Leftist theory does explain it. At great length, in a thousand different ways.
Trotsky meticulously described every step of Stalin’s rise, and devoted the last 20 years of his life opposing him, until Stalin had him assassinated like so many other Bolsheviks.
Just because you haven’t yet learned something doesn’t mean it hasn’t been thoroughly explored, and its kind of a wild assertion to make. It implies that leftists lack critical thinking skills. We don’t.
We prevent it by uncovering the reality of our conditions, just as Marx described in Theses on Feuerbach: center peoples lived experiences at every step of our analysis.
There are no proscriptions, because Marxism isn’t about the future its about the present. The Bolsheviks were at their best when they were with the workers. But the civil war, a series of invasions by several countries after their oct revolution in 1917 destroyed all of the industry in Russia, and all that was left was the bureaucracy. No more industry, no more working class. They def made other mistakes like banning factions and the horrific tragedy of Kronstadt (which Trotsky led so as not to lionize.)
How 1917 went from the hope of historical progress to the oppressive bureaucracy in 5 horrific years is not a topic untouched by theory. But you can’t just flatten all that history of the USSR into Stalin. He was created by the bureaucracy not the other way around. It persists long after his death, and I’ll admit is a serious problem in left movements.
But you’re seriously mischaracterizing the situation. Exactly what you say doesn’t exist is a 100 year old debate that has been fought endlessly. If anything we need to stop focusing on it so much as it is hurting our ability to deal with the present.
If you want a theory for how it is prevented, read Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Fred Hampton once said, “everything we do has to start with education. Without education is how colonialism becomes neo-colonialism.”
Leftist theory does explain it. At great length, in a thousand different ways. Just because you haven’t yet learned something doesn’t mean it hasn’t been thoroughly explored
Yes. Ok, fine, but then leftists should talk about and recommend those and not “the communist manifesto”.
We prevent it by uncovering the reality of our conditions, just as Marx described in Theses on Feuerbach
But that was the original point, something about this obviously didn’t work?!
It seems he’s assuming that he is essentially facing zero opposition in his attempt at education. That’s unrealistic. This concept would never work on a group of fanatics that refuse to engage with new information. Which should sound familiar.
is a 100 year old debate […] If anything we need to stop focusing on it so much
I understand that point, but you should understand, that if your theory, predictably, inevitably, leads to dictatorship within 5-10 years in any country where it is tried, you don’t have a “social” theory. You have an entrapment scheme.
Feel free to link more sources that attempt to explain that though, I would like to believe.
I think you should reevaluate your approach to some of these problems. But often people, even other Marxists, tend to mischaracterize PotO out of hand. Tbh the wiki isn’t very good.
To (poorly) demonstrate the method, I’ll pose a problem. How do you solve a specific problem without a general understanding?
Would having me fill in the middle work, between the very general and very specific, convince you of my methods? You already seem very skeptical, which is good, but it can make poor soil to grow understanding. Skepticism isn’t criticism, bit its IMO a good quality to have to be a critical thinker. Another, is curiosity or a self directed desire for finding truth.
I don’t believe I can (or even attempt to) deposit the info into you in a couple Lemmy comments. I am willing to demonstrate my own understanding honestly, if you are willing/able to to be critical of not just my ideas but your own as well. I absolutely try and do this at every step, in fact I would say that learning to be critical of my own ideas was a prerequisite for understanding Marxism, rather than just adopting this or that belief system.
My one major criticism so far is that you don’t seem to have a theory of mind or change when referring to leftists. Its gonna be hard to good faith work together if you have like prejudged me. And vice versa! Which is why I ask for clarity. Honestly, there’s a lot of this prejudgement baked into general discourse, so its def not all on you or me.
Leftists fall into it as well. But that’s why I like PotO so much, its demanding. The method itself is completely against the very concept of just memorizing rote statements, or delivering them to be memorized. Friere literally defines this kind of teaching as oppression, and criticizes the left for adopting it often. To Friere, “authority must always be on the side of freedom,” which conceptually, handles the “Stalin factor.”
I can recommend many books, for example I think that Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is a better “beginner” text for your purposes. The manifesto is great but it doesn’t speak to me the way it speaks to others. I def needed to get some other understanding, theoretical and historic, before coming back to the manifesto and really seeing why it was such an important doc at the time
I understand that point, but you should understand, that if your theory, predictably, inevitably, leads to dictatorship within 5-10 years in any country where it is tried, you don’t have a “social” theory. You have an entrapment scheme.
In what country did non-ML socialism lead to a dictatorship, without being conquered by outside forces?
Leftist theory does explain it. At great length, in a thousand different ways.
Trotsky meticulously described every step of Stalin’s rise, and devoted the last 20 years of his life opposing him, until Stalin had him assassinated like so many other Bolsheviks.
Just because you haven’t yet learned something doesn’t mean it hasn’t been thoroughly explored, and its kind of a wild assertion to make. It implies that leftists lack critical thinking skills. We don’t.
We prevent it by uncovering the reality of our conditions, just as Marx described in Theses on Feuerbach: center peoples lived experiences at every step of our analysis.
There are no proscriptions, because Marxism isn’t about the future its about the present. The Bolsheviks were at their best when they were with the workers. But the civil war, a series of invasions by several countries after their oct revolution in 1917 destroyed all of the industry in Russia, and all that was left was the bureaucracy. No more industry, no more working class. They def made other mistakes like banning factions and the horrific tragedy of Kronstadt (which Trotsky led so as not to lionize.)
How 1917 went from the hope of historical progress to the oppressive bureaucracy in 5 horrific years is not a topic untouched by theory. But you can’t just flatten all that history of the USSR into Stalin. He was created by the bureaucracy not the other way around. It persists long after his death, and I’ll admit is a serious problem in left movements.
But you’re seriously mischaracterizing the situation. Exactly what you say doesn’t exist is a 100 year old debate that has been fought endlessly. If anything we need to stop focusing on it so much as it is hurting our ability to deal with the present.
If you want a theory for how it is prevented, read Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Fred Hampton once said, “everything we do has to start with education. Without education is how colonialism becomes neo-colonialism.”
Yes. Ok, fine, but then leftists should talk about and recommend those and not “the communist manifesto”.
But that was the original point, something about this obviously didn’t work?!
I mean, you tell me if the synopsis on wikipedia is broadly accurate or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed#Synopsis
It seems he’s assuming that he is essentially facing zero opposition in his attempt at education. That’s unrealistic. This concept would never work on a group of fanatics that refuse to engage with new information. Which should sound familiar.
I understand that point, but you should understand, that if your theory, predictably, inevitably, leads to dictatorship within 5-10 years in any country where it is tried, you don’t have a “social” theory. You have an entrapment scheme.
Feel free to link more sources that attempt to explain that though, I would like to believe.
I think you should reevaluate your approach to some of these problems. But often people, even other Marxists, tend to mischaracterize PotO out of hand. Tbh the wiki isn’t very good.
To (poorly) demonstrate the method, I’ll pose a problem. How do you solve a specific problem without a general understanding?
Would having me fill in the middle work, between the very general and very specific, convince you of my methods? You already seem very skeptical, which is good, but it can make poor soil to grow understanding. Skepticism isn’t criticism, bit its IMO a good quality to have to be a critical thinker. Another, is curiosity or a self directed desire for finding truth.
I don’t believe I can (or even attempt to) deposit the info into you in a couple Lemmy comments. I am willing to demonstrate my own understanding honestly, if you are willing/able to to be critical of not just my ideas but your own as well. I absolutely try and do this at every step, in fact I would say that learning to be critical of my own ideas was a prerequisite for understanding Marxism, rather than just adopting this or that belief system.
My one major criticism so far is that you don’t seem to have a theory of mind or change when referring to leftists. Its gonna be hard to good faith work together if you have like prejudged me. And vice versa! Which is why I ask for clarity. Honestly, there’s a lot of this prejudgement baked into general discourse, so its def not all on you or me.
Leftists fall into it as well. But that’s why I like PotO so much, its demanding. The method itself is completely against the very concept of just memorizing rote statements, or delivering them to be memorized. Friere literally defines this kind of teaching as oppression, and criticizes the left for adopting it often. To Friere, “authority must always be on the side of freedom,” which conceptually, handles the “Stalin factor.”
I can recommend many books, for example I think that Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is a better “beginner” text for your purposes. The manifesto is great but it doesn’t speak to me the way it speaks to others. I def needed to get some other understanding, theoretical and historic, before coming back to the manifesto and really seeing why it was such an important doc at the time
In what country did non-ML socialism lead to a dictatorship, without being conquered by outside forces?