Red_Scare [he/him]

  • 6 Posts
  • 131 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 19th, 2020

help-circle

  • I do think leaving diamat to specific philosophy studies and instead teaching people about contemporary geopolitics and economics would make society much less susceptible to liberal propaganda.

    I don’t think diamat is central to Lenin at all. If you think it is, please explain how.

    I’m sorry to say but Stalin’s ramblings about it are complete gibberish, he will for instance say “all things in nature change and diamat is about change so diamat is a natural science” which is not what makes a theory scientific (that would be the application of the scientific method which has nothing to do with diamat).

    Diamat is completely unnecessary to understand geopolitics and economics and a few modern economists I’ve read e.g. John Smith, Paul Cockshott, Zack Cope, never even mention it.

    But I didn’t read much Marxist theory, I can’t say I’m well read in general, frankly I don’t remember a lot from what I learned in childhood and I don’t have that much time and energy to read dense theory nowadays so I’m open to have my mind changed, just not by pompous proclamations and thinly veiled accusations of “revisionism” like in your reply.

    (Edit) Kwame Nkrumah also didn’t need dialectics to formulate neocolonialism. The list goes on.

    Also a nice false dichotomy there between diamat and liberal economics, very productive.



  • nope, i’m too old for podcasts

    we had to learn diamat in the USSR, I wish they put more effort into teaching contemporary geopolitics and economy rather than dry philosophical bullshit that has little to do with real world. Looking back, Soviet society was astonishingly politically illiterate and I think this is part of why people so easily let go of achievements of previous generations.

    diamat was by far the most hated subject. the boredom was palpable. you don’t need diamat to understand how the world works is what i meant.