I won’t retread what QinShiHuangsSchlong already said very well, I want to expand by saying I don’t find it compelling at all when someone uses the “read theory” argument. Essentially, it says “I can’t argue with you well, so I recommend you look into those who can.” Demeaning someone and then giving them homework is a horrible way to get them to do so!
One of the best ways to comprehend theory is to try to simplify it for others, and be capable of clearly expressing your points without relying on “quote-mining” or “phrasemongering.”
This isn’t an argument against theory, but in favor of more effective discussion, as I was once extremely guilty of dumping recommendations for Marxist theory without properly explaining it, causing the argument to slide off like water on a windowpane. It also assumes a lack of competence on the other party’s part, which can quickly backfire if it indeed turns out that they know what they are talking about (such as QinShiHuangsSchlong here).
Frankly, I feel like I’m alone in this take, but I think people shouldn’t spend so much attention basing their politics primarily on references to philosophers who died more than a century prior.
These are important figures for historical study, but we don’t base our modern understanding about genetics on the work of Darwin and Mendel: we base these on the work of Watson, and Crick, and Franklin, and Margulis, and Sanger, and hundreds (or thousands) of people who carried the work forward since.
We still teach starting with the early folks to give context. But they aren’t the basis for our beliefs.
This goes for Marxists AND anarchists (and everyone else): sell your ideas in the modern age.
QinShiHuangsSchlong beat me to the punch, there are countless modern Marxists and Marxists since Lenin that have continued to apply the Marxist method to new eras and new conditions. Marxism-Leninism is referred to as an immortal science because it’s based on an ever-adapting framework for understanding the world, dialectical materialism, which in all this time have proven adaptable and fundamentally correct. We may teach Marxism in a new way with new conditions as we discover new eras, but the baseline is still applicable and necessary.
Basing their politics primarily on references to philosophers who died more than a century prior.
Domenico Losurdo, Michael Parenti, Assata Shakur, J. Sakai, Frantz Fanon, Antonio Gramsci, Roland Boer, Jones Manoel, Mao ZeDong, Xi Jinping, Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yun, Cheng Enfu, Li Shenming, Wang Weiguang, Hou Huiqin, Zhang Weiwei, Samir Amin, Walter Rodney, Vijay Prashad, Gabriel Rockhill, Zak Cope, John Bellamy Foster etc.
Foundational theory also clearly still applies unlike much of early genetics work:
Marx’s theory of surplus value, the value produced by labor still exceeds the wages paid to workers, resulting in profit for capitalists.
Marx’s theory of class struggle society is still shaped by antagonistic class interests.
Marx and Engels’ theory of the state, the state still remains in place protecting class rule and property relations.
Lenin’s theory of imperialism, monopoly capital, finance capital, export of capital, sanctions, debt, unequal exchange, and spheres of influence are still central to the world system.
Marx’s theory of capitalist crisis, capitalism still produces recurring crises, unemployment, overproduction, austerity, and financial instability.
Engels’ argument in On Authority, revolution, large-scale production, war, and state power cannot be handled through pure spontaneity or anti-organizational moralism.
Marx and Engels’ theory of ideology, ruling-class ideas still dominate media, education, culture, academia, and “common sense.”
Lenin’s theory of organization, capitalism is organized, armed, global, and disciplined, so serious opposition to it also requires organization, strategy, and discipline.
And so on…
Marxism is not mainly a list of old opinions; it is a method for studying society, class power, exploitation, imperialism, ideology, and historical change. In that sense it is less like treating Darwin or Mendel as the final word on genetics, and more like still learning Newtonian mechanics in physics. Newton was not the final word, but you do not understand physics by skipping the foundations.
Also, most people do not actually have a meaningful grasp of the foundational works in the first place. They have half-remembered summaries, liberal caricatures, or internet slogans. And Marxism has not been “superseded” as capitalism’s core relations remain intact across much of the world: wage labour, surplus value extraction, class rule, imperialism, and crisis. Much of the foundation is still clearly very relevant.
I’ve read anarchist theory, from Bakunin to Kropotkin to Stirner and beyond. My disagreement is not because I have failed to encounter “theory”; it is because I find anarchist theory weak, abstract, and far less applicable to actual social transformation than the Marxist tradition of scientific socialism.
And no, it was not a straw man. The claim made was not “some hierarchies are oppressive” or “illegitimate authority should be abolished.” The claim was that hierarchy is inherently oppressive. That is a much stronger and much worse claim.
If hierarchy as such is inherently oppressive, then the relation of parent and child, doctor and nurse, teacher and student, engineer and apprentice, safety inspector and worker, commander and soldier, party and masses, all become oppressive by definition. That is obviously false. These are not all the same social relation. Their content depends on material conditions, class character, function, ownership, accountability, and historical role.
What you are doing by saying “epistemic authority ≠ oppressive hierarchy” is the same semantic retreat anarchists have hid behind for generations. The moment useful, necessary, or socially productive hierarchy appears, you rename it “epistemic authority,” “coordination,” “expertise,” “delegation,” or some other softer term, then pretend it is no longer hierarchy. But changing the label does not change the social relation. As Engels put it: “These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves.”
A useful analysis does not ask whether “hierarchy” exists in the abstract. It asks: what kind of authority, serving which class, under what mode of production, with what relation to property, discipline, expertise, coercion, and social necessity?
A capitalist boss commanding workers for private profit is not the same thing as a surgeon directing an operating room, a revolutionary army maintaining discipline, or a workers’ state organizing production and defense. Treating all hierarchy as inherently oppressive collapses real material distinctions into moralistic abstraction.
That is in my view the core weakness of anarchism: it mistakes the abolition of domination for the abolition of hierarchy (and thus authority) as such. The aim should be to abolish class rule, exploitation, and the material basis of oppression. Not to pretend complex society can function without organization, discipline, expertise, or authority. The question thus is not whether authority and as such hierarchy exists. It is which class controls it, for what purpose, and under what social relations.
epistemic authority ≠ oppressive hierarchy - stop with the strawmans and go read some theory…
I won’t retread what QinShiHuangsSchlong already said very well, I want to expand by saying I don’t find it compelling at all when someone uses the “read theory” argument. Essentially, it says “I can’t argue with you well, so I recommend you look into those who can.” Demeaning someone and then giving them homework is a horrible way to get them to do so!
One of the best ways to comprehend theory is to try to simplify it for others, and be capable of clearly expressing your points without relying on “quote-mining” or “phrasemongering.”
This isn’t an argument against theory, but in favor of more effective discussion, as I was once extremely guilty of dumping recommendations for Marxist theory without properly explaining it, causing the argument to slide off like water on a windowpane. It also assumes a lack of competence on the other party’s part, which can quickly backfire if it indeed turns out that they know what they are talking about (such as QinShiHuangsSchlong here).
Frankly, I feel like I’m alone in this take, but I think people shouldn’t spend so much attention basing their politics primarily on references to philosophers who died more than a century prior.
These are important figures for historical study, but we don’t base our modern understanding about genetics on the work of Darwin and Mendel: we base these on the work of Watson, and Crick, and Franklin, and Margulis, and Sanger, and hundreds (or thousands) of people who carried the work forward since.
We still teach starting with the early folks to give context. But they aren’t the basis for our beliefs.
This goes for Marxists AND anarchists (and everyone else): sell your ideas in the modern age.
QinShiHuangsSchlong beat me to the punch, there are countless modern Marxists and Marxists since Lenin that have continued to apply the Marxist method to new eras and new conditions. Marxism-Leninism is referred to as an immortal science because it’s based on an ever-adapting framework for understanding the world, dialectical materialism, which in all this time have proven adaptable and fundamentally correct. We may teach Marxism in a new way with new conditions as we discover new eras, but the baseline is still applicable and necessary.
Domenico Losurdo, Michael Parenti, Assata Shakur, J. Sakai, Frantz Fanon, Antonio Gramsci, Roland Boer, Jones Manoel, Mao ZeDong, Xi Jinping, Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yun, Cheng Enfu, Li Shenming, Wang Weiguang, Hou Huiqin, Zhang Weiwei, Samir Amin, Walter Rodney, Vijay Prashad, Gabriel Rockhill, Zak Cope, John Bellamy Foster etc.
Foundational theory also clearly still applies unlike much of early genetics work:
Marx’s theory of surplus value, the value produced by labor still exceeds the wages paid to workers, resulting in profit for capitalists.
Marx’s theory of class struggle society is still shaped by antagonistic class interests.
Marx and Engels’ theory of the state, the state still remains in place protecting class rule and property relations.
Lenin’s theory of imperialism, monopoly capital, finance capital, export of capital, sanctions, debt, unequal exchange, and spheres of influence are still central to the world system.
Marx’s theory of capitalist crisis, capitalism still produces recurring crises, unemployment, overproduction, austerity, and financial instability.
Engels’ argument in On Authority, revolution, large-scale production, war, and state power cannot be handled through pure spontaneity or anti-organizational moralism.
Marx and Engels’ theory of ideology, ruling-class ideas still dominate media, education, culture, academia, and “common sense.”
Lenin’s theory of organization, capitalism is organized, armed, global, and disciplined, so serious opposition to it also requires organization, strategy, and discipline.
And so on…
Marxism is not mainly a list of old opinions; it is a method for studying society, class power, exploitation, imperialism, ideology, and historical change. In that sense it is less like treating Darwin or Mendel as the final word on genetics, and more like still learning Newtonian mechanics in physics. Newton was not the final word, but you do not understand physics by skipping the foundations.
Also, most people do not actually have a meaningful grasp of the foundational works in the first place. They have half-remembered summaries, liberal caricatures, or internet slogans. And Marxism has not been “superseded” as capitalism’s core relations remain intact across much of the world: wage labour, surplus value extraction, class rule, imperialism, and crisis. Much of the foundation is still clearly very relevant.
I’ve read anarchist theory, from Bakunin to Kropotkin to Stirner and beyond. My disagreement is not because I have failed to encounter “theory”; it is because I find anarchist theory weak, abstract, and far less applicable to actual social transformation than the Marxist tradition of scientific socialism.
And no, it was not a straw man. The claim made was not “some hierarchies are oppressive” or “illegitimate authority should be abolished.” The claim was that hierarchy is inherently oppressive. That is a much stronger and much worse claim.
If hierarchy as such is inherently oppressive, then the relation of parent and child, doctor and nurse, teacher and student, engineer and apprentice, safety inspector and worker, commander and soldier, party and masses, all become oppressive by definition. That is obviously false. These are not all the same social relation. Their content depends on material conditions, class character, function, ownership, accountability, and historical role.
What you are doing by saying “epistemic authority ≠ oppressive hierarchy” is the same semantic retreat anarchists have hid behind for generations. The moment useful, necessary, or socially productive hierarchy appears, you rename it “epistemic authority,” “coordination,” “expertise,” “delegation,” or some other softer term, then pretend it is no longer hierarchy. But changing the label does not change the social relation. As Engels put it: “These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves.”
A useful analysis does not ask whether “hierarchy” exists in the abstract. It asks: what kind of authority, serving which class, under what mode of production, with what relation to property, discipline, expertise, coercion, and social necessity?
A capitalist boss commanding workers for private profit is not the same thing as a surgeon directing an operating room, a revolutionary army maintaining discipline, or a workers’ state organizing production and defense. Treating all hierarchy as inherently oppressive collapses real material distinctions into moralistic abstraction.
That is in my view the core weakness of anarchism: it mistakes the abolition of domination for the abolition of hierarchy (and thus authority) as such. The aim should be to abolish class rule, exploitation, and the material basis of oppression. Not to pretend complex society can function without organization, discipline, expertise, or authority. The question thus is not whether authority and as such hierarchy exists. It is which class controls it, for what purpose, and under what social relations.