• roux [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    In my opinion, people easily fall into idealist critiques of Marxists if they don’t read Marx.

    All. The. Time. It’s why I mostly don’t even bother arguing with people who won’t even at least attempt to read Marx or any theory. LIke, don’t even throw dialectics in the mix. I just want these people to grasp the basics instead of running to cliches and fallacies.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I have been weening off of the debate-broing (even though I still do it i-love-not-thinking ) but I think clearly pointing out the court jesters for Imperialism, the “left” anticommunists that don’t understand the very beginnings of Marxism yet claim to be critiquing Socialist movements “from the left” is invaluable for leading other people to theory and radicalization.

      I have no belief that Flying Squid will become a Marxist after this, but maybe one or two libs were SWCC-pilled when they saw my dunk on a Lemmy.world post, and may reconsider their anti-PRC stance in the future. Just a small hope. denguin

        • Cowbee [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Same here! I almost think reading just a bit of Marx does more harm than good, because idealism and liberalism fills in the gaps if you don’t thoroughly purge them with an understanding of Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, rather than the usual path of understanding his critique of Capitalism and advocacy for collective ownership. A liberal and idealist analysis results in the weird ultra-Maoist liberal takes from people like Flying Squid, they don’t even like Mao so what did they want to happen? Magic Marxism to elevate the productive forces? People to legitimately stay poor under a system without private property, but little productive forces to begin with?

          People who think you must go through Capitalism to get to Communism are wrong, of course, but so is the idea that a Dictatorship of the Proletariat carefully managing and pruning a market economy is suddenly Capitalist because there’s Private Property.

          deng-drip

          • heggs_bayer [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            12 hours ago

            I almost think reading just a bit of Marx does more harm than good, because idealism and liberalism fills in the gaps if you don’t thoroughly purge them with an understanding of Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, rather than the usual path of understanding his critique of Capitalism and advocacy for collective ownership.

            You get this a lot with people reading only the Manifesto and dismissing Marxism as childish.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              edit-2
              12 hours ago

              Flashbacks to Jordan Peterson v Zizek

              Not that Zizek is a Marxist, he’s a Hegelian idealist and a court jester for Imperialism, but Peterson literally asserted that the Manifesto was the core document to Marxism, and not, you know, Capital peterson-pain zizek-preference marx-guns-blazing

            • roux [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              10 hours ago

              This is why when I suggest texts, I give a damn list lol. You can’t know it all by just reading the Manifesto. I also specify that my list is an intro. I haven’t read it all and don’t know it all but I have stuff I can suggest to get the ball rolling if they are willing to put in the effort.