Where are people saying that Lenin/Marx were infallible? The outlined the existing structures of power incredibly well. It’s not like they’ll always be relevant, just in our current time, with the current power structures, their model is still incredibly applicable to revolutionary movements.
Of course they won’t say it, but there’s a persistent undercurrent of stuff like “you’re not a True Leftist unless you’ve force-read Das Kapital” that accomplishes the same thing. No science in the world places such emphasis on a 150-year-old text, and rightly so.
I was taught Pythagorean theory in junior high. Science does that shit all the time.
What did you read from Pythagoras himself? Or did you read the core concept of the Pythagorean theorem out of a modern textbook?
Marx is to socialism what Newton is to physics. In order to understand what comes after, you still have to understand their works.
Yes, socialism has progressed. Our understanding of the nuiances of struggles and intersectional politics under colonial hegemony have expanded. Lenin provided a lot of expansion of Marx (specifically in the realm of colonialism and racism as a factor in capitalist opression) which is why a lot of people are Marxist-Leninists and not “orthodox” Marxist.
Beyond Lenin, many more have expressed their voices and explained their struggles against capitalism and how the base tenants of oppression outlined by Marx and Lenin manifest to them. Socialism is a living, organic movement that seeks to incorporate all struggles into itself and provide liberation to all, and no one person can understand the intricacies of every struggle.
So yes, it’s important to understand the teachings of past socialist figureheads, but in no way does socialism end with them.
It’s important to understand Marx, but – much like you can understand Newtonian physics without ever reading a single word written by Newton himself – you can understand Marx’s ideas without reading the way Marx originally phrased them.
It’s more like you’re not a true Marxist if you haven’t read Capital, which is kind of obviously true. You’re still a leftist, but a non-Marxist leftist.
No science in the world places such emphasis on a 150-year-old text, and rightly so.
No science is the same. What exactly is your issue here? Do you think that Marx is wrong? If he is right, then what’s wrong with emphasizing the foundational text of scientific socialism?
Can you believe Newtonian physics is a useful model without having read Newton’s original work? You can – everyone here probably does – and you can just as easily be a Marxist without having read Capital.
No science is the same.
No science demands that every adherent read the original works of foundational thinkers who have been dead for over a century. Sciences constantly re-write their textbooks to include recent development in the field, and constantly rephrase and reframe the ideas of their foundational thinkers.
And of course Marx was wrong about some things (to the extent “wrong” even makes sense when you’re talking about non-falsifiable predictions of the future of humanity). He was not a prophet, and his writings were not handed down by some unerring divinity. He got a lot “right,” which is why his ideas are still so useful, but it’s those ideas that are important – not their original textual packaging.
Those people are weirdos lol, not representative of the greater leftist currents across the world or even in the imperial core. Cults of personality and such.
