Anti interlectualism is for losers
More hands make less work. Pitter patter.
Lets get at ‘er
I see letterkenny, I upvote letterkenny. I am a simple man.
andy how’s your sperms
I don’t get this. Can you explain this?
Oh sorry. In twin peaks, the character Andy has trouble with his sperms (and talks about it funny). Worth watching the show, if not just for that
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.
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.
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.
I can just beat someone with praxis. Take that, theorists!
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 :)
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!
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 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.
Hey, I’m having the same issue with the denser works — what’s the name of the vietnamese textbook?
Presumably “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.
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.
I’m in this meme and I like it.
“Wait a second…is that from the ‘83 tour?!”
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.
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)
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
I mean yes but also don’t be anti-intellectual if people have time they are plenty of books we should recommend.
I joined the anarchist revolution to lead, not to read. Wait, hang on…
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.
