Rodney's praxis is the guide for us all. Workshopping these dense and often confusing texts is an act of community building that I think feeds into the theory. We learn together, we critique together. I've been heartened to see the rise of teach-ins recently but that approach is still top-down. Bottom up non hierarchical learning as methodology is the only way imo.
I disagree with your core claim that the theory bro represents a white male strain of political thought. In my experience, there are many theory obsessed people across gender and racial backgrounds. I believe the reason why we do not consider theory obessed individuals who are BIPOC or women as theory obsessed in the same regards as white male leftists is because we view the white leftist as a inhernetly conflictless entity. We view the white leftist as maintaining the role of someone who differs their opinions to better authorites (usally either older white men from bygone eras, or BIPOC / Feminist thinkers who adopted some core thoery of those old white men), in the paraphrased sentimant of a certain Bo Burnham Song, the role of the white man within leftism is to shut up. This lack of conflict, this lack of need, besides researching and staying informed they have no narrative worthy of use of theory (besides the journey towards leftism, which is one of the few topics people obsess over); whereas by nature of being a women, or BIPOC, or trans, or any number of oppressed groups (each with their own truthful and valauble canons of thought) those demographics have a narrative valued by the leftist culture. Current works fixate from a tradition of 'suriving under oppression' examples like 'Pleasure Activism' have this sort of polarity, where merely by being queer, or a sucsessful women, or proudly black, these will deconstruct oppressive sturctures in some way, and since being proudly a man, or proudly white are both very icky, the white male leftist can particpate in this through only one methodology, they become proud leftists, expressing their participation in a narrative of self betterment and survival. The real only escape to this is being proud of ideological values, being proud of local civic participation (civic pride is almost just as dispised within leftist spaces), or worker pride (which I think is the most valuable, but marxist narratives of class conflict have increasingly been drowned out in the contemprary leftist conversation, for both good and bad reasons, in the end I think for negative results). There are plenty of topics to be discussed, the effect of suburbia and capitalist alienation may not be harmful as racial or sex based discrimination, but they are still topics that foundationally critique that of captialism. I know it feels a little bit like a critique of capitalism from the perspective of the bougouis, but that is still a valuable way to critique capitalism. The end goal of all of this should be empathy, a fixation away from building boundaries within leftism; enabling everyone and anyone to participate in theory crafting and praxis. Lived experience is still lived experience even if it isn't from a group that is traditionally seen as suffering from systematic oppression, because systematic critqiue isn't always about fixating on the harm to the underdog but rather seeing all the harm as a totality and minimizing it.
The broad anti-intelleuctualism of leftist spaces has both negative elements but is sourced within the failures of intellecutal leftism to appeal to the population, not some strange moral failing among the population. The solution is new writers and new perpsectives, not to blame the kids for not reading anymore (which I don't believe you specifically are doing, just in general). Leftist academia, sociology, social justice, etc, are strange and seen as hostile to the broad population because of the uninherent pretension of academic sources. Older sources started with vastly less pretension than contempary leftist theory but gain it with time, it becomes increasingly out of date, increasingly less directly applicable and more theoradically applicale, increasingly harder to read; whereas Academia is out of the gate incomprehensible, using words which people don't comprehend. Prension in this represents the dissidance between reality and what we see, it takes education and cultural literacy, vast degree of work to bridge Fanon to a conteporary context, and to the vast majority of people it doesn't feel real, it feels pretensious (because it is). Contemporary leftist theory is more a narrative of the declining middle class, the fall of those with the 'taste' to write theory, those with the time and education to be taken seriously (taste used negatively). After all, leftism as a core is not all that complex. It is a series of methods built on democracy and egalitarianism to reach a better world; to be a leftist is to slowly enact utopia.
Good article. You identify the issue with theory bro really well. However I think more than theory a grasp of history, specifically precolonial and colonial history can help you understand systems like capitalism. After all capitalism develops as a result of colonialism and slavery.
Just because capitalism did evolve from colonialism and slavery doesn't imply a general theory of the construction of capital. Such a theory is not an easy structuralist claim to demonstrate in any terms. That's a hell of a claim to just drop with no explanation.
First off colonialism and slavery were economically motivated. Europe had little natural resources and they stole everyone else’s along with our labor and this why they have the wealth they have today. They destroyed industries all over the world and moved them to Europe. Understanding this history helps in understanding the development of capitalism and wealth. You sound butt hurt by my comment and I’m not sure why. Maybe you are one of those people who think the history of slavery and colonialism are unimportant because only Marx is important?
I think it’s imperative to understand the role of slavery and colonialism in the development of capitalism because it helps us to understand why the economic and political order is what it is today and it helps us to understand how our macro level ideological structures developed as well.
I mean that without colonialism and slavery capitalism doesn’t develop because these systems were how the advanced capitalist nations built their wealth (primitive accumulation)
I find it dizzying, almost humorous if it weren’t so damning to revolutionary movements of today, that the “theory bro” somehow found a way to separate literal Marxist thought from the material conditions it sprang from, and then found a way to glorify and commodify reading theory. Maddening.
I can't make sense of this theory about theory essay, this meta-theory. The "Theory Bro" sounds like a straw man, especially as no examples are given. Any time you build a straw man, it burns easily.
--
The question is raised "But what do we mean when we talk about ‘theory?’" but it is only characterised by its qualities and not properly defined.
Isn't scientific theory, including Marxist analyses, just the most abstract representation of the actual processes under way?
ON LENIN
We are told "Even a work like The State and Revolution, which is much broader in its scope and less particular in its immediate subject matter than What Is to Be Done?, is still grounded in the author’s analysis of the prevailing political context around him."
But what "prevailing political context"? The political situation in Russia? Then why is Lenin citing Marx and Engels from early time from a different part of Europe. Were Marx and Engels works universal okay to apply but for reasons not clearly given Lenin doesn't apply elsewhere in time and space.
Maybe the context of the Europe from 1843 to 1917? But that can't be right because we were told the Lenin wrote "What Is To Be Done?" "... as a work of concrete political analysis, intended to summarize and respond to the specific conditions of turn-of-the-century Russian social-democracy."
But before this we are told Lenin's 1902 work is simultaneously has "universality and specificity".
I have seen the assertion that "What Is To Be Done?" was just about a particular circumstances of the time but, like her, it is just claimed. There is also a different claim that Lenin rejected his position. (IIRC this was the RCI, Grant or Woods)
For a comparison with this easy, read what the genuine Trotskyists have to say on Lenin:
Lenin’s Theory of Socialist Consciousness: The Origins of Bolshevism and What Is To Be Done?
1. "... We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. "
(Nb: Lenin didn't invent this, he took it from Kautksy.)
2. “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity.”
(Nb: Lenin didn't invent this, he took it from Plekhanov.)
Note Trotsky once wrote of Lenin that "for him theory is in actual fact a guide to action". You cannot act without a theory, but you can act without being conscious of one. Lenin expressed the highest form of political consciousness.
I loved the article. I am not sure what "anti-intellectual" means though, it almost seems to imply that society before this trend took off was rational to begin with. That's a hard pill to swallow.
We need reading to become cool again. A return to glorification of geeks and nerds. The pendulum will shift eventually.
Also - this was a fantastic article.
Rodney's praxis is the guide for us all. Workshopping these dense and often confusing texts is an act of community building that I think feeds into the theory. We learn together, we critique together. I've been heartened to see the rise of teach-ins recently but that approach is still top-down. Bottom up non hierarchical learning as methodology is the only way imo.
Thank you, Pranay. It was truly refreshing to read this which made
Much sense of my world
And my perceptions. I’ve been in a sort of muddle, but your essay has
Cleared some cobwebs and reminded me of my own experience with What is to be Done? thanks also for stopping by my Used
To Be a Parking Lot
Note which led me here. Here’s another that I think you might like. Should take just amoment though the place pictured warrants a muchlonger stay.
https://substack.com/@louj1/note/c-86318408?r=270xom&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I disagree with your core claim that the theory bro represents a white male strain of political thought. In my experience, there are many theory obsessed people across gender and racial backgrounds. I believe the reason why we do not consider theory obessed individuals who are BIPOC or women as theory obsessed in the same regards as white male leftists is because we view the white leftist as a inhernetly conflictless entity. We view the white leftist as maintaining the role of someone who differs their opinions to better authorites (usally either older white men from bygone eras, or BIPOC / Feminist thinkers who adopted some core thoery of those old white men), in the paraphrased sentimant of a certain Bo Burnham Song, the role of the white man within leftism is to shut up. This lack of conflict, this lack of need, besides researching and staying informed they have no narrative worthy of use of theory (besides the journey towards leftism, which is one of the few topics people obsess over); whereas by nature of being a women, or BIPOC, or trans, or any number of oppressed groups (each with their own truthful and valauble canons of thought) those demographics have a narrative valued by the leftist culture. Current works fixate from a tradition of 'suriving under oppression' examples like 'Pleasure Activism' have this sort of polarity, where merely by being queer, or a sucsessful women, or proudly black, these will deconstruct oppressive sturctures in some way, and since being proudly a man, or proudly white are both very icky, the white male leftist can particpate in this through only one methodology, they become proud leftists, expressing their participation in a narrative of self betterment and survival. The real only escape to this is being proud of ideological values, being proud of local civic participation (civic pride is almost just as dispised within leftist spaces), or worker pride (which I think is the most valuable, but marxist narratives of class conflict have increasingly been drowned out in the contemprary leftist conversation, for both good and bad reasons, in the end I think for negative results). There are plenty of topics to be discussed, the effect of suburbia and capitalist alienation may not be harmful as racial or sex based discrimination, but they are still topics that foundationally critique that of captialism. I know it feels a little bit like a critique of capitalism from the perspective of the bougouis, but that is still a valuable way to critique capitalism. The end goal of all of this should be empathy, a fixation away from building boundaries within leftism; enabling everyone and anyone to participate in theory crafting and praxis. Lived experience is still lived experience even if it isn't from a group that is traditionally seen as suffering from systematic oppression, because systematic critqiue isn't always about fixating on the harm to the underdog but rather seeing all the harm as a totality and minimizing it.
The broad anti-intelleuctualism of leftist spaces has both negative elements but is sourced within the failures of intellecutal leftism to appeal to the population, not some strange moral failing among the population. The solution is new writers and new perpsectives, not to blame the kids for not reading anymore (which I don't believe you specifically are doing, just in general). Leftist academia, sociology, social justice, etc, are strange and seen as hostile to the broad population because of the uninherent pretension of academic sources. Older sources started with vastly less pretension than contempary leftist theory but gain it with time, it becomes increasingly out of date, increasingly less directly applicable and more theoradically applicale, increasingly harder to read; whereas Academia is out of the gate incomprehensible, using words which people don't comprehend. Prension in this represents the dissidance between reality and what we see, it takes education and cultural literacy, vast degree of work to bridge Fanon to a conteporary context, and to the vast majority of people it doesn't feel real, it feels pretensious (because it is). Contemporary leftist theory is more a narrative of the declining middle class, the fall of those with the 'taste' to write theory, those with the time and education to be taken seriously (taste used negatively). After all, leftism as a core is not all that complex. It is a series of methods built on democracy and egalitarianism to reach a better world; to be a leftist is to slowly enact utopia.
Good article. You identify the issue with theory bro really well. However I think more than theory a grasp of history, specifically precolonial and colonial history can help you understand systems like capitalism. After all capitalism develops as a result of colonialism and slavery.
Just because capitalism did evolve from colonialism and slavery doesn't imply a general theory of the construction of capital. Such a theory is not an easy structuralist claim to demonstrate in any terms. That's a hell of a claim to just drop with no explanation.
First off colonialism and slavery were economically motivated. Europe had little natural resources and they stole everyone else’s along with our labor and this why they have the wealth they have today. They destroyed industries all over the world and moved them to Europe. Understanding this history helps in understanding the development of capitalism and wealth. You sound butt hurt by my comment and I’m not sure why. Maybe you are one of those people who think the history of slavery and colonialism are unimportant because only Marx is important?
I am extremely skeptical that a general theory of the formation of capital (or capitalism) has any value at all.
I think it’s imperative to understand the role of slavery and colonialism in the development of capitalism because it helps us to understand why the economic and political order is what it is today and it helps us to understand how our macro level ideological structures developed as well.
What do you mean? It's not like there's a shortage of examples of capitalism developing without colonialism or slavery.
I mean that without colonialism and slavery capitalism doesn’t develop because these systems were how the advanced capitalist nations built their wealth (primitive accumulation)
I feel like this article ended three or four times, but I really enjoyed this.
I find it dizzying, almost humorous if it weren’t so damning to revolutionary movements of today, that the “theory bro” somehow found a way to separate literal Marxist thought from the material conditions it sprang from, and then found a way to glorify and commodify reading theory. Maddening.
Capital doesn't even have to lift a finger! Leftists will build their own prisons.
I think you can do much better than this.
--
I can't make sense of this theory about theory essay, this meta-theory. The "Theory Bro" sounds like a straw man, especially as no examples are given. Any time you build a straw man, it burns easily.
--
The question is raised "But what do we mean when we talk about ‘theory?’" but it is only characterised by its qualities and not properly defined.
Isn't scientific theory, including Marxist analyses, just the most abstract representation of the actual processes under way?
ON LENIN
We are told "Even a work like The State and Revolution, which is much broader in its scope and less particular in its immediate subject matter than What Is to Be Done?, is still grounded in the author’s analysis of the prevailing political context around him."
But what "prevailing political context"? The political situation in Russia? Then why is Lenin citing Marx and Engels from early time from a different part of Europe. Were Marx and Engels works universal okay to apply but for reasons not clearly given Lenin doesn't apply elsewhere in time and space.
Maybe the context of the Europe from 1843 to 1917? But that can't be right because we were told the Lenin wrote "What Is To Be Done?" "... as a work of concrete political analysis, intended to summarize and respond to the specific conditions of turn-of-the-century Russian social-democracy."
But before this we are told Lenin's 1902 work is simultaneously has "universality and specificity".
I have seen the assertion that "What Is To Be Done?" was just about a particular circumstances of the time but, like her, it is just claimed. There is also a different claim that Lenin rejected his position. (IIRC this was the RCI, Grant or Woods)
For a comparison with this easy, read what the genuine Trotskyists have to say on Lenin:
Lenin’s Theory of Socialist Consciousness: The Origins of Bolshevism and What Is To Be Done?
https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/russian-revolution-unfinished-twentieth-century/08.html
--
WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED?
1. "... We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. "
(Nb: Lenin didn't invent this, he took it from Kautksy.)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm
2. “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity.”
(Nb: Lenin didn't invent this, he took it from Plekhanov.)
ref, Lenin (1902): https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/i.htm
ref, Plekhanov (1883): https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1883/struggle/chap3.htm
Note Trotsky once wrote of Lenin that "for him theory is in actual fact a guide to action". You cannot act without a theory, but you can act without being conscious of one. Lenin expressed the highest form of political consciousness.
I loved the article. I am not sure what "anti-intellectual" means though, it almost seems to imply that society before this trend took off was rational to begin with. That's a hard pill to swallow.