You have people saying China or North Korea or Cuba are either already socialist or on the path to socialism.
None of these governments existed while Marx was alive, and Marx famously erred in predicting that the imperial core would be where socialism first took root. This is just one example, but on virtually any topic there’s been so much development since Marx that your best sources on any given matter are likely something newer.
You absolutely need to read Capital to understand Marxism.
How is this any different from “you need to read Newton’s original papers to understand Newtonian physics”?
None of these governments existed while Marx was alive, and Marx famously erred in predicting that the imperial core would be where socialism first took root. This is just one example, but on virtually any topic there’s been so much development since Marx that your best sources on any given matter are likely something newer.
He did not make an error since socialism hasnt taken root anywhere is “AESCs”.
How is this any different from “you need to read Newton’s original papers to understand Newtonian physics”?
Because you could end up reading people who misunderstand or misrepresent Marx like Wolff or Harvey. Just fucking read Capital. It’s not impossible. Instead of binging on that next Netflix serial or gaming late in the night, just read the book. If you don’t want to, at least stop calling yourself a Marxist.
If your position is that socialism hasn’t taken root anywhere, that makes Marx more “wrong,” not less.
Instead of binging on that next Netflix serial or gaming late in the night, just read the book.
Do you honestly think this approach is going to get anything done? We need tens of millions of more leftists to bring socialism to the U.S. Are tens of millions of people going to respond to “look, I know you’re lazy, but buck up and read this 150-year-old econ text and that will totally address your immediate material needs”?
If your position is that socialism hasn’t taken root anywhere, that makes Marx more “wrong,” not less.
What does this even mean? Did Marx make some kind of prediction like “we wiill have socialism in 50 years” or something?
Do you honestly think this approach is going to get anything done? We need tens of millions of more leftists to bring socialism to the U.S. Are tens of millions of people going to respond to “look, I know you’re lazy, but buck up and read this 150-year-old econ text and that will totally address your immediate material needs”?
It’s a simple fact that you can’t be a Marxist without reading Marx. That’s what the argument is about. It seems you are ready to write a million excuses instead of just reading. And yes, laziness definitely plays a part here. I’m not expecting you to lead the revolution, and my version of praxis isn’t forcing people to read Marx. You started the argument that reading Marx is not important. I simply said that means you’re not a Marxist. This seems to bother you for reason. You want to call yourself a Marxist without doing what is possibly the most basic thing to call yourself a Marxist. The reason is that Marxism has a privileged position in the Left, so people use Marx to give weight to some of the dumbest ideas (“China will be socialist by 2050 because Marx said to develop productive forces” or “we need the state to control all production”) . I’m going to keep cajoling people into reading Marx, because it always ends up with that person developing a better and more nuanced understanding of capitalism and socialism. It also tends to cure people of their whatever -ism they identify with.
