this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
69 points (92.6% liked)
Socialism
6396 readers
45 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I hold the opinion that telling working people to read the same books leftists have been reading for 100 years and hoping it makes capitalism wither away is whack
You don't need a book to understand that capitalism doesn't even work in theory. Infinite growth, with finite resources. Its wack.
That's a start, but by fully comprehending the systems at play we can predict where it's heading and leverage our own work to create something better. Denying the study of theory while trying to establish socialism is like denying the study of physics while trying to land on Mars.
Oh, absolutely. Because clearly, if a mathematical proof is over a century old, we should just ignore it. Who needs foundational logic when you can have vibes based economics? Next you'll tell me gravity is a stale concept.
During years of studying mathematics I barely read contemporary works. This was because some old books are just really good and because most contemporary science relies on their foundations. If a book survives the test of time, the author probably did something right.
Theory is written every day. Just because some of the foundational works that still hold up are hundreds of years old does not mean these are the only works we recommend reading. Gabriel Rockhill for example just came out with a book talking about how the CIA and capitalist institutions monopolize mainstream "radical" theory, twisting it into something that coexists with imperialism, such as the work of Slavoj Zizek.
Secondly, the idea isn't that reading theory will make capitalism wither away, but instead that correct theory informs correct practice. Theory helps us understand capitalism, socialism, imperialism, organization, class struggle, science, culture, art, and helps us figure out how to establish socialism. Trying to reject theory for a monumental task like establishing socialism is like refusing to study physics in trying to land on Mars.
If you want a place to start with theory, check out my intro Marxist-Leninist reading list.
That's funny, because the book is objectively bad and full of awful readings of the Frankfurt school.
I'm unaware of Adorno's work and haven't read Rockhill's book, so I can't say whether it's good or bad. My point is that new theory and analysis is being written constantly, which is true.
Thanks for linking that, though, I'll check further.
just to fully understand what you're saying
the people telling people believe that reading books in and of itself makes capitalism wither?
I don't think reading theory makes any major steps towards the destruction of capitalism, nor do I think telling working class people to read books on economic theory does.
The idea isn’t that reading theory will make capitalism wither away, but instead that correct theory informs correct practice. Theory helps us understand capitalism, socialism, imperialism, organization, class struggle, science, culture, art, and helps us figure out how to establish socialism. Trying to reject theory for a monumental task like establishing socialism is like refusing to study physics in trying to land on Mars.
Theory alone is worthless, just like practice without direction is. It's when we unify theory with practice that we can meaningfully change the world. Refusing to study how best to establish socialism means we will repeat the same mistakes over and over foolishly, rather than continuing the work of our predecessors.
If we wait until every affected individual is up to reading and understanding Marxist theory before combining it with practice then this movement is going nowhere. 'Correct practice' of a revolution? Really?
Correct practice of a construction project, correct practice of a surgery, correct practice of a military campaign. Absofuckinglutely you must do the reading.
We don't need to, that's the point of vanguard parties. It's extremely unrealistic to expect everyone to dedicate themselves to theory, but far more reasonable for a dedicated group to study and organize. The broader working class eventually supports the vanguard and thus revolution can happen.
Yes, correct practice in revolution is necessary. The Shining Path in Peru failed miserably in creating a protracted people's war, alienated the peasantry, and collapsed the movement. Che Guevara tried to copy what worked in Cuba but failed to spread it. These are valuable lessons to learn, strategies to uphold or refuse to copy.
I agree that there has to be a group leading the planning and organization of the movement as a whole but I don't think that Lenin succeeded where others failed because of adherence to correct theory. The Bolsheviks certainly didn't all agree with each others interpretation of Marxism and I'd imagine that all of the uprisings you mentioned certainly had their own specific circumstances that derailed well meaning intentions gleaned from what someone believed was correct.
I'll personally get lots of use from your reading list, but I think it's important to understand that some of us will always gain a better understanding of what constitutes theory by seeing it applied to a particular performative action.
Lenin succeeded largely because he was more correct, and because the material conditions of Russia favored his analysis and practice. Theory without practice is worthless, as is practice without theory, they must be unified. You're correct in saying that each country has its own characteristics, but this is precisely why we need to actively practice to confirm that which is universal and that which is particular.