I am interested in politics, and even tho i am not a communist, i am interested in what can be learned from it and i also want to learn more about political ideologies as a whole, instead of speaking out of my ass whenever someone mentions communism and potentially say some bullshit. What do you think?
Edit: thanks for all the answers! I swear i read them all, i just don’t know how to answer to each of them, but thanks for all the recommendations!
If anyone is looking for it, here’s one of many links to that manifesto: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
Of other possible interest, here’s one of many links to Albert Einstein’s Why Socialism? from 1949: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Why_Socialism%3F
The holy scripture should only be read in the original German /s
curious_beetle, I hereby declare you can read whatever interests you
Sure, the Manifesto is a pretty short easy read. But being more politically educated is always good
Thanks, i just got tired of people yelling “communist” at anyone who’s progressive in any way (probably a thing of the place i live in lol)
Yep, there’s definitely a concerted effort to muddy the waters of understanding. Cowbee is this corner of the internet’s resident tutor/mentor, so follow their suggestions if you’re interested in actually learning about and understanding socialism.
The manifesto of the communist party is not a huge theoretical foundational text.
If you’re interested in marxist theory I would suggest reading modern Marxists like Slavoj Žižek. It’s much more useful than reading actual marxist theory which is pretty dry and whose ideas have been adopted by various disciplines such as economics, history and philosophy already so they might not be as new and interesting as they were in the 19th century.
Maybe something like “Democracy in What State?” from 2011, you can just search for it on AA.
Practical effects are more informative than theoretical readings. Study the countries that implemented it and how things ran. That gives the most practical and unbiased reality.
You have to understand both. Understanding why communist parties took the actions they have and do today is critical for understanding the courses different socialist countries have gone through. Theory and practice mutually reinforce each other.
Of course, but i feel that knowing the premise and where those countries took their ideals from would be ideal to have a better view
Sure the Manifesto is short and easily understood so why not?
Yep, that would be great! I think a good place to start would be this reading list I put together. You can just check out the first couple sections:
1. Introduction [~1.5 hr]
Before beginning your studies, it’s important to learn how to best economize our time, and why we should study Marxism-Leninism in the first place.
- General Rules for Independent Study - N. Krupskaya (1934)
Webpage [~5 min]
Written by one of the founding Bolsheviks for students in the early USSR, this is a concise guide on how to best absorb the information to come as efficiently as possible by Nadezhda Krupskaya.
- Why Socialism? - A. Einstein (1949)
Webpage | Audiobook [~10 min / 22 min]
Wanting to persuade his contemporaries to pursue a path of intentional development in order to avoid nuclear war and escape the profit motive, Einstein argues the case for moving onto a planned and collectivized economy over the chaos of markets and the profit motive.
- Why Marxism? - R. Day (2020)
Webpage | Audiobook [~15 min / 21 min]
Roderic Day makes his case for why now, in the 21st century, Marxism-Leninism remains the strongest tool for working-class liberation, and why we should defend the achievements of actually existing socialism despite their real flaws.
- “Tankies” - N. Frome (2020)
Webpage | Audiobook [~5 min / 11 min]
Marxist-Leninists do not believe Stalin, Mao, etc. did no wrong, nor do we believe actually existing socialist states (AES) to be perfect and free from criticism. Proper appraisal of the genuine achievements and genuine shortcomings of socialism in real life requires brushing away capitalist mythologizing. Once the fact is separated from fiction, only then can we hope to build on the successes of our predecessors while avoiding repeating mistakes.
- US Interventionism, the Third World, and the USSR - M. Parenti (1986)
Webpage Transcription of Speech | Original Speech [~1 hr / 1 hr 33 min]
Dr. Michael Parenti delivers perhaps his most famous speech, discussing the predatory role of the US Empire and the progressive role played by socialist countries, including the necessary mechanisms of protection they develop against western imperialism.
- Why do we Have to Study Theory? - Ho Chi Minh (1957)
Webpage [~10 min]
As a hugely successful revolutionary, Ho Chi Minh explains why it is not enough to have good intentions, we must do our best to study revolutionary theory to guide revolutionary practice.
Checkpoint
-
Why do you want to study Marxism-Leninism?
-
How can it be helpful in your present life?
-
Why should we establish a socialist society?
2. Fundamentals [~2.5 hr]
To start off your studies, a clear understanding of basic terminology, as well as the historical context that gave rise to Marxism, is necessary.
- Principles of Communism - F. Engels (1847)
Webpage/.epub | Audiobook [~30 min /48 min]
A glossary of terms and background information, in an FAQ format.
- Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch with an Exposition of Marxism - V.I. Lenin (1914)
Webpage | Audiobook [~1 hr / 1hr 28 min]
Lenin, as a part of his rigorous studies of Marx and his writings for application in the conditions particular to his contemporary conditions, came to know and understand Marx and his ideology at a deeper level.
- The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism - V.I. Lenin (1913)
Webpage | Audiobook [~5 min / 18 min]
Outlaying the 3 major components of Marxism, and a short history of how they came to be.
- Manifesto of the Communist Party - K. Marx & F. Engels (1848)
Webpage | Audiobook [~1hr / 1 hr 35 min]
Marx & Engels call the international proletariat to action using the in this overview of the aims of the communists.
Checkpoint
-
What historical context gave rise to Marxism?
-
What are the 3 major components of Marxism?
-
In your country, what does the class makeup of society look like? Which can be aligned with the proletariat? Which cannot?
Of course, I recommend the whole thing. Alternatively, Prolewiki’s Marxism portal contains a fantastic short list of articles that help explain the absolute basics quickly.
Wow, i will check it out, thanks
No problem! Feel free to leave any comments or questions you may have if you choose the reading list option. The Marxism portal approach should take around an hour for the whole thing (minus the mini reading list it also recommends) so that’s also helpful if you just want to know the basics.
I feel it’s like reading many philosophical works.
You’ll read some bits and go “Wow that’s a profound observation!”
And then turn the page and be like “Lol that’s a biiiiig stretch, my dude. You couldn’t have been serious.”
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”
— Aristotle
What stretches does Marx make, in your view?
Yo Cowbee 👋. I was speaking more generally, if I’m being honest referencing a funny meme I remembered that went like
“My cat after a nap | Greek Philosophy”
“Oo biiiiiig stretch” 😂
I’ll fully admit right away you’re more studied on all things communist-theory than I, but if you want my opinion, I think the always-controversial “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” phase was a reach that seemed to say “This is a really difficult problem and idk it’s the best I’ve got right now. Ship it!”
I understand he was being somewhat poetic with his word usage, but even then I think he had to have understood not only how easily that could be misinterpreted, but also how much the mechanics of it relies on perfect variables, like a grand unified revolutionary worker class that are all aligned for the common good.
I mean hey, I’m a Christian Anarchist personally. Will I get to see that society where everyone loves thy neighbor and mutually cooperates in love? Probably not in this mortal lifetime, but I think it’s a great goal to strive for. So I’m no stranger to lofty ideals! Haha.
But as we’ve seen, revolutions are messy, and Marx’s words often got heavily twisted to justify a new ruling party that says “Now WE get to wear the boot!” Who have no interest in a fair society once they get to live in the palace and make the rules.
From a purely poly-sci perspective, I think this is where the USA’s founders were brilliant, in setting up 3 branches of government chosen by and consisting of The People, whose job it was to look over the others and say “HEY, that’s not what we’re doing here. No king stuff. Cut it out.”
…of course, that quickly went to crap when the 2 party system happened. But at its core, I still think it was a good idea. (Minus the “people” being landowners only thing.)
But I don’t entirely blame Marx over it: It seems humanity will always have a percentage of shamelessly sociopathic grifters who crave control, and large groups of distractable followers who just want to be told what to think to avoid responsibility for thinking for themselves.
This is a HARD problem to solve.
When the first gets overwhelming access to sway the second, even the best devised political systems will come under immense strain. (Modern example: Facebook)
So I guess I just saw it as a bit of a stretch that he assumed the Proles would majority unite in each others’ favor to suppress the tyranny of the ruling class, as exciting as it would be. I’m sure even back then, the working class has a bit of an infighting problem.
Sorry I could usually be a LOT better with words, but, as a working class myself without ownership of land nor meaningful means of production. . . I’m kept quite busy. 😂 Thanks for hearing me out in any case!
The biggest problem I have with your analysis here is the idea that communist parties are simply a new boot, so to speak. The idea that any group that successfully gains political power, no matter the class character, will turn evil and start doing evil things regardless of the economic formation is a defeatist lie told to make the working classes fear socialism. Socialist countries have historically been tremendously progressive for the working classes, and they all have working class parties at the helm. This is really just workers getting organized.
As for the US constitution, it was written of, by, and for the historical equivalent of billionaires. The progressive language betrayed the actual intent: create a stable shell by which capital would forever dictate the lives of the people. George Washington, for example, was one of the wealthiest slavers in the entire colonial society. They fought Britain both for taxation, and because Britain was posturing about banning slavery and banning expanding settler-colonialism, which the Iroquois people supported (which is why George Washington sent his army to commit genocide). This wasn’t because Britain was good, but because they had their own class interests opposed to the colonies.
My point here is that the US constitution is a bourgeois constitution through and through. Why not skim through the USSR’s 1936 constitution?
*turns the page “You expect me to read more than one page worth of words? That’s a biiiiggg stretch dude.”
Lmao
Even if you don’t agree with an ideology it’s always best to read it’s basis so you can accurately identify what you don’t agree with.
The Communist Manifesto is a very short, somewhat satirical pamphlet meant for Agitation, not Education. Should you read it? Sure, it’ll take you like 10 minutes! But you’re probably familiar with the ideas it introduces: that the working class should band together, rise up and seize control of the farms and factories, the tools and machines, by any means necessary. The Manifesto doesn’t go into much more detail than that, since it was intended as a Mass propaganda tool.
Unfortunately, in order to really understand the nitty-gritty of Marxism you must read Capital, or a later work that heavily references it (such as State and Revolution, an easier read).
There are audio books.
sure. you’re not going to be infected with some sort of horrible mind virus. if you’re interested, read it
Read principles of communism instead, it is the same content but better formatted
Oh, and watch Luna Oi’s Marxism 101: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeaTLoy1C9rM
Great rec!
Assigned reading in macroeconomics when I took it in college. Not a particularly left leaning course, nor cohort.
The manifesto isn’t even particularly long or difficult to read. Das Capital by Marx is really where his economic theories are actually presented. It is an extremely difficult read.
I’d say the first 3 chapters of Capital are the most difficult to get through, but if you can the rest goes pretty smoothly.
Michael Heinrich wrote a very helpful guide for Capital. Perfect for the first 100 pages.
I prefer David Harvey, who sometimes misses the mark slightly. Heinrich is closely associated with the Neue Marx-Lektüre school of Marxism that deviates pretty heavily from Marx’s actual ideas IMO, and quite far from Marxism-Leninism, which is where I stand.
I find Heinrich to be more stimulating over all. He is really unique in that he and his peers consulted some pretty obscure notes and unpublished corrections/refinements M&E made. They differ from the big editions that were historically published. I am an “agnostic” Marxist – as in I don’t like to moralise about the USSR like a Trot and hate the present discourse around doctrinal purity and traditionalist legacy, who the real communists supposedly are and whether or not anyone today is allowed to call themselves a communist – I don’t at all believe in distancing yourself from an author’s work because other positions they hold don’t conform neatly to one’s previous politicisation.
My point isn’t that I think people should never read anything by Heinrich or anything, nor that I am arguing for purity. I think Heinrich presents a very specific reading of Marx that lends itself to opposing practical action with respect to existing socialist states, and that this insistence on adhering to Marx and minimizing the contributions of Engels downplays Marx’s lifelong agency and cowork with Engels. Harvey is more agnostic, in that sense, and defends the Fowkes translation, based more on the French edition that Marx developed latest than earlier Marx-only editions.
Really, this gets more into esoteric and usually trivial differences. Among modern Marxist economists, I am most a fan of Ian Paul Wright over others.
Hm, interesting. What do you think of Anwar Sheikh?
Unfamiliar, sorry.
It is not an extremely difficult read. But if you don’t want to read it there’s probably some youtuber or podcaster who could present the main points adequately
