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.
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?
would you also try to cure cancer while ignoring all the research published on it?
Yhea, it’s easy! If a patient asks you for help: you help them
Username is kinda on the money.
Look at you cashing in for some easy puns
When you’re given the layup, you take it.
Counterpoint, you can understand the core points of socialism very quickly. One need not read 50 books before joining the conversation.
Right, but then you need to know how to make a proper analysis grounded in material reality, identify the main contradiction and organize effectively. All of this can’t be taught instantaneously. Especially when someone isn’t class conscious and has no background in leftist struggle. How do you explain to some sheltered worker that’s doing more or less well what imperialism is, what it does, why it should matter to them even if they’ve been trained to think exploitation abroad is justified, how do you help them become effective in their organizing?
I come from a leftist background, I grew up hearing words like neocolonialism and understanding what they meant, I worked with a leftist (but not communist) org in the past, and even then there’s a whole lot I didn’t know or understand, and what helped me was to sit down to read and listen to my comrades. We can’t build socialism just with vibes and ideals, we need to be grounded in reality.
I posted the meme as a lighthearted joke, but if I can be serious for a moment, the joke isn’t that reading isn’t useful. It’s ridiculing the practice of approaching Marxist texts in a way similar to religious or academic study. It’s also (lovingly) ridiculing mutual aid radicals with an overly simplistic worldview.
Reading is good. Although I recommend people read the things that they’re interested in and that they think would help them in their goals, and not fall into the practice of assigning other people reading or falling into a mentality of chasing after a complete understanding of subjects no one can ever understand to completion.
Why wouldn’t learning about politics in depth be like academic study, though? Learning about basically anything in depth is academic study. Sure, there are valid forms of investigation or knowledge which have been shut out from academia, but even if your preferred version of knowledge is more intuitive and experience based, eventually you’ve still got to share it with people and writing is much more efficient in reaching people than one-on-one.
Marxist texts should be studied academically and scientifically, but not dogmatically and inflexibly. Marxism is a science, not a dogma. Not everyone needs to read theory and be a revolutionary, such would mean revolution is impossible. However, if one is to be a revolutionary, they must read theory so as to guide their practice.
Firstly, by not intimidating them with a book list
If someone can’t bother to read a single Parenti book, or even just listen to their comrades, I believe the main issue is a lack of motivation and commitment, not accessibility. No one expects you to read das Kapital before getting involved.
Some people aren’t readers for reasons other than lack of commitment. This isn’t welcoming.
That’s why I said:
or even just listen to their comrades
But those of us who can read should so we can be as effective as possible.
deleted by creator
Wrong
Counterpoint, you can understand the core points of socialism very quickly
Disagree. We have been subjected to 100 years of anticommunist propaganda, you need a lot of study of theory and history to overcome that
The US military is always asking for recruits. If you don’t read, you won’t know that “helping them” means killing civilians.
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.
Depends what yah read though, doesn’t it
Are there no anarchist books? I’m pretty sure there are and anarchy doesn’t mean willful ignorance.
It’s technically a work of fiction but The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin can maybe be considered an anarchist book. It does a deep delve into an anarchist society and how it could theoretically be organized. In my opinion it could also be interpreted as a critique, but I think it’s stronger for it.
On one hand it is incredibly funny that after such question only two books and one movie got mentioned by title in thread and two of which are a work of fiction, but then again, LeGuin is still better than Proudhon lol.
On the other hand, this anarchist society in Disposessed is a pretty good analogy in how it is essentially entirely on the mercy of the people on the Urras. Even the anarchist utopia is vulnerable. Also for some weird reason Anarres seems to represent USSR since it existence means states on Urras are giving workers some rights, analogically to Western Europe building social nets.
Fantastic book! For anyone interested, you can read it here.
Being on the receiving end of crowd control munitions is certainly a better education then any book.
If you’re curious about theory there’s tons of alternatives to books: podcasts, film, public speeches, community training/workshops, etc.
My suggestion is Women’s War by Robert Evans on Behind the Bastards. I also suggest pretty much anything on https://channelzeronetwork.com/
If someone just shows up and participates with an open mind they’re doing more than most. Anyone who would gatekeep because you didn’t read such and such text should be promptly told to fuck right off because that’s a caustic hierarchical bullshit appeal to false authority and kills engagement.
If you need a (text)book try The Ecology of Freedom - Bookchin. You could probably find other books here too https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-the-ecology-of-freedom
If you’re curious about theory there’s tons of alternatives to books: podcasts, film
Lol
Robert Evans
LOL
Removed by mod
Reality:
bro wat - I’m yet to see a socialist party group turn up to an anti-fash protest and put themselves in harms way to protect vulnerable groups instead of standing on the side lines selling political newspapers and dipping out as soon as their leaders decide they’d like to go home
There are plenty of Socialist revolutions but they happen outside of the first world. Coincidentally anticolonial movements are often opposed by Anarchist because the victims aren’t perfect enough.
on the side lines selling political newspapers
Anarchist 'zines are literally a meme term
yeah that’s fair - but I feel they serve different purposes?
like I see anarchism as a form of counterbalance to state power irrespective of where it is - without needing to be dogmatic
as in undeniably Uruguay is materially much better now than its ever been (while still being at the peak of it’s colonial project even under socialist governance)
same with Bolivia giving relative power to indigenous peoples while improving living conditions even under a corrupt government
neither is perfect but vastly better than western powers seizing their resources and wage enslaving their populations - same goes for other socialist Global South countries
and yet I see the value of anarchist “purity” criticism in that it should continue to challenge all governments when the time is right - even socialist ones - as at the end of the day we all want a stateless society - and until then I dont see why anarchism and socialism can’t strive to achieve that through productive structural tension?
Anarchists are a lot better than Liberals. But when push comes to shove, such as Iran getting invaded, many Anarchists are all too happy to hop on the imperialist fence and hold both-sides stories like it’s a moral high-ground
and yet I see the value of anarchist “purity” criticism
That sounds fun and all but who is going to fight imperialism then? Are colonized countries going to free themselves because Anarchists blocked a weapons shipment but then the Anarchist opposes the resistance force fighting against the colonists? Fidel Castro sent fighters to support the imperfect ANC. Now that was some actual solidarity. Though we don’t see much of that from “socialist” countries anymore either.
idk what anarchists you’re around but all the ones I hang out with are vocally pro Iran even if they dont approve of the Ayatollah on principle - but yh I’d take mls over liberals any day of the week - I feel part of it is that anarchists aren’t a solid block so while some may block shipments other might fight against what they see as oppression that on a geopolitical scale can result in helping colonial forces - idk we’re all imperfect so I hope we can recognize that and through different means still continue to erode imperialism instead of fighting with each other at the benefit of colonizers
I think this joke is only 40% true, but also still very funny.
Anti interlectualism is for losers
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.
@andrewrgross peak anti intellectualism.
@andrewrgross fascists don’t read books either
I think you’re taking the meme way too literally.
I’m not advocating for an illiterate revolution. Anarchists are famous for reading and writing a lot of manifestos too.
I do believe that there are a lot of overly intellectual Marxist-Leninists who need to go touch grass and actually practice more mutual aid among working class neighbors, though.
But I’m definitely not anti intellectual. (I’m also not actually an an-com. I just shared the meme because I agree with the broad sentiment).
There are some Marxists that don’t put theory to practice, true, but the solution isn’t to not read, but to do both. As a side-note, Marxist practice is less focused on mutual aid and more on organizing the working classes for revolution, though some ML groups like the Black Panther Party use things like free breakfast programs and such.
And we need both, glad to have ya ⚒️🫱🫲🏴
I mean yes but also don’t be anti-intellectual if people have time they are plenty of books we should recommend.
Where’s the reading list?
Guess I wait for the advanced page.
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.
I joined the anarchist revolution to lead, not to read. Wait, hang on…
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.
