“Without Revolutionary theory, there can be no Revolutionary Movement.”
— Vladimir Lenin, What is to be Done? | Audiobook
It’s time to read theory, comrades! As Lenin says, “Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle.” Marxism-Leninism is broken into 3 major components, as noted by Lenin in his pamphlet The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism: | Audiobook
-
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
-
Critique of Capitalism along the lines of Marx’s Law of Value
-
Advocacy for Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
As such, I created the following list to take you from no knowledge whatsoever of Leftist theory, and leave you with a strong understanding of the critical fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism in an order that builds up as you read. Let’s get started!
Section I: Getting Started
What the heck is Communism, anyways? For that matter, what is fascism?
- Friedrich Engels’ Principles of Communism | Audiobook
The FAQ of Communism, written by the Luigi of the Marx & Engels duo. Quick to read, and easy to reference, this is the perfect start to your journey.
- Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds | Audiobook
Parenti’s characteristic wit is on full display in this historical contextualization and analysis of fascism and Communism. Line after line, Parenti debunks anti-Communist myths. This is also an excellent time to watch the famous “Yellow Parenti” speech.
Section II: Historical and Dialectical Materialism
Ugh, philosophy? Really? YES!
- Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy | Audiobook
By understanding Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, you make it easier to understand the rest of Marxism-Leninism. Don’t be intimidated!
- Friedrich Engels’ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific | Audiobook
Engels introduces Scientific Socialism, explaining how Capitalism itself prepares the conditions for public ownership and planning by centralizing itself into monopolist syndicates and cartels.
Section III: Political Economy
That’s right, it’s time for the Law of Value and a deep-dive into Imperialism. If we are to defeat Capitalism, we must learn it’s mechanisms, tendencies, contradictions, and laws.
- Karl Marx’s Wage Labor and Capital | Audiobook & Wages, Price and Profit | Audiobook
Best taken as a pair, these essays simplify the most important parts of the Law of Value.
- Vladimir Lenin’s Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism | Audiobook
The era of Imperialism, which as the primary contradiction cascades downward into all manner of related secondary contradictions.
Section IV: Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
Can we defeat Capitalism at the ballot box? What about just defeating fascism? What about the role of the state?
- Rosa Luxemburg’s Reform or Revolution | Audiobook
If Marxists believed reforming Capitalist society was possible, we would be the first in line for it. Sadly, it isn’t.
- Vladimir Lenin’s The State and Revolution | Audiobook
Further analyzes the necessity of Revolution and introduces the economic basis for the withering away of the State.
Section V: National Liberation, De-colonialism, and Solidarity
The revolution will not be fought by individuals, but by an intersectional, international working class movement. Solidarity allows different marginalized groups to work together in collective interest, unifying into a single broad movement. Marxists support the Right of Self-Determination for all peoples and support National Liberation movements against Imperialism.
- Vikky Storm & Eme Flores’ The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto | (No Audiobook yet)
Breaks down misogyny, and queerphobia, as well as how to move beyond the base subject of “gender” from a Historical Materialist perspective.
- Leslie Feinberg’s Lavender & Red | Audiobook
When different social groups fight for liberation together along intersectional lines, they are emboldened and empowered ever-further.
- Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth | Audiobook & Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed | Audiobook
De-colonialism is essential to Marxism. Without having a strong, de-colonial, internationalist stance, we have no path to victory nor justice. These books are best taken as a pair, read in quick succession.
Section VI: Putting it into Practice!
It’s not enough to endlessly read, you must put theory to practice. That is how you can improve yourself and the movements you support. Touch grass!
- Mao Tse-Tung’s On Practice & On Contradiction | Audiobook
Mao wrote simply and directly to peasant soldiers during the Revolutionary War in China. This pair of essays equip the reader to apply the analytical tools of Dialectical Materialism to their every day practice.
- Vladimir Lenin’s “Left-Wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder | Audiobook
Common among new leftists is dogmatism over pragmatism. Everyone wants perfection, but dogmatic “left” anti-Communists let perfection become the enemy of progress.
- Liu Shaoqi’s How to be a Good Communist | Audiobook
Organizing is a skill. If we are to be successful, we must work to better ourselves.
Congratulations, you completed your introductory reading course!
With your new understanding and knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, here is a mini What is to be Done? of your own to follow, and take with you as practical advice.
-
Get organized. The Party for Socialism and Liberation, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Red Star Caucus, and Marxist Unity Group all organize year round, every year, because the battle for progress is a constant struggle. See if there is a chapter near you, or start one!
-
Read theory. Don’t think that you are done now! Just because you have the basics, doesn’t mean you know more than you do. If you have not investigated a subject, don’t speak on it!
-
Aggressively combat white supremacy, misogyny, queerphobia, and other attacks on marginalized communities. Cede no ground, let nobody go forgotten.
-
Be industrious, and self-sufficient. Take up gardening, home repair, tinkering. It is through practice that you elevate your knowledge.
-
Learn self-defense. Get armed, if practical. Be ready to protect yourself and others.
-
Be persistent. If you feel like a single water droplet against a mountain, think of canyons and valleys. With consistency, every rock, boulder, mountain, can be drilled through with nothing but water droplets.
“Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.”
— Mao Tse-Tung
What do you think about adding Manufacturing Consent and Consequences of Capitalism by Noam Chomsky? I think they both explain both the current media situation and realities of global capitalism very well without the need of reading previous theory.
Chomsky is a bit of an interesting conundrum. On the one hand, the conclusions and processes laid out in his analysis of Capitalism, especially with respect to the media and how it operates to prep the public for dramatic action and shift narratives is incredibly valuable. However, his analysis of Socialism is unfortunately incredibly anti-Marxist, and this extends to perpetual misanalysis of Socialism as it exists in the real world, often using “State Capitalism” to refer to Socialist States. As a consequence, including his works can backfire if not read with a strong understanding of Socialism beforehand to separate the golden nuggets from the nonsense, so to speak.
To that end, I actually think Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds does a decent job of pointing out the role the media plays in Capitalist states, and absolutely nails modern Capitalist Imperialism, all while being realistic about AES due to his Marxist leanings. Here’s one of his most famous quotes:
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
-Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds
I appreciate your input, though! What do you think about the list overall?
I think Chomsky’s view is similar to Richard Wolff’s when it comes to concepts like State Capitalism. From what I’ve gathered, it relates to the relationship between the owners and workers. In state capitalism, there is still an authoritarian relationship between the owners or board of directors and the workers. The main difference is that the business is owned by the State, I’ve heard Wolff also call this Authoritarian Socialism. I’ve noticed both Chomsky and Wolff differentiate this from a socialist relationship, where the workers are also the owners in a democratic organization of the business, where this socialist relationship can be in either the Private sector or the State. This differentiates both Private and State Capitalism from Democratic Socialism, where the socialist relationship is present all forms of business both State and Private.
I don’t think this makes their works anti-marxist. While Chomsky may use a different definition of Socialism as discussed above, he has a very detailed analysis of how Capital Interests, especially since the implementation of neoliberalism, have affected the material conditions of the working class and atomized social organization. I think the main difference is that Chomsky does not see revolution as inevitable, but he still has a focus on how resistance and organization is necessary to overcome the power of global capitalism. I think it’s quite Marxist, but within the framework of the American Empire.
From that quote it looks look like Blackshirts and Reds does touch on the interplay between media and capital. But I think Manufacturing Consent both goes into much more detail for the whole scope, from Imperialists interests of the State down to individual media consumption, and also much more relevant to the media landscape facing the American and Western public today.
Marv Waterstone in Consequences of Capitalism does a fantastic job detailing the realities and effects of Global Capitalism in every aspect of today. From how it affects Imperialism on the global scale, to the environment and the Climate Catastrophe, to how it affects and has atomized the everyday worker.
They give an incredible amount of context about the current state of Capitalism, the current state of the working class, and a framework of organizing and resistance.
I’m familiar with how Wolff and Chomsky differentiate what they refer to as “authoritarian socialism” or “State Capitalism” and “Democratic Socialism,” but this is a deviation from Marx. Where Wolff and Chomsky define Socialism as “Workplace Democracy,” Socialism in a Marxist sense is more about Public Ownership and Central Planning in the hands of the working class, and dominance over Capital and thus the bourgeoisie. The fact that there are central planners does not mean there are distinct class dynamics, in fact Engels illustrates this quite well in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away.
Chomsky and Wolff advocate for a sort of “worker-owned Capitalism.” A form of Market Socialism, if you will. This is again a deviation from Marx. Where there is competition, there is centralization, such a system would regardless trend towards eventual public ownership and central planning. Engels spends the entirety of Anti-Dühring arguing against such a cooperative-focused system as an inevitable return to Capitalism, and therefore an inevitable turn towards Public Ownership and Central Planning anyways.
Of course, that doesn’t mean a Socialist system would not have Private Property, or Markets, just that the Proletariat would be dominant and by extension the Public Sector would have dominance over the Private, for as long as Markets are still a useful tool for developing these large syndicates ripe for central planning. The Marxist method is Dialectical Materialism, it recognizes that Capitalism itself prepares the way for Socialism, once the Working class is in charge it can gradually wrest from the Bourgeoisie the large business syndicates it creates, but only by the degree to which they have formed. From the Manifesto:
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
The sort of “Market Socialist” approach is a deviation from Marxism.
Finally, that also ignores the very real democratic structures in Marxist states. I do recommend you read the essay Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” It’s important to contextualize AES states, their successes and failures, properly. For further reading, Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan is a good historical account of the Soviet Democratic System, warts and all.
I know this comment was long-winded, but I do hope that encourages you to read the first couple sections at least of my reading guide, if nothing else but to give a different perspective on Socialism.
Ah, I haven’t done much indepth reading of Marx yet so I wasn’t aware those were considered deviations. That makes sense. Overall I still agree with their deviations, I think they are reasonable and applicable to the current situation we’re in. I also agree with you and the works of Engles and Marx that is workplace democracy is not the end-all-be-all solution and that it will inevitably have to change one way or the other, either towards communism or regress back to capitalism.
I still stand by that Chomsky’s works are worth reading for people who are interested in and learning about socialism. It’s relatively digestible, easy to start, informative about our current situation, and I think the concept of workplace democracy is the most applicable method for people to resist the current state of the world dominated by Capitalism. I also agree with you that it’s best if not taken alone and better paired with the works of Marx, Engles, ect. But I do think it’s a great starting place for most people. Especially since most people still think of capitalism as simply ‘markets’ and ‘free trade’ and socialism/communism as ‘bread lines’ and ‘gulags’ which is of course far removed from the reality.
I appreciate your input, however I do want to state that I think it’s important for you to also read Marx if you want to stand by the deviations from Marx. The largest economy in the world, for example, is run along Marxist-Leninist analysis and principles, even if you disagree with individual policies the mere fact of the PRC’s unprecedented rapid development due to Socialism can’t be denied nor ignored.
Workplace Democracy is in no way a bad thing by itself, but is insufficient, and moreover extremely difficult to achieve in a Capitalist system regardless. Revolution remains more practical and more likely as Capitalism and Imperialism continue to crumble and decay.
I think a great step for you with respect to Marxism is to study the first 2 sections in my reading guide, if nothing else. You don’t have to move beyond it, but specifically the concept of Scientific Socialism, or looking at where Capitalism is naturally going and trying to wrest control of it directly, is a massive step up from your current model of trying to simply resist within the framework of a system that is already heading towards collapse.
Thanks for your time!
Having seen you sharing this list multiple times in the comments lately, I have been thinking “man, this should be a proper post”. Great work and thanks for educating us, comrade o7
Thank you for checking it out! Now more than ever is a great opportunity for reading theory and radicalization, so I’ve been sharing it when I can.
Excellent reading list. 👏
Thank you! Do you have any suggestions for swaps or improvements overall?
I think the list is great as is, but minor suggestions. It might be an idea bump the state and rev higher up because it directly tackles a lot of the debates we’re seeing currently on the left. It explains the nature of the state and addresses the whole reformism and working within the system idea very thoroughly. I’d argue it’s one of the most relevant texts for understanding the current political moment out there. I’d also recommend the excellent What Is To Be Done? (Abridged) from Red Sails https://redsails.org/witbd-rs-abridged/ as it’s more accessible.
And it’s worth mentioning “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder as well since it deals with practical organization, and how to balance pragmatism with staying principled. I think it’s a great overview of what a communist party should strive for.
I can swap section 3 and 4, so State and Rev comes up earlier. I would have to remove Reform or Revolution or a different work to add more theory, but I’ll keep your suggestions in mind, thanks. I agree that “Left-Wing” Communism is a great work for avoiding common pitfalls, but running into the character limit really forces me to pick and choose.
What are your thoughts, if you don’t mind?
I don’t know that I’d take anything out, all the sources you’ve already got there are great. I think it’s honestly a very good intro as is, so totally up to your discretion. :)
Thanks, I appreciate it! Might see if I can trim some fat and throw “Left-Wing” Communism at the end, and maybe Pedagogy of the Oppressed right after Wretched as other comrades have recommended.
o7
By the way, I did end up squeezing in “Left-Wing” Communism," PotO, and added How to be a Good Communist by Liu Shaoqi, so there should be a much stronger focus on National Liberation and principled yet practical organization, both of which were lacking in the original revision of my list IMO. Thanks for the suggestion!
o7
Thx, this is a great list!
I can’t emphasize enough how good Socialism - Utopian and Scientific, and State and revolution are. Possibly the best shorter political works in their given centuries.
State and Revolution was what convinced me of communism. Black shirts and Reds radicalized me but State and Revolution educated me and convinced me of the necessity of revolution. I straight up could not define what a state was before I read that 💀
No problem! Wanted to have something of my own to share any time I think it might be wanted, plus with the aftermath of the US election many US liberals are more open to radicalization.
Fully agree on Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and State and Rev, both are some of the most useful for understanding Scientific Socialism and the necessity of revolution.
Thanks for your input!
Quote from the second link:
The proletariat is that class in society which draws its means of livelihood wholly and solely from the sale of its labour and not from the profit from any kind of capital
So anyone with any sort of retirement plan or a bit of money invested is not part of the proletariat.
The proletariat, or class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the nineteenth century.
Yeah, that tracks. How relevant is it to today’s world, though?
The proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.
The proletarian frees himself by abolishing competition, private property and all class differences.I wonder how many people today who call themselves “Communist” would actually be fine with that.
It’s our car now, comrade.The proletarian frees himself by abolishing competition, private property and all class differences.
I wonder how many people today who call themselves “Communist” would actually be fine with that.
It’s our car now, comrade.Communists seek the abolishment of private property — property owned by capitalists used to extract surplus value from workers, like real estate, corporations, IPs, etc. Not personal property which is property you use yourself, like your house (even if it’s rented from a capitalist; they should not own your house as private property in the first place) or your car.
It’s all explained in the books listed.
Good questions!
-
Yes and no. This is class reductionism, a dogmatic approach to Class distinctions, however you are getting to where the Petite Bourgeoisie and Proletariat start to solidify. The Proletariat must labor to live, the Petite Bourgeoisie must labor to live too, but work using Capital they own. ie, workers vs small business owners. Having some 401k investments does not make you petite bourgeoisie, you still fund your livelihood off of your labor and your labor alone. There are elements of Labor Aristocracy and other, more complicated parts of class dynamics, especially with respect to Imperialism, but that concept can be shelved for now. You’ll come to it later if you stick with this list, and it will make more sense then.
-
Class dynamics are still relevant today. The proletariat includes office workers, but also still includes the factory workers overseas who still produce everything! The Global North didn’t move beyond factories, but exported most of them to Global South countries the Global North can exploit even more. Parenti makes his case for this in the last section of Blackshirts, the next book on the list.
-
Every Communist accepts abolition of Private Property. A fully socialized economy is publicly owned and centrally planned. This means no private property. No, Communists are not saying you can’t have a toothbrush or gaming PC of your own, that’s why they distinguish between Private, Public, and Personal property. There are many Communists that want all or almost all transportation to be publicly owned, yes, but that comes with proper city planning and infrastructure to allow for it to be practical.
Hope that helps!
-
Is communism the end goal? I feel like we should strive for a post economic society. Is there any literature on that?
If by “post economic” you mean the abolishment of money, communism is supposed to be that: a stateless, classless, moneyless society (see: primitive communism)
In practice, the new relations of production post-capitalism will may give rise to entirely new class divisions instead — similar to prior changes in modes of production throughout history — but we’ll see that when we get there.
First of all, what do you mean by a “Post-Economic Society?” I am not sure I understand the context of your question. Chiefly, Communism is just the phase in Mode of Production Communists believe will be after Socialism, that doesn’t mean it’s the end of historical movement.
who the fuck is scraeming “READ THEORY” at my house. show yourself, coward. i will never read theory
It’s me, please do it… 🥺
Open for feedback! Want to have this intro list I made as a post I can easily reference with a quick link. I can take this down or edit it if it breaks any rules. Hope I’ve covered all the necessary bases!
Feel free to ask any questions in the comments as well, I’ll do my best to answer. It doesn’t need to specifically be about this list either, it can be a general Marxism question as well!
Also working on a “DLC Pack” for this list for further reading. I’d appreciate any suggestions!
Edit: internationalized the language to not be US-centric (changed “The Democrats will not save us” to “Liberals will not save us” and “Grand Canyon” to “canyons and valleys”).
Edit 2: cleaned up and trimmed extra words that were unnecessary (possible expansion) and added Red Star Caucus and MUG to the org list at @OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml request.
Edit 3: added Pedagogy of the Oppressed and emphasized the Marxist stance on National Liberation and the Right of Self-Determination.
Edit 4: added “Left-Wing” Communism at the request of @yogthos@lemmy.ml
Edit 5: added How to be a Good Communist per the request of a (for now) anonymous comrade.
Edit 6: optimization of link character use thanks to @Edie@lemmy.ml
Can’t recommend this list enough as well.
Love the content of that list, hate that it uses Google Analytics. I used to share that list around too, but after a comrade pointed it out I’ve refrained for OPSEC reasons. If you are okay with it, I can personally back it up as a good list even if I made my own list based on my own overall preferences. That’s part of why I am making my own list instead!
Thanks for sharing!
PSL and FRSO are bad picks. They do not share a structure common with successful revolutions- a smaller demcent vanguard party within a larger mass organization with internal democracy. If you want to recreate the bolsheviks, you need to find your Russian Social Democratic labor party, which means joining other MLs in struggling within DSA.
I’m not aware of any better orgs in the US - do you have a recommendation?
Go join DSA and apply to Red Star or MUG once you have some experience and leadership. Successful struggle generally takes place within mass parties, even if and because the mass parties start off with a lower level of consciousness.
Now is an important time as the national leadership is basically split between relatively cool factions and social democrats with Trots making up deciding votes. The convention is this Summer, and right now the right wing has lost a lot of credibility in the eyes of membership after licking the boot of the unsuccessful kamala campaign. If you want to make a difference in turning the biggest instrument for channeling growing class consciousness back into democrat support into something that genuinely engages in class struggle, now is a critical time to engage.
I’ll add Red Star Caucus and MUG to the list of orgs, though I won’t remove FRSO or PSL as they are supported by many comrades here for legitimate reason as well. Thanks!
Fair enough. There are plenty of cool folks to learn from in both orgs, I just don’t think there structure and orientation toward the more advanced sections of the working class really align with historical lessons.
That’s absolutely a valid argument, I have not done enough personal investigation into the matter to warrant de-suggesting FRSO and PSL, that’s all.
Walter Rodney’s How Europe Underdeveloped Africa would be a good addition to this list as well as his other book Decolonial Marxism. Both have audiobooks available.
They’re very helpful in understanding underdevelopment, dependency theory, unequal exchange, and the colonial mode of production which places and keeps superexploited labor as low as possible on the production chain either in primary production/resource extraction or in very basic secondary production, where then these resources are exported to the metropoles for further refinement.
Good idea! Do you have any suggestions on what I should remove, if anything? I am nearing the limits on character count I believe. I tried to get Decolonialism through Fanon’s work, but am open to making it more of an emphasis.
Alternatively, I could add them to my planned “DLC list” with a long list of other great works and short descriptions so people can choose where to focus upon finishing this list. Works like Settlers and Oppose Book Worship, everything that doesn’t quite fit but should be essential reading anyways, is DLC material.
Oof, I don’t know if I’d remove anything either? There’s so much out there to read that I’d struggle making a concise list.
So on second thought, maybe actually Walter Rodney could be part of a separate introduction to decolonisation?
I’ll keep that in mind!
It was a strict requirement for this list to include work on Decolonialism, so I believe Fanon does that the best in a single work. That way, we remove the risk of people simply taking whatever materially benefits themselves, and push the internationalist, intersectional angle.
The DLC list will likely be broken up into sections so if someone wants further reading on decolonialism, that can be properly provided.
Just wrote this somewhere else. Maybe this is where it belongs: Good impulse to read theory, but 150y/o theory is not where I’d advice people to start. At least the german originals of what you recomend there are fairly hard to read. Plus they lack the development of marxist theory that happened since then. For example Gramscis thoughts or critical theory are so freakin important for marxism to be applicable to this society being far more diverse than good’ol working class in the factory vs. Monopoly man capitalists. I’m sure there is updated marxism and introductions available in english. (Dunno, Harvey maybe? Mayo?)
Also “how to conduct yourself as a leftist” sound strict af and kinda deterministic.
Plus there is no need to give stalin’s voice that kind of space.
I appreciate your input! From what I’ve curated, I picked a good mix of modern works like Blackshirts and Reds and foundational works, because they are relevant and necessary even today in my opinion. Since it’s an intro reading list, it’s difficult to include every good work, if you want, you can comment a suggestion of what to remove and what to take its place.
As for the “how to conduct yourself” bit, it’s just good general advice like suggesting to keep reading theory, getting organized, be persistent, etc. All generally useful skills even for non-leftists, but again, feel free to leave feedback in the comments of how you would change it and I’ll consider it.
As for the comment on Stalin, nowhere are his works listed, can you elaborate on what you mean?
nowhere are his works listed
A pity, at least the Foundations of Leninism should be included, at the very least the 6th chapter because this topic is where real problem lies for all liberals and succdems, and it leds them to assume proimperialist positions.
I mean i understand normies fear the name of Stalin, but it is really very critical point and a crucial addition to Lenin’s “Imperialism…”
I believe I covered the National Question sufficiently by including The Wretched of the Earth, though I am open to tweaking the list. The reason why I did not include Foundations of Leninism, on top of the general fear of Stalin, is because I believe it to be redundant and have successfully covered all of what Stalin covers in it in other, more in-depth works. Additionally, I am light on room in the list character limit, so I would have to swap it out or trim the intro/conclusion. Even further, I would rather include Marxism and the National Question over Foundations of Leninism, if my goal is to answer the question of the importance of National Liberation.
Do you have a suggestion for what could be swapped out?
Your list isn’t even that long, and both are short too, especially that you included works like Wretched or Lavender which are 300+ pages.
Yes. Again, I believe that Wretched answers the National Question already, and in more depth than either Marxism and the National Question or Foundations of Leninism. I specifically included Lavender and Red to showcase that liberatory struggles for marginalized groups are more effective when allied with other liberatory struggles.
Again, I am fighting the character limit, and trying to make a list that doesn’t scare away liberals. Including a work by Stalin absolutely is make or break for many liberals, period, meaning no theory ends up getting read. If you can make the case that Wretched alone cannot solve the National Question, or that it is good for me to trim some areas of the text body meant to guide and encourage the reader along, I am more than happy to consider it.
I agree that it is important to stress National Liberation as a means to prevent pro-Imperialist stances from forming, which is why I am seriously considering what you’re saying, but you haven’t explained why Wretched is insufficient. I understand that the works I have listed are longer, which is part of why I believe my list to be more comprehensive, even if it is merely an introductory list.
2·2 days agoI am fighting the character limit,
You can get a few characters by changing
comlib.encryptionin.spacetoc.encryptionin.spaceOh, thank you! I’ll make the edits in a bit.
Edit: just did it, thanks so much!
I won’t even disagree, except the point we can’t dance around Stalin for long. Probably not for more than few seconds it take any lib to ask question about him.
That’s a fair point, though I will point out that Blackshirts does a good job of that already, and is the second item in the list. It’s not like I need to have Losurdo as required reading IMO when the emphasis of applying correct analysis, supporting revolutionary movements, anti-Imperialism, and getting organized should lead people to correct conclusions even without reading Stalin’s work, which is mostly summarization of other work.
I’ll consider what you’ve said, thank you. I appreciate the constructive criticism.
Okay sorry regarding stalin i mixed that up. It’s in the other reading list in the comments here.
On “conduct yourself” dunno, maybe this boils down to writing style. But the ML sort of theoretical style plus the horrors of undemocratic socialist history do make it important to stress the emphatic (as in: since critical theory and french subjectivity theory we debunked “individual freedom”, but still need to keep it as a goal) part of personal freedom & choice. That wording above doesn’t show that kind of self reflection imo.
Gramsci! The concepts of hegemony and “senso commune” (sry dont know english translation) are essential to analyse current events. Also this protects lefties from babbling about classes in a way that alienates them from everyone just observing whats going on.
(Senso commune and gramscis notion of intellectuals also offers a neat way through the whole “get educated since otherwise you fundamentally don’t understand your own life”- rhethoric dilemma/arrogance issue)
You need secondary literature for gramsci though. He left 3000 pages of unstructured notes from fascist prison. You don’t wanna go through that. Unfortunetly I have no idea of english publications. Barfuss & Jehle Einführung is nice, in case you speak german.
Appreciate the clarification regarding Stalin.
First, offering advice on how to conduct yourself as a Leftist isn’t some spooky command. In the list I made, I literally say “to take with you as practical advice.” This practical advice includes joining a leftist organization (the bare minimum to be a leftist in practice and not just in theory), read more theory, fight white supremacy and queerphobia, be more industrious, learn self-defense, and be persistent. None of these get in the way of “personal freedom” in my opinion. My goal is to create Communists that want to change society and work to do so, not just intellectuals that want to endlessly critique society, and my list reflects that. If you have problems with individual bits of advice in that list, feel free to let me know.
Secondly, regarding your claims of Marxist-Leninist theory and “horrifyingly undemocratic” AES states, I do recommend you read the essay Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” It’s important to contextualize AES states, their successes and failures, properly. For further reading, Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan is a good historical account of the Soviet Democratic System, warts and all.
As for Gramsci, I am not at all opposed to including his writings, but my list is focuses on getting the most out of the least. I would need to remove a work and find a concise secondary work, in English. I can include his writings in my “DLC Pack” further reading list I am making. The target audience for my list is English-speaking, I made it in the context of the aftermath of the US election and am targeting disenfranchised liberals who may benefit from theory.
I appreciate your feedback however, and will add Gramsci as a suggestion for my DLC list.
Thanks. I read the tayangyu essay, and kinda liked it, but it didn’t really answer my questions…
Isn’t the author leaving the framework of dialectical thinking when they dismiss the relevance of ideas almost entirely in favor of material economical factors?
As in: Couldn’t have the development of productive forces happened with more participation?
Wouldn’t than the emergence of a democratic or collective subject have been faaaar more likely, even though and because people would have been confronted with the limits of economic development, as agents, not just as objects of that one and only party’s decisions?
Good question! The answer is that there were democratic structures in place in the Soviet Union. That’s the purpose of adding Soviet Democracy as a historical reference to be taken alongside the essay. These structures were not all powerful or fully democratic, I am not pretending the USSR was perfect. I am instead, however, contextualizing the earlier part of the essay, the line
Sometimes people respond to this by pointing to the democratic benefits Marxist-Leninist countries have provided. However, we would be fooling ourselves to pretend any Marxist-Leninist country created anything coming close to a “workers’ paradise.” That’s not to say there were not huge gains for workers, don’t get me wrong, but criticism of the inadequacies of workers’ democracy in these countries should be taken seriously and responded to honestly.
When contextualized, Soviet Democracy was both a massive stride yet held back and incomplete by the real Material Conditions and level of development of the Productive Forces, leading to real setbacks and real weaknesses in said democratic structures.
I think it was not only those material conditions but also a deterministic ideology or maybe just power hungry leaders. (Good cue for taking the democracy part very serious from the beginning, because non or semi-democratic structures attract and create dictator-subjects, and projecting yourself outside that dialectic is as naive as it is arrogant)
Shooting thousands (or hundreds of thousands, as my hasty wikipedia research suggests) of the opposition, both left and right, is no matter of slow industrialization.
Admittedly I’n not fit in soviet history, but the combo of “oh they had democratic infrastructure” and secret deportation, incarceration and murder of even leftist opposition doesn’t sit right. And honestly, calling that “not perfect” feels like violation of emancipatory writing of history and way of living.
You’re free to make your case for it being because of “power hungry leaders,” though you’d have to grapple with the very real fact that Stalin tried to resign on 4 separate occasions and have his position eliminated. I’m not saying you’re wrong, it very well could have been a thirst for power, but you’ve done nothing to support your thesis, nor to prove that the Soviet model was non-democratic or semi-democratic. Moreover, you don’t define what “semi-democratic” means, nor what “democratic” is, and where that threshold lies.
To borrow your own words, using hasty Wikipedia research rather than attempting to better understand Soviet history before making authoritative claims is “as naive as it is ignorant.” You would do well to read the history books I listed before trying to make an argument on structures and events you don’t fully understand. I mean no offense by this.
The idea that the USSR was just a group that killed all opposition betrays that the USSR, as far as states are concerned, acted more leniantly towards violent opposition groups than other comtemporary states, as a quick example of how a simple manner of framing betrays the very real context of a situation.
