The substance is the actual thing in reality while the form refers to various ways it's presented outwardly in specific circumstances. Good examples are how the rule of the bourgeoisie is the substance of capitalist states but the form can differ (liberal democracy, military dictatorship, etc.), or how class struggles (substance) take on different forms in different contexts (proletariat vs bourgeoisie, colonized people fighting for national liberation, etc.). On a rhetorical level, liberalism, for example, talks about defense of human rights, equality, and freedom (form) while in actuality (substance) liberalism justifies exploitation, slavery, genocide, etc. which we also see it doing materially.
cucumovirus
joined 2 years ago
Your comment here reminds me of Lenin's view of dialectical epistemology and human knowledge in general from his notes where he puts it as eloquently as ever:
Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge.
(...)
Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a curve, which endlessly approximates a series of circles or a spiral.
There was, as you might expect, some linear progression followed by transformative leaps.
Absolutely. For me it was firstly reading the Manifesto and realizing that what was described there as bourgeois society was in fact very similar and at its core had the same contradictions as our bourgeois society today. I was already primed for radicalization due to my circumstances at the time. Secondly, it was reading Lenin, specifically State and Revolution where I got a sense of how these things could work in practice. I still didn't really understand dialectical materialism at that point. After some time in this phase I decided to really dive into diamat. Finally understanding it, I would say, was the third and most significant leap for me. After that I kept on reading any Marxist theory that would expand my understanding and help me become a more well rounded Marxist. I even went back to revisit some works I had already read, this time with a deeper understanding. This last part is a life-long process, though - we never stop learning.
Each of these stages do overlap, though—I’m something of a polygamous reader so I tend to have a few works on the go at any one time.
Same for me. I even sometimes end up dropping some works if I'm reading too many or other, more interesting ones. I do try to come back and finish them all, but it doesn't always work out.
I agree with this and think it's a very important point. I always try to tailor my reading recommendations to people based on their current knowledge and positions, especially for the first few works I'm recommending to get them 'hooked' so to speak.
I agree that study guides should be updated and that for a basic study guide that one is a bit long and could be overwhelming. I always like sending people Blackshirts and Reds early on. Everyone recommends Principles of Communism, and for me it was the second work I've read (after the Manifesto) but I don't know how important it really is. It does answer some important questions but for me at least it wasn't that much of an impactful or formative work at the start. Maybe I'm just misremembering but I would like to hear if anyone had similar experiences. I still do like Lenin's Karl Marx and The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism as foundational works but I read those a bit later on so I don't know how they are for someone just coming into Marxism. The Five Essays I do like but I'm not familiar with the Red Deal so I can't comment on it. Also something like State and Revolution and What is to be done? are also very important IMO, but the latter needs a bit more context before jumping straight into it I think.
I think socialist history is in good part already covered through Marxist theory in general. Imperialism is definitely important but I don't know which works I would recommend apart from Lenin's. I don't know what the best book about modern day imperialism is. I know there is work by Michael Hudson, Zak Cope, Samir Amin, Emmanuel Arghiri, etc. but I don't know which I would recommend.
More and more I think Losurdo should be included fairly early on. His writings on a lot of topics are very clarifying, even for more advanced Marxists, and I think should be studied more widely. Maybe a good start would even be some articles like this one? Again, I guess it depends on where the person is coming from.
You're replying to a comment about a lot more than just space travel. Those things are absolutely necessary to our civilization. They weren't necessary for all of history because we didn't have them but now we do. We know that there is no abstract civilization in general, each one exists in its historical context. Our civilization today needs all those things. If we just stopped doing them, huge numbers of people would suffer or die due to food and medicine shortages and all sorts of other related issues.
We are not arguing about what is subjectively valuable according to some people. These things are materially necessary for our society to function. It doesn't matter what someone says is important or not. What matters is the material reality of the situation.
I don’t think that Bakunin is representative of most anarchist’s beliefs these days. Many of them would definitely be willing to push for reforms in bourgeoisie states to amass more worker power as a secondary tactic, a distinctly more Marx opinion than Bakunin.
I don't know about Bakunin's status among anarchists today but it's not that important. This whole point is irrelevant, the important point is the underlying philosophy and world-view which is still the same.
The individual and the mass have the exact same interests, the same character, as masses are made entirely of individuals.
Not all the individuals in a mass have the same needs and interests. Classes exist but even within classes there are contradictions. The mass is thoroughly heterogeneous. Individuals make up the mass but they don't exist as abstract entities outside of the mass. It's a dialectical relationship - individuals exist only as parts of the mass. Some vague abstract freedom of the individual is not compatible with the material liberation of the masses. We evolved as social creatures and continue to exist as such, we can't just yell about "individual freedom" while completely ignoring the material conditions we exist in. To quote Marx: '“Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture...'
anarchists insisting that appreciation for and the liberation of the masses is essential to the liberation of the individual
Anarchism as an ideology cannot achieve the long-term liberation of the masses. Historically through practice we know that Marxism is the path towards this.
it would imply that liberation of the mass hurts individuals… something that is blatantly untrue
I don't see how this is implied anywhere here. The opposite of this, however, is true. The whole premise of liberalism is some vague idealistic freedom of the individual which in reality includes the freedom to enslave and exploit others.
I am convinced that Anarchism’s true flaws lie in contradictions with itself, flaws that would reveal an entirely different philosophy (possibly Marxism, true) if analyzed and reconciled.
You're basically saying if anarchism was correct, it would be Marxism which is true but a meaningless statement. Anarchists are more than welcome to learn and become Marxists but this doesn't save the ideology of anarchism form being incorrect.
And, finally, the post we’re literally talking on shows a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism.
It's just a meme which does expose some of the flaws and contradictions in anarchism but it's by no means a theoretical analysis of it. Marxist analyses of anarchism have been done (I linked some of them in my previous comment) and all reach the same conclusion. The ideology of anarchism is not salvageable because it is fundamentally flawed.
How is it some kind of own that an anarchist doesn’t have a solid plan for space travel? Why is it presumed that everyone should want to have a solid plan for space travel? Why is our desire for space travel seen as automatically more valid than a desire to just exist without oppression?
Space travel here is just a bit of an exaggerated example but it really can be substituted by any sufficiently complex industry or endeavor which is necessary for the continuation of society. We cannot go backwards, we have reached a certain industrial, scientific and technological complexity which we keep advancing and which is necessary to feed, house, and educate all the people on Earth and is necessary for our daily lives to continue functioning properly. After capitalism, these things will still need to happen and this will require further organization and societal structures or institutions which when communist build them, anarchist call out as bad. Not to mention the protection of such a society from counterrevolution or outside imperialist forces.
Arguing that anarchists couldn’t achieve space travel doesn’t dismiss or debunk their beliefs
Saying that anarchist couldn't achieve space travel follows directly from a debunk of their beliefs because in order to actually achieve space travel you need to first have a successful revolution and then a successful society which can fulfill all the basic needs of its people and then deal with all the technological and scientific work necessary for space travel which the anarchist ideology does not provide a basis for. If anarchists actually create a materially plausible plan for any of this, it basically just sound like a Marxist type socialism and not anarchism.
I don't think there is that much widespread misunderstanding of anarchism among Marxists. The differences aren't just in the tactics to achieve communism but are fundamental philosophical differences that are present at the very root of each movement. Anarchism is fundamentally an individualistic and idealistic ideology that is incompatible with dialectical materialist Marxism.
Pretty much all of lemmy outside lemmygrad is a lib space, especially now after the influx of reddit users. Lemmy.ml admins for example are Marxists but the majority of the users are just libs.
Of course. My analysis is nowhere near comprehensive but I just think we don't know enough yet to really go further without heavy speculation.
Unfortunately, I think most of the libs will just go along with whatever the mainstream view becomes, regardless of contradictions. Not like they really care about any of this anyway.