Scientific theory doesn't ask you to "trust" it, it works. So those who refuse to engage with it get left behind.
This is why I'm so interested in China — they treat "theory" pragmatically — and bored of anti- and even many pro-theory (ultras, etc.) camps in the West.
I obviously love "reading theory" but I find that pleading with people to "please read theory" somehow sounds wrong to me.
Ideally "theory" is the answer to "how did you do that!?" Or, more realistically, "how did *they* do that!?"
Which is why counter-propaganda is Step 0.
If people truly don't think anybody out there in the planet is *better off* than them (applies even to many destitute people who scoff at China) they have no reason to want to "read theory."
IMO, widespread awareness of "Peace and Bullet Trains" comes way ahead of "Read Marx."
"A Better World Is Possible" is already one of my favourite political battle cries.
But I actually tend to think "A Better World Is Already Out There."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It is not correct to claim that some kind of iron law establishes that class struggle must always proceed via mass violence and civil war.
British feudal rulers gave way to British capitalists comparatively smoothly and collaboratively.
Not saying the opposite, that a smooth transition to socialism is likely.
It's clear capitalists would sooner cause endless genocides than give up power.
But it's not correct to then go on claim that their will is bond, that we cannot outmaneuver them in unprecedented ways.
A lot of people get absolutely petrified after grasping the enormous challenge represented by militarized police and capitalist armies, but there's plenty of strategies to even the playing field that simply don't feature in a popular imagination forged by videogames and movies.
"I think China is a socialist country, and Vietnam is a socialist nation as well. And they insist that they have introduced all the necessary reforms in order to motivate national development and to continue seeking the objectives of socialism."
— Fidel Castro, 1994
"It is an experiment that must be studied. The Chinese themselves say that no one should automatically imitate what others are doing. They criticize themselves for mechanically applying the Soviet experience during its first years."
"But if you want to talk about socialism, let us not forget what socialism achieved in China. At one time it was the land of hunger, poverty, disasters. Today there is none of that. Today China can feed, dress, educate, and care for the health of 1.2 billion people."
Literally the only time in history that the US did a good thing was when they played a support role in the fight against the Nazis, and President Harry Truman framed that act in terms of maximizing the number of dead Soviets.
Liberalism was born out of the capitalist need to somehow justify 1) rebellion against the monarchy while simultaneously 2) putting down slave rebellions.
This reveals how the anti-state "both sides can be bad at the same time" tradition of anarchism really is pure liberalism.
Liberalism fundamentally *is* that equivocation, that incessant demand for "nuance," that fear of "going too far," that ability to claim you uphold a certain ideal while your material reality blatantly undermines it at every step.
China may objectively, provably, unquestionably have world-historic achievements in freedom-enhancing poverty eradication and peaceful development, but liberalism allows Westerners to disregard this reality and insist that they stand for freedom and the rest for authority.
Hundreds and hundreds of people replied angrily, but not *once* on the basis of any particular challenge. It was endless indignation that I dared express skepticism.