Psychologists don’t read Freud for the correct takes in the mind, and biologists don’t read Darwin for the most accurate biological theories. Why should I read Marx and Engals to know the best political models?
Darwin is a terrible example because biologists didn’t throw out Darwin did they? I guess general relativity is a bunk theory and nobody should read about it, because now we know it’s probably only a low energy limit of some kind of 11 dimesional superstring theory.
Here:
Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher written in 2009.
Women, Race and Class written by Angela Davis in 1981. (This one is a really good analysis of slavery in America.)
Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson was written in 1970. (I haven’t read this one, but it’s on my list. It definitely is still relevant: the horrific oppression of black people by the US carceral system is still ongoing and you can make comparisons to the treatment of immigrants.)
First off, I do not think either example I gave was bad, because they did not “throw out” Darwin, nor did psychologists even fully “throw out” all of Freud. My point was that it would be accurate to say that the base theories arn’t actually very helpful for advanced precise sciences without the additional revisions made by new scientists after more tests and data. That is also true for political and philosophical theories in my opinion and I rarely see people trying to revise Marx’ perspectives. Which has been my turnoff for a lot of “communism”, because at the end of the day, Marx was not all knowing and did not have perfected concepts. And when people act like he, an educated white male author, did have it perfected, it makes anything they say after that seem cultish to me.
Thank you, genuinely, for some more neuanced (I hope) writings. I will definately read them :)
For example the difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist is that the latter read marx and disagreed while the former never read him at all.
Psychologists don’t read Freud for the correct takes in the mind, and biologists don’t read Darwin for the most accurate biological theories. Why should I read Marx and Engals to know the best political models?
Darwin is a terrible example because biologists didn’t throw out Darwin did they? I guess general relativity is a bunk theory and nobody should read about it, because now we know it’s probably only a low energy limit of some kind of 11 dimesional superstring theory.
Here:
Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher written in 2009.
Women, Race and Class written by Angela Davis in 1981. (This one is a really good analysis of slavery in America.)
Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson was written in 1970. (I haven’t read this one, but it’s on my list. It definitely is still relevant: the horrific oppression of black people by the US carceral system is still ongoing and you can make comparisons to the treatment of immigrants.)
First off, I do not think either example I gave was bad, because they did not “throw out” Darwin, nor did psychologists even fully “throw out” all of Freud. My point was that it would be accurate to say that the base theories arn’t actually very helpful for advanced precise sciences without the additional revisions made by new scientists after more tests and data. That is also true for political and philosophical theories in my opinion and I rarely see people trying to revise Marx’ perspectives. Which has been my turnoff for a lot of “communism”, because at the end of the day, Marx was not all knowing and did not have perfected concepts. And when people act like he, an educated white male author, did have it perfected, it makes anything they say after that seem cultish to me.
Thank you, genuinely, for some more neuanced (I hope) writings. I will definately read them :)
“Nuanced.”
You’re gonna have fun reading them, especially, George Jackson. He’d have a lot to say about you.
Marx Orthodoxy is the word you’re looking for.
For example the difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist is that the latter read marx and disagreed while the former never read him at all.