“Read theory.”

We say this all the time. It’s basically an expression, isn’t it? It can be advise, bragging, scorn, mockery. It’s all become a bit ephemeral.

That’s not to say that people shouldn’t read theory. Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. Even so, isn’t it a bit silly to suggest, even implicitly, that being a Marxist or communist boils down to a familiarity with the source material? If that’s not book worship, I don’t know what is.

I understand that this is, on some level, an accusation. I am suggesting that many of our communities are caught up in a somewhat liberal, idealist mindset. We all have an ideology, a set of opinions about the world which we express and propagate at the expense of our competitors. Can we seriously deny this is what we are doing?

If Marxism-Leninism is a science, there must be some technical aspect. What are we supposed to do in the world? How do we do it? And how do we know if it’s working?

  • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    If Marxism-Leninism is a science, there must be some technical aspect. What are we supposed to do in the world? How do we do it? And how do we know if it’s working?

    Check out the book The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-Leninism it covers this in its intro:

    The word “science,” and, by extension, “scientific” in Marxism-Leninism has spe- cific meaning. Friedrich Engels was the first to describe the philosophy which he devel- oped with Marx as “Scientific Socialism” in his book Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. However, it should be noted that the English phrase “scientific socialism” comes from Engels’ use of the German phrase “wissenschaftlich sozialismus.”

    “Wissenschaft” is a word which can be directly translated as “knowledge craft” in German, and this word encompasses a much more broad and general concept than the word “science” as it’s usually used in English. In common usage, the word “science” in English has a relatively narrow definition, referring to systematically acquired, objective knowledge pertaining to a particular subject. But “wissenschaft” refers to a systematic pursuit of knowledge, research, theory, and understanding. “Wissenschaft” is used in any study that involves system- atic investigation. And so, “scientific socialism” is only an approximate translation of “wissenschaftlich sozialismus.” So, “scientific socialism” can be understood as a body of theory which analyzes and interprets the natural world to develop a body of knowl- edge, which must be constantly tested against reality, with the pursuit of changing the world to bring about socialism through the leadership of the proletariat.

    The book focuses on, as it says on the tin, The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-Leninism. It wants you to understand the philosophical methodology behinds Marxism-Leninism. Its a translation of a Vietnamese college course on ML theory that is required study for all college students.

    So you must strive to have a Marxist-Leninist Worldview (The whole of an individual’s or society’s opinions and conceptions about the world, about humans ourselves, and about life and the position of human beings in the world.) and to build that worldview within you requires reading theory. You want to test your worldview against objective reality often and regularly.

  • Camarada ForteA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    8 months ago

    If Marxism-Leninism is a science, there must be some technical aspect. What are we supposed to do in the world? How do we do it? And how do we know if it’s working?

    The whole point of Marxism-Leninism is not to ‘make’ a revolution, but to prepare the conditions for revolution. We shouldn’t expect everyone to read theory, theory is just for the vanguard. But Marxists-Leninists should focus on improving mass consciousness before anything else. Every action should be subordinated to this particular task. An organization should exist solely for that purpose, until the task is achieved

    • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I think “prepare” isn’t the right word here. Capitalism creates or “prepares” the material conditions for revolution. ML theory is a philosophical methodology to help you analyze your country’s and community’s specific material conditions and adapting you’re revolutionary praxis to those conditions. Each revolution will be colored by its specific material conditions and without a systematic approach you might miss the path forward. We do not set the conditions for revolution. We identify those conditions, through application of theory, and use that information to build a revolutionary movement.

      • Camarada ForteA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        Capitalism creates or “prepares” the material conditions for revolution.

        Each revolution will be colored by its specific material conditions

        We do not set the conditions for revolution. We identify those conditions, through application of theory

        It’s true that we do not set the conditions for the revolution. But only a half-truth. There are material, but also subjective conditions. If the people disapproves the revolutionary movement, it won’t ever succeed. And even some material conditions are in our control, the extent of the organization of the revolutionary movement is a material thing. There are people involved.

        Every revolutionary movement in the past featured intellectual, military leadership of groups of people or organizations. It’s our responsibility to prepare these conditions for revolution. But the revolution itself won’t happen by our choice.

        • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes we agree. Your comment is an expanded version of what I meant by “We identify those conditions, through application of theory, and use that information to build a revolutionary movement.

          What you’re describing is praxis, the act of engaging with the material world so as to change it. The material world includes these “subjective conditions” you’re taking about. Those conditions are the hearts and minds of other people, and through practical activity in the world we shape and change the world.

          Material Conditions are just the conditions under which the intellectual or military or working class or petty bourgeoisie groups live under. We must be able to identify how these groups are uniquely exploited. Then, take that information and use it to build solidarity across those groups.

          Obviously were both being a bit pedantic with language here lol, but I often feel that specificity of language is important because we do not want to have misunderstandings, which is easy to do when words can have domain specific meanings and more general meanings.

  • FanonFan [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    8 months ago

    Gotta read history in tandem with theory. We don’t have time to reinvent the wheel for every movement. Learning about the nitty gritty details of past experiments is one of the first steps towards building our own experiments. I think a lot of the problems on the left stem from consuming abstract theory without understanding the material conditions from which the theory was refined.

  • m5rki5n
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    8 months ago

    “Read theory”, to me, is a first but very important step. The more people read theory, the more people really understand why the movement exists. Unfortunately, after we actually read it, not everyone can put it into practice.

    Person who read the books might not have union in his workplace, or being a communist in his environment is really unpopular and could harm him physically or mentally. In this situation, what can he actually do? How can he put theory into practice? And that, to me, the question majority of communists deal with all the time.

    In this situation, the best way to utilise knowledge we got is to share it, try to push our ideas into masses because red scare didn’t go anywhere, myths about USSR, China, communism are still here and although they look more like a rotten corpse than actual arguments, people still fucking use them.

    And that’s what most of us already do, which is great. I personally do it all the time, but it is not easy, even family members (or especially them) could be really hard to convince that communism will not take their food or make them all use the same toothbrush.

    Trying to make people understand, or even listen, is not an easy and a very lengthy process. Some give up, some push forward, but if you don’t have any other means to help the movement, what can you actually do?

  • ghost_of_faso2
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    Unions, orgs, local communtiy organizing.

    Start there, share your theory within those; you will find applying theory to real life, accessable things that you can go out and do tomorrow will be best suited to these three things; Used well they will propel any project you put your theory into, as they work and are accurate in modern day conditions.

  • birdcat@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    i tried reading das kapital multiple times, 1 book by lenin 1 time and always failed in under 10 pages. has this happened to you too? if yes, try stalin! (not claiming he was the best or smartest theorist or whatever, and i dont claim to understand “communist science”, but this dude knew how to summarize and explain complicated shit)

    • deathtoreddit
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      What’s wrong with Lenin’s writing style… It seems as understandable as Stalin’s

    • OhHiMarx
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      There’s not a lot of reason to read Capital unless you’re academically interested in all of the details therein; there are good summaries and explanations of that work that are less cumbersome and more relevant to our current time. I’m not saying people shouldn’t read it, just that it’s pretty dense and not really something that should be considered absolutely mandatory for understanding.

      Much of what Lenin wrote, however, is a different story. State and Revolution, for example, is short and easy to read and understand. Even someone who has trouble reading could finish it an afternoon, it’s like 100 pages. Just reading 10-15 pages a day - which should be trivially easy - will have it finished in no time. It’s hard to believe someone couldn’t get through a dozen pages of it at a time unless they’re very lazy.

  • amemorablename
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Theory, and along with it, a crystallizing of what your core motives are (supporting the working class, supporting the colonized and siding with their liberation efforts) seem important for grounding your ideology in more than empathy (where a lot of everyday liberals end up). I mean, empathy is critical. There is a reason The Black Panther Party did their breakfast program for kids and that much of organizing begins with building material support networks locally. But if all you have is empathy and no theory, you get a lot of this sort of, “People should be nicer to each other. How? Idk, we’ll raise them to be nicer and put ‘be nice’ posters everywhere I guess. Or maybe we’ll throw some money at charity without examining the power dynamics that go into such structures.”

    Theory helps us understand power dynamics, which is something that basic empathy doesn’t do. This is something liberals can be a bit shy about at times. “You mean you want to take that power stuff extremely seriously? That’s kind of scary.” One class’s interests over another. Caste divides and how those inform interests. Why it is that someone who can readily agree with you on one issue with little effort can come to such different conclusions on another issue, some of which is a difference in their position in class or caste.

    Then there is dialectics, which at least in western imperial core discourse (I can’t speak for elsewhere) may need a lot more attention, with regards to making it more easy to understand and learn about. I’ve grappled with it some, but I still feel like I don’t quite understand the extent of what is being said there. However, what seems evident to me from the amount I have grappled with it is that it is perhaps the most important component of theory and a component that you are not likely to find in the imperialist educational systems much at all. Understanding the nature of contradictions and how they interact together seems the most fundamentally grounded away from idealism; you are looking in and examining how things develop and how to grapple with those developments, rather than simply trying to impose an external ideal through sheer force of will. Not to be confused with incrementalist electoralism under imperialism, which is more like saying, “Never do anything too disruptive.” Dialectics recognizes that the contradictions will sometimes lead to, sometimes must lead to, very disruptive developments.

    I feel like I’m only brushing the surface of these points, but I offer them as something to consider for “why theory” and what value there is to be had in it, along with what practice can look like.

  • Walter Water-Walker
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    There is a dialectic between theory (or head knowledge) and practice. To be a Marxist is to do both things, working through that dialectic to evolve yourself as a practicianer. Additionally, to be a Marxist in practice necessitates interaction with an organized group of other Marxists. This interaction will challenge you to resolve conflicts between ideas, theories, strategies and so forth and develop a practical version of democratic centralism for your organization.

    Those who think that Marxism is just learning theory aren’t actually practicing Marxism. They become purists and commit the error of dogmatism. Many Trotskyists fall into this camp (I won’t say all Trotskyists, but I’m still looking for counter-examples). It’s why a Trotskyists probably knows Marxist theory better than I do but is also the most useless leftist on the planet (and can often even become useful to the bourgeoisie!).

    If you only ever read theory and do not put it into practice, you are simply doing so for some personal reasons, like to feel smarter than others because you have an insecurity. This is not just useless but dangerous because people like this can sound really smart and like they know what they’re talking about for new leftists. But because they offer no real solution to the material problems of those around them nor any practical avenues for the proletariat to direct their anger and pain from capitalism towards revolutionary action, it drains the energy away from more serious praxis.

    Praxis is the hard part. It’s why many don’t do it. But it’s what actually makes any of this make sense.

    “The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” — Karl Marx