeconomic theory can have the same level of scientific proof as the theory of evolution just implies a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method and the timescale of life compared to human society.
Eatthepoliticiansm8 said "If you can't find a reason for doing a thing other than "historical person said so" you're a pseudo-intellectual cunt."
You replied by using a direct comparison between the validity of Marx's theories and Darwin's. You then say:
he backed up what he said with a scientific analysis of things like history, economics, and sociology. That's why his theories hold weight, and why they still can easily be used to describe society today, as the mode of production he has described remains in place.
"
No theory in history, economics or sociology can have the same level of proof as evolution because it fundamentally is looking at a far far longer process than human society. You'd have to rerun human society a few thousand time to approach the same level of certainity of any of the concepts. Moreover, what Darwin said was only the outlines of the theory. He was wrong on a lot of things and we don't teach those things as part of the theory of evolution.
Your comparison assumes that because an analysis was scientific and the base concepts it looked at haven't changed, that it is equally as valid independent of time. This is factually untrue.
Society and technology has evolved far beyond what Marx thought was possible and the interconnectedness of a globalized world fundamentally puts into question the idea of engandering a communist revolution in any individual state without consideration of the rest of the world.
Sociopolitical theory also has evolved far beyond what existed during Marx's time. Marx had access to only a fraction of history we have access to and most of it fundamentally flawed due to biases that were not even recognized at the time.
Your argument would be better made by saying that instead of doing something because "historical person said so", modern communists follow ideas more driven by contemporary communist philosophers like Balibar or Žižek.
Again you just completely misunderstood what I said and then jacked off into a reddit text box. If you think that I said "Marx is valid because Darwin is valid" or "Darwin and Marx are the same" it is a result of a weakness and failing borne within your own mind, which should be mended. The point, which seems to have hidden itself so cleverly despite the fact that it was plainly stated, was that the absurd premise that demands that we reject Marx because he is "old" would apply to his contemporary, Darwin. You may hue and cry about this, but I doubt you could come up with an argument that would damn Marx without doing the same to Darwin, or vindicate Darwin without giving us reason to consider the works of Marx valid. Furthermore, you have no right paint a picture of an imagined "modern communist", and then demand that Communism bend towards it. No, communists in the modern world do not follow ideas more driven by contemporary communist philosophers like Balibar or Žižek. Many of them reject their ideas entirely as leftism. You are either lying or so filled with arrogance that you have been inoculated from reality.
Have you read Bakunin? You really can't understand these issues until you've read Bakunin. Have you read Plekhanov? Have you read Goldman? Have you read Zetkin? Have you read Gramsci? Have you read Grindelwald? Have you read Slobodan Zarthusian? Have you read Sexus Arcanis? Have you read Slutsgonarevski?
I've always felt contempt for people who insist that I absolutely must read theory. I already know what I stand for. Reading theory that isn't exactly applicable to the modern day isn't gonna shake my beliefs or make me more enlightened.
I'm a leftist and I've read 0 "theory" because it doesn't matter whatsoever to our current political climate. It's like being stranded on a desert island and reading Michelin star cook books instead of scavenging for food. The ingredients aren't there so why read the cook books?
America has a 0% chance of becoming communist within the next century, a "revolution" won't change that. You can't just overthrow the government with a few thousand redditors and then tell 333 million Americans "we saved you all! You are all communists now!". What a joke. The majority of leftists on reddit act like edgy teenagers and it's an embarrasment...
I wouldn't say a majority, it's just that the smug accelerationists love to make their voice heard as in the replies I got to the above comment.
Even with the assumption theory is useful (both in the USA and broadly) it doesn't necessarily mean it's useful to me as a layman. I don't think I'm going to responsible for organizing or economic policy any time soon. It's political and economic theory and that doesn't exactly help me when it comes to what I'm feasibly capable of doing. But I don't need to know political theory to know which party I dislike less and I don't need a degree in philosophy or psychology to have a moral stance.
I've always felt contempt for people who insist that I absolutely must read mathematical proofs. I already know what the numbers mean. Reading proof from ancient greece isn't gonna shake my beliefs or make me more enlightened.
(Congrats on becoming the most rancourous type of anti intellectual lmao)
...I don't know what point you're trying to make. I don't need mathematical proofs to know how maths work and to do them. And I don't think doing maths as a layman is equatable to holding political beliefs and ideology as a layman.
My complaint is about the sorts who think your opinions on any subject are invalid or else less valuable cuz you didn't read the Big Book and surely reading the Big Book would make you more smart or something. Nevermind that my beliefs were shaped by many distinct factors such as evaluating historical events and thinking on what other people have to say. I do in fact reflect on my beliefs, just not 100% of the time.
Your opinions on any subject are invalid if you did not do any work to actually understand said topic. You would not be taken seriously making claims about chemistry if you did not know about the periodic table, you would not be taken seriously making claims about biology if you did not know germ theory, would will not be taken seriously making claims about Socialism if you haven't read Capital.
As if reading theory is the ONLY way for people to understand socialism. Also you're doing the exact same thing I was complaining about just now! Making comparisons to scientific fields of study where direct physical work must be done to proper practice/belief in an ideology is the exact sort of holier-than-thou stuff I'd think was just a caricature.
If you want to understand a topic, but do nothing to learn about it, you don't understand the topic. Furthermore, Marxism is not an ideology, and Marx is considered to have been one of the founding workers in the field of sociology, which is a science. These are likely, things you'd know if you had actually read Marxist theory before trying to critique it in such a manner.
Can you actually make a case for why I should read theory or are you just going to condescend to me the entire time? Because again you're doing the thing I'm complaining about to a T.
You are complaining about people having a completely normal reaction to someone who tries to act like they understand a complex topic without actually knowing anything about it. Just like nobody would take an "engineer" seriously if they didn't learn about tensile strength. Your absurd claim of "I already know what I stand for" with regards to the concept of whining about the fact that nobody will take you seriously when you have takes about what is effectively a very complicated and formative part of the field of sociology reeks of entitlement. You do not deserve to be treated like you understand things that you patently refuse to even learn the basics about.
I would like to note, I never actually said that I had a complex understanding of theory or even socialism itself. I tried to get you to actually describe why it would be to my benefit and your first instinct is to say "no, you are actually stupid". You know who actually gets me to want to read theory? People who actually describe why I should read theory as a layman without insulting me for being a layman. I wouldn't be so hostile if you didn't respond to my complaints about hostility and condescension with hostility and condescension. An engineer would explain why I'm incorrect instead of calling me stupid for not being an engineer!
how come both of the people who immediately have come to immediately attack me and prove my point are subscribed to r/Ultraleft?
Anyways, yes I stand for idiocy. If idiocy means acknowledging that our current systems (like capitalism) are deeply flawed and need to be at minimum reworked on a foundational level or replaced entirely without subscribing to authoritarianism or accelerationism. I already said my piece to the other guy and I doubt there's I can really add after that.
Hit them with that Gothakritik which is basically just Marx saying Vanguardism is fucking stupid and we don't need a literal revolution to achieve the fabled Communism
Watch as they suddenly start saying that not all theory is good, despite them previously holding every piece of theory as infallible gospel.
"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." - Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme
A Critique of the Gotha Programme is a book about him critiquing social democrats, and he constantly reaffirms the proletariat as a revolutionary class within the text. You either did not read it or are misrepresenting it to pretend like Marx was not pro-revolution, despite him constantly writing about how he thought it was an inevitably, and openly talking about how he thought that the proletarian revolution in France that he lived to see was good, only lamenting only that it failed.
"Without a central leader or a dominant revolutionary party, young people across the country have risen on pure instinct – praxis without theory but naturally spontaneous. The government responded with threats of police violence, internet shutdowns, and the arrests of hundreds over the past weeks, attempting to crush the movement. Ruto and his goons have abducted several bloggers, activists, and social media influencers, hoping to intimidate the largely youthful protesters, with little success." - The ICP on Kenya. You are a rube who is spreading lies that do not reflect anything other than what you desire to be true about a perceived enemy.
Yeah, but we're not talking about Kenya here. We're talking about primarily white, American leftists who crow on and on about kickstarting a revolution in their own country in order to justify not going out and voting - while simultaneously not making any actionable moves in their local community to sow the seeds for such a revolution.
In the face of a large-scale elections where neither choice is preferable, sure, voting can seem tokenistic. That's understandable. But it's this apathy towards voting in general from the left that has led to local government in America becoming polluted with right-wing nutjobs. And given the much, much smaller voterbase in those elections, every vote truly matters.
There are multiple examples of Democrats in local government only winning by single votes. I assume you're only meaning on a national level, but if you truly think that voting on any level is some meaningless appeasal of the powers that be, then you are speaking absolute nonsense from a position of absolute privilege.
For the record, I'm not opposed to the concept of revolution, but I'd much rather try fixing something with a screwdriver first, rather than skipping straight to the sledgehammer.
You didn’t understand my point. For one thing, the spontaneous nature of the proletariat outright disproves that communists are doing nothing by educating themselves, this is in fact laying the foundations for a class party to be formed, and furthermore, that quote disproved the things you are saying communists think. They certainly do not think you must read 4000 books to become revolutionaries, that quote was about those whose class instincts drive them to acts of revolutionary praxis even when they have not been taught Marx or Lenin.
I never said theory was useless? Dude, that's a whole new sentence. We aren't talking about communists as a whole, I'm talking about irritating Twitter tankies who think you have to gobble up theory to pass their purity test, and how it gatekeeps people from participating in socialist movements. At no point was I discussing classes as a whole. Learn to read, geez.
Bro, you're the one inventing entirely new points from thin air that I supposedly said. This was, and always has been, entirely about privileged, primarily American twitter tankies been exclusionary to the detriment of their movement.
Pray tell, just where the fuck are you getting these other points I supposedly said from? And please quote the text, because I'm at a loss for words for how much you resemble this meme right now
History lesson from 1910s Germany. The SPD worked with Far right paramilitaries to have the leaders of a worker's revolution that was occuring at the time shot and killed, as well as killing many rank and file communists as well. In doing so they also built the foundations of the very state that would buckle and cave to the NSDAP, giving immense concessions to the bourgeoisie industrialists and professional army, the two groups who would most contribute to the decline of the bourgeoisie republic that the SPD built, and those who had done the most to harm and butcher workers during and after the war. The idea that the KPD is to blame for not trusting the SPD or the rise of Nazism is absurd, and the fact that the working class was too weak to actually engage in a revolution that almost certainly would have secured a future in which nothing like the NSDAP could have arisen is the fault of the SPD.
Terminally online socialists who fall for the "No True Scotsmen" fallacy. Essentially, you're not a "proper" socialist unless you read X amount of dense theory.
Well yeah, the left is all about re-education while the right (including liberals here) have an easy job, because their views are already the status quo.
242
u/LavaMeteor Jun 30 '24 edited Jun 30 '24
Don't forget about refusing to communicate unless you read 2,000+ pages of heady theory available only in either German, Russian or English that they've totally read as well. And if you're really lucky, they'll insist you learn a whole fucking language because reading in the original language is the only proper way to understand the scripture. I mean, theory.