On May 5th, 1818, Karl Marx, hero of the international proletatiat, was born. His revolution of Socialist theory reverberates throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of Capitalism, development of the theory of Scientific Socialism, and advancements on dialectics to become Dialectical Materialism, have all played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.
He didn’t always rock his famous beard, when he was younger he was clean shaven!
Some significant works:
Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Manifesto of the Communist Party (along with Engels)
And, of course, Capital Vol I-III
Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don’t know where to start? Check out my “Read Theory, Darn it!” introductory reading list!
Yes, it does, very much so. Thanks a lot!
It is good to hear. For what it’s worth, I just went through a bit of an exercise for Cuba trying to look for examples of the types of violence that they committed and also looked into some of the other groups that I associate with the concept of a “violent revolution” (ETA in Spain, IRA in Ireland, different groups in Yugoslavia). What I found is:
The groups that I associate with terrorism tactics are nationalistic, not fighting for socialism (at least not as a main goal).
The Cuban revolutionaries used guerrilla tactics that, from what I can find, did not use terrorism as a tool. Their enemies, including CIA-backed groups, did.
So, that’s points in favor to Cuba.
Good to know! Before the 2016 US election I would rarely choose the literal interpretation when reading statements like this online. When Trump was elected and I realized that people online were not actually being sarcastic and making jokes, I began to take online statements more seriously and literally. I still think there is a high probability that some people who write about violence online mean it literally. That doesn’t necessarily reflect on Marxist-Leninists though, many ideologies/religions can be pushed to extremism, and it is not entirely fair to ask everyone not to use figurative language online.
I am half way through Wage Labor and Capital now. It is very interesting, I think that I will like Marx’s Das Kaptial because I do like dense/analytical. I already have several questions but I will first read more and then see if I can get some help in the communities you mentioned.
Good to hear! And yes, I do think you’d enjoy Capital, but I will selfishly re-assert the importance of Dialectical Materialism, especially before Capital, as that’s Marx’s method and understanding it prior to his masterwork will help you both appreciate and understand it more.
As for National Liberation, Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth is the best Marxist explanation of it. National liberation against colonialism and Imperialism is seen as progressive, and the product of oppression, not the oppressors. Palestine, for example, is supported wholeheartedly against the Settler-Colonialism of Israel, including resisting genocide using force to do so. Oppression creates its own violent reaction, even if in a perfect world neither would exist.
Good luck!
Ok, I will make sure I cover it then, I started this morning. Materialism is familiar to me and dialectics in the context of debate are also familiar, but ‘dialectical materialism’ is new. It has been about a decade since I put some dedicated effort in studying philosophy, and back then I mostly did morality, theology/metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of science. Economics and politics were not super interesting to me back then, but now they are, so it is a good time to revisit.
From a surface reading it makes sense that the resolution of conflicts that arise due to material conditions is one pathway to change. I am curious to understand how a framework is built from this concept and whether Marxist theory rigidly asserts this as the driver for change or if it is one important tool for building a perspective on class struggles but the framework accepts flexibility and complexity.
I will leave ‘National liberation’ study for later as there is already enough on the plate. In the context of Palestine, the Palestinians need to do what they can do to survive. They have grown under an active genocidal campaign, they are direct recipients of unimaginable violence. I think it’s straightforward to frame this as a case of self-preservation. What is the alternative argument? That they should erase themselves?
What is arguably dangerous (I am not saying this happens in Marxist philosophy) is when an ideology recognizes, as an example, the ‘Imperial Core’ as the ultimately responsible entity of oppression and places everyone who benefits in some way, perhaps simply by being born in Europe or US, as part of the enemy. Someone can justify bombing civilians in a Western country using a robust and coherent ideological framework that is further justified by the violent injustices that they have experienced. When I think of an ideological framework that discusses violence, I’m interested in what mechanisms are in place to keep violence in check.
Good to see! Dialectical Materialism is critical for understanding Marxism.
As for Palestine, the alternatives to being pro-Palestinian are believing the Palestinians started it and thus deserve it, or that the Zionists started it, but also condemning Hamas for fighting back. Neither of those are correct, of course.
As far as justifying violence against “enemies,” I think Dialectical Materialism will help. One can label the Working Class in the Global North as largely bribed and thus anti-revolutionary, and yet never jump to genocidal conclusions. The point is that the system is the target, analysis of different positions classes hold is to understand why they act in the way they do generally, and how best to overcome it. There is no Materialist reason to slaughter civilians, really.
Already finished Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds a few days ago and and watched Parenti’s speech. I am still going through the list, little by little. Great stuff, thanks !
Fantastic, glad you liked it! Any thoughts or questions you might want to offer? Selfishly, feedback for my list is always appreciated, I like tweaking it from time to time, haha.
Blackshirts and Reds was a good entry point for me since I don’t have much historical background. It helped clarify terms like “fascism” that I’d seen used a lot but never truly understood. It also laid out some contrasts between fascist and communist dictatorships, which I found helpful early on.
One thing that really caught my attention was the bit on Kerala and the so-called “Kerala model.” That led me to Prabhat Patnaik’s article “The International Context and the Kerala Model” (available on scihub), which explained how IMF-backed liberalization can destabilize local economies by -for example - replacing self-sufficient agriculture with luxury imports.This was quite insighttful.
That said, the book does blur things together to build its narrative, and it doesn’t source every claim. I feel like this sometimes leads to misleading simplifications. For example, it says:
Reading that, you’d think Rubics was just an activist jailed for protesting neoliberalism. But when I looked him up, he was a politician that tried to crush opposition and backed a failed coup. That context matters, and the omission feels like nuance is missing. I found a few other cases like that - claims that technically check out but lack important context. Still, I learned a lot, and it made me want more source-heavy stuff. Something more like a history textbook that compares narratives directly and points at more direct sources (like UN resolutions, court documents, this type of things I like going through).
Another thing that I can add is that I am reading other things in addition to your recommendations. One memorable book that I am enjoying is ‘Envisioning Real Utopias’ by Erik Olin Wright. From what I have found online there is a mixed reaction to Olin’s ideas from socialists/communists. My understanding of his claims so far is that there are mechanisms of social transformation that may be accessed by exploiting vulnerabilities during the social reproduction process. I still need to read through a lot of the book but so far he has suggested that worker cooperatives (like Mondragon Corporation) and the creation of ‘cooperative banks’ (willing to lend money for transforming companies into worker-owned) create one of the viable mechanisms through which the capitalist system may be eroded. I have found some of the criticism of trying to solve capitalism with more capitalism, which is an easy criticism to make, but I do think Olin makes some good points. As of this evening I would say Olin’s description of the problem of social transformation, how he categorizes strategies in terms of desirability, viability, and achievability, and his data-driven approach to assessing policy strategies (such as looking at what has actually happened in universal basic income experiments), is what I am most in alignment with. But still lots to learn.
Sounds like Blackshirts and Reds did its job! As you point out, its biggest strength is also its biggest weakness. In being a short and direct cry of support for revolution in the wake of the dissolution of the USSR, which set Socialism back dramatically at the time (especially because the 90s really did seem like China had abandoned Socialism, when we now know that that wasn’t the case and Deng’s gamble paid off), it also skimps out on thorough analysis and deep historical account.
I want to add that the purpose of my list is to equip the reader with solid foundational knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, so that the reader may better make up their own conclusions and further explore theory and historical texts (though I do include a section on history later).
As for Envisioning Real Utopias, I hadn’t heard of it until you told me, truth be told. My immediate reaction to trying to establish cooperatives to “overcome Capitalism” is that it doesm’t work like that. Cooperatives are better in that they avoid the excesses of standard firms, but since they fundamentally rely on exclusive ownership there is a barrier to scaling, and a lack of a collective plan. It merely repeats petite bourgeois class relations, an individualist view of the economy rather than a collectivist, resulting in an economy run by competing interests rather than being run by all in the interests of all. I actually wrote a comment on the communist perspective on cooperatives a few days ago.
I also think that, eventually, you’ll want to read Anti-Dühring. Engels counters the cooperative model from a Marxist perspective. It’s the much larger book the essay Socialism: Utopian and Scientific comes from, so if you’re down for a challenge you can read Anti-Dühring instead of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
Ultimately, it boils down to 2 possibilities, neither of which are good for the cooperative model:
-The state will dismantle any legitimate threat to the Capitalists if Capitalists cannot find a way to profit off of this new development
-Cooperatives alone are not enough to overcome Capitalism, rather, they replicate it in a different form
-Production is already extremely complex and monopolized, the age of small businesses growing to huge powerhouses is dying. Cooperatives will always be at a disadvantage when competing with established businesses
-Cooperatives compete and eventually begin to replicate bourgeois class relations, if the public ownership of the economy is not the dominant factor, ie in control of larhe firms and industries. A few cooperatives would scale and create a new Capitalist relation.
Those are just my perspectives based on your summary. Cooperatives certainly aren’t bad at all, and are a part of Socialist economies as a minority of the economy, like Huawei in China or the collective farms in China. However, public ownership is still the key factor, as it goes beyond the profit motive and into allowing humanity to finally direct production for the needs of all, and not for the profits of the few.
You’ll have plenty of time to develop your own opinions, cooperatives are certainly better than traditional firms, but you’ll find Marxists typically don’t agree with “utopia building” and other cooperative forms of ownership, and you’ll best see why generally in section 2.