this post was submitted on 06 May 2026
43 points (85.2% liked)
Memes
55843 readers
844 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I won't retread what QinShiHuangsSchlong already said very well, I want to expand by saying I don't find it compelling at all when someone uses the "read theory" argument. Essentially, it says "I can't argue with you well, so I recommend you look into those who can." Demeaning someone and then giving them homework is a horrible way to get them to do so!
One of the best ways to comprehend theory is to try to simplify it for others, and be capable of clearly expressing your points without relying on "quote-mining" or "phrasemongering."
This isn't an argument against theory, but in favor of more effective discussion, as I was once extremely guilty of dumping recommendations for Marxist theory without properly explaining it, causing the argument to slide off like water on a windowpane. It also assumes a lack of competence on the other party's part, which can quickly backfire if it indeed turns out that they know what they are talking about (such as QinShiHuangsSchlong here).
Frankly, I feel like I'm alone in this take, but I think people shouldn't spend so much attention basing their politics primarily on references to philosophers who died more than a century prior.
These are important figures for historical study, but we don't base our modern understanding about genetics on the work of Darwin and Mendel: we base these on the work of Watson, and Crick, and Franklin, and Margulis, and Sanger, and hundreds (or thousands) of people who carried the work forward since.
We still teach starting with the early folks to give context. But they aren't the basis for our beliefs.
This goes for Marxists AND anarchists (and everyone else): sell your ideas in the modern age.
Domenico Losurdo, Michael Parenti, Assata Shakur, J. Sakai, Frantz Fanon, Antonio Gramsci, Roland Boer, Jones Manoel, Mao ZeDong, Xi Jumping, Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yun, Cheng Enfu, Li Shenming, Wang Weiguang, Hou Huiqin, Zhang Weiwei, Samir Amin, Walter Rodney, Vijay Prashad, Gabriel Rockhill, Zak Cope, John Bellamy Foster etc.
Foundational theory also clearly still applies unlike much of early genetics work:
Marx’s theory of surplus value, the value produced by labor still exceeds the wages paid to workers, resulting in profit for capitalists.
Marx’s theory of class struggle society is still shaped by antagonistic class interests.
Marx and Engels’ theory of the state, the state still remains in place protecting class rule and property relations.
Lenin’s theory of imperialism, monopoly capital, finance capital, export of capital, sanctions, debt, unequal exchange, and spheres of influence are still central to the world system.
Marx’s theory of capitalist crisis, capitalism still produces recurring crises, unemployment, overproduction, austerity, and financial instability.
Engels’ argument in On Authority, revolution, large-scale production, war, and state power cannot be handled through pure spontaneity or anti-organizational moralism.
Marx and Engels’ theory of ideology, ruling-class ideas still dominate media, education, culture, academia, and “common sense.”
Lenin’s theory of organization, capitalism is organized, armed, global, and disciplined, so serious opposition to it also requires organization, strategy, and discipline.
And so on...
Marxism is not mainly a list of old opinions; it is a method for studying society, class power, exploitation, imperialism, ideology, and historical change. In that sense it is less like treating Darwin or Mendel as the final word on genetics, and more like still learning Newtonian mechanics in physics. Newton was not the final word, but you do not understand physics by skipping the foundations.
Also, most people do not actually have a meaningful grasp of the foundational works in the first place. They have half-remembered summaries, liberal caricatures, or internet slogans. And Marxism has not been “superseded” as capitalism’s core relations remain intact across much of the world: wage labour, surplus value extraction, class rule, imperialism, and crisis. Much of the foundation is still clearly very relevant.
QinShiHuangsSchlong beat me to the punch, there are countless modern Marxists and Marxists since Lenin that have continued to apply the Marxist method to new eras and new conditions. Marxism-Leninism is referred to as an immortal science because it's based on an ever-adapting framework for understanding the world, dialectical materialism, which in all this time have proven adaptable and fundamentally correct. We may teach Marxism in a new way with new conditions as we discover new eras, but the baseline is still applicable and necessary.
Perhaps I didn't communicate this well, but that was kind of central to my point: the work they did has grown enough beyond their initial writings that we don't really need to fixate so much on the original texts.
For instance, I really liked China Mieville's "A Specter, Haunting". He kind of summarized The Communist Manifesto, and I thought it was more readable than the original. It was easier for me to engage with, and he placed it in modern context.
To put my point another way, I think we should focus more on the ideas rather than the thinkers.
I hear you, there's definitely merit in simplifying or trying to refresh older works if done well, the problem is how demonized Marxism is in the west and the fact that a lot of older works are still valid today. I like Red Sails because it combines the new with the old in an approachable way.