Recommend me a book of theory written after the invention of the desktop computer and all the infrastructure involved, and then I will take said “theory” seriously.
Kwame Nkrumah wrote Neo-Colonialism, The Last Stage of Imperialism in 1965 exactly coinciding with the release of the first ever desktop computer, the P101.
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 inaccurate to say that the base theories are 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.
Have you read the books? You should really read the books. It certainly can’t hurt.
Recommend me a book of theory written after the invention of the desktop computer and all the infrastructure involved, and then I will take said “theory” seriously.
Kwame Nkrumah wrote Neo-Colonialism, The Last Stage of Imperialism in 1965 exactly coinciding with the release of the first ever desktop computer, the P101.
Thank you for providing what I asked for. I will read that.
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 inaccurate to say that the base theories are 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 :)
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.