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!
105 Comments
JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip · 42 pts · 2d
Sure, the Manifesto is a pretty short easy read. But being more politically educated is always good
curious_beetle@lemmy.ml · 17 pts · 2d
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)
bandanawearingbanana@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 7h
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.
Skyrmir@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 1d
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.
TheReanuKeeves@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 1d
curious_beetle, I hereby declare you can read whatever interests you
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 19 pts · 2d
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:
::: spoiler 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? :::
::: spoiler 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.
Webpage/.epub | Audiobook [~30 min /48 min]
A glossary of terms and background information, in an FAQ format.
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.
Webpage | Audiobook [~5 min / 18 min]
Outlaying the 3 major components of Marxism, and a short history of how they came to be.
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.
curious_beetle@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 1d
Wow, i will check it out, thanks
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 1d
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.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 18 pts · 1d
Absolutely. It's short.
Do note that most of how communism worked, on paper and in practice, originated later, though. Marx, a German who mostly lived in England, wrote the Manifesto in 1848 and died in 1883, while the revolution was in Russia in 1917. And there's stuff in the manifesto that obviously didn't age well, like the bit about the invention of trains leading to the end of nationalism.
Still, it's great historical perspective, and obviously inspired how the Soviet Union looked at things pretty heavily.
distal@lemmy.ml · 17 pts · 1d
Whatever you think of Marx, it's undeniable he has literary value. I'd say read him.
orenj@leminal.space · 16 pts · 1d
sure. you're not going to be infected with some sort of horrible mind virus. if you're interested, read it
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today · 14 pts · 1d
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."
— Aristotle
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 1d
What stretches does Marx make, in your view?
emeralddawn45@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
*turns the page "You expect me to read more than one page worth of words? That's a biiiiggg stretch dude."
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1d
Lmao
OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 1d
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
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 1d
Great rec!
yogthos@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 1d
Yes, you should. Reading something doesn't mean having to automatically agree with it, but it will broaden your perspective. Read it critically, engage with the arguments being made, and use them to test your own world view. See if the arguments make sense to you, and whether you have strong counter arguments of your own to the ones being made.
Leviathan@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 1d
I feel like you should read anything that people find so polarizing and taboo. It's short and its pretty dang hard to disagree with.
memfree@piefed.social · 10 pts · 1d
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
CyberMonkey403@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 1d
Yes. If I may, I would suggest "The origins of family and private property" from Engels. It's not explicitly political, but I find it serves excellently for dissolving some biases towards historical conditions and how they shape the current affairs.
Cleisthenian@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 14h
Yes, origin of the family is great. I read it as a teenager before any other socialist material and it was the first time in my life where I felt my worldview had been radically changed.
Malica@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 1d
Learning is always worth it
5318008@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 21h
Absolutely.
Fundamentally, only reading about ideas that you already agree with is bad for you. You will learn less about your beliefs than if you had read something that challenges your beliefs.
Let's say you're very pro-capitalist, and you want to know everything about capitalism, so you read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Great! You learned some things about the historical basis of your beliefs, and there's value in that. So then you read Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman. Okay! So you're tripling down on the same ideas. You probably already know most of those ideas, though, right? There will be some new stuff, but ultimately it's more of the same stuff you already know.
So you try some more recent authors, and give a shrug to Ayn Rand, and you give Lions and Scavengers a shot. And maybe you pick up a new thing or two. But mostly, it's the same ideas that you're already familiar with.
Do you know what none of these books have? An angle of critique (except Smith, sort of). They're all just listing all of the good things about capitalism, and they're not telling you the bad things. Do you believe that Capitalism is a perfect system to organize a nation's economic policy, with no flaws? No? Then you should be interested in someone who elaborates on some of the negative aspects of capitalism, and what can be done to address those flaws, right? Because if there are flaws, you want to know what they are, so they can be fixed, right?
That's why you should read Das Kapital.
for_some_delta@beehaw.org · 8 pts · 1d
Yes, an education is worthwhile. Read many philosophies inluding Marx, Hegel, Kant, Locke, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Kropotkin, Stirner, Rudolf Rocker, Graeber etc. Though not my career, I keep studying for fun.
As with The Bible, there is a clergy surrounding philosophical figures. You may join their congregation. I choose not to partake. Read The Bible to understand society, but you don't need to join the congregation.
megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 1d
I’d say that Das Kapital is more useful. The manifesto was a specific call to arms for a specific time. It’s worth understanding as a historical note, but, it’s not really a theoretical work.
Das Kapital, is a work about a theory of political economy and layed out the actual basis of Marxist theory.
Everything else is sort of down stream of that. At least in regards to understanding what specific objections or concerns people in Marxist thought have.
gray@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 1d
The manifesto is just an ad for communism. You should read The Capital (part 1) if you want to interact with communism seriously.
BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 1d
Rough to just start them off with Kapital, dont you think?
gray@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 1d
I agree, but if you want to be able to call out if someone speaking out of their ass about communism you should at least know the main points of the capital.
KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 1d
All of Marx' writings are worth a read even if you're a dumbass capitalist.
poVoq@slrpnk.net · 7 pts · 1d
The holy scripture should only be read in the original German /s
Danarchy@lemmy.nz · 6 pts · 1d
Assigned reading in macroeconomics when I took it in college. Not a particularly left leaning course, nor cohort.
CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 1d
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.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 1d
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.
distal@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 1d
Michael Heinrich wrote a very helpful guide for Capital. Perfect for the first 100 pages.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 1d
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.
distal@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 1d
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.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 1d
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.
distal@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1d
Hm, interesting. What do you think of Anwar Sheikh?
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1d
Unfamiliar, sorry.
gray@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 1d
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
yuki_gassen@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 1d
It is meant to be an accessible reading, meant for working class people. Go for it. I personally recommend Rosa Luxemburg's writings.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 5 pts · 1d
Yes. As much as Marx set the foundation for these ideas, the people parroting these ideas today often clash with a lot of what he believed in. So it's important to understand what he was saying vs what those people tell you he was saying.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 1d
Can you elaborate a bit more? What groups stand against Marx while claiming to adhere to his beliefs, in your view? I agree with the idea that many clash with Marx, but a gut feeling tells me we disagree on which groups.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 22h
My first comment apparently didn't go through so if that somehow materializes it's probably better than this one. But I dunno where it went.
I think honestly a lot of what he said has fallen on deaf ears. Marx was an internationalist, deeply suspicious of the state and anti-classist. Most socialists today have fallen prey to the modern nationalistic mindset. They want to defend their glorious socialist state and bad mouth the evil bad capitalist ones so much they have no desire to be allies with the working class anywhere else, they want to praise their bourgeoisie and denounce the ones they don't like which is pretty much not what Marx was about. Modern socialists especially on lemmy here are more like national socialists, no pun intended, genuinely. Marx believed in the idea that a transitional government would form and become essentially obsolete. You might hear some socialists talk about this idea of a transitional government but that requires more suspicion and judgement on government than many of them are willing to do. The states continue to amass power all over the world and they often praise certain ones they have probably been conditioned to praise.
It's important to note Marx lived in basically a different world than today, he couldn't predict any of this. He's also not god, he isn't right about everything and often revised his own work. Socialists want to hang on his every word but as he said according to Engles "I myself am not a Marxist" in response to the growing movement in France.
Tl;dr - socialists today are more nationalistic and dogmatic than he would've ever liked to see.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 22h
There are a couple of problems I have with your critiques.
First, defense of existing socialism is not a neutral process. It's done to protect socialist construction, warts and all, while it advances. This is not done uncritically, critique is generally not shared among the public as much as support is, because time has proven that imperialist bourgeoisie will exploit any disunity to turn workers against themselves. Breaking up unity is how the bourgeoisie maintains power.
Second, nationalism. The modern internationalism is very much in line with Marx, and recognizes the right of nations to self-determination. Internationalism begins with national sovereignty, which is why often reactionary countries are supported in national liberation movements when this improves the position of the international working class, such as the strong support for Palestine despite the resistance not being socialist (except for groups like the PFLP).
Finally, the withering of the state. The job of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to develop the means of production to a large scale, which is the basis of socialized production, and maintain rule of the proletariat, gradually collectivizing production and distribution. The goal isn't to abolish government or administration, but instead what Marx called the state, which is not synonymous with how a classless administrative body would work.
That pretty much sums it up.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 21h
But there is basically 0 criticism of these states that declare themselves socialist. It's all defense and national pride which is exactly what Marx wasn't about. Regardless of what you believe and how it could be used against these movements, that's not what Marx was about.
Personally I completely disagree. It's like arguing to build a bridge you have to flood the river first, you're making it more difficult. Marx never believed in anything about nations having self determination he believed states and borders were constructs.
I definitely agree about Palestine but there are other atrocities I won't mention because people get really mad about them which are completely glossed over, ignored or even demonized because it will paint certain states in a certain light and cause that whole nationalistic mindset to rear it's ugly head from certain groups here. So yeah they support Palestine but I'd argue it's more about the adversary for a lot of these activists, not the workers themselves, or we'd have a lot different conversations appearing on lemmy.
People will be mad at me again but that's not happening. Like I said, states across the world continue to amass power. This is just not something Marx would ever be in support of.
I'm speaking solely from the perspective of what he wrote he believed in not my personal beliefs so passerbyers don't rage at me about this. Marx believed in the international socialist, workers uniting regardless of borders and was heavily against the concept of the state or borders as those are tools of the bourgeoisie. I think it really boils down to, if you find yourself championing a state or defending a state without also expressing criticism you're not really embracing Marx.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 21h
You have a dogmatic view of nationalism, ironically. Nationalism, when resisting colonialism and imperialism, is progressive. The national struggle is a class struggle. Nationalism can easily turn into something reactionary when it is done to reinforce colonialism and imperialism as well. Marx absolutely did agree with this, evidenced by his support of the Polish nationalist movement for independence. The working class is an international class, but this does not mean they are without nations. To erase the national struggle is class reductionism.
As for socialist states, they have indeed been developing and growing. The development of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not something Marx opposed, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand Marx's theory of the withering of the state in the transition from lower-stage communism to higher-stage communism. The economic basis of this is one where class struggle has ended, and in a world where imperialism is dominant socialist states cannot wither away entirely. They must react to the siege they exist in.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 21h
Okay that's fine to believe. But again I'm talking about Marx. He was never supportive of nationalism he was specifically internationalist and simultaneously believed states and borders were bourgeoisie constructs. So trying to claim he is supportive of those just is not true. It's absurd to say he agreed with that, he didn't support the Polish nationalist movement because it was nationalist. He supported a revolution that would break up the Russian dominance.
So if your nationalist support is to a very large, rich and established nation. He wouldn't support that.
I'm not erasing a national struggle. The socialists I'm speaking of tend to be of some of the richest nations on the planet who are supporting their continued growth in one way or another. That is not a revolutionary faction working to undo the dominance of a powerful state. He would not support that.
As for the second part of what you said I think this is exactly where Marx conversations end because he lived in such a different world, the idea of these structures existing wasn't something he would be familiar with. What his opinions are on these fronts is never going to be clear. But the idea that he would ever support a powerful state is pretty inaccurate. There's also the whole side that the reason you have Leninism and Stalinism is because Marx didn't really talk about the structure of a state or outline what it would look like. He believed it would come about naturally. So once you start talking about the actual structure, what makes a socialist state and if you can say it is a socialist state that Marx would support you're stepping away from Marx and moving towards more modern socialist thinkers which is a more broad conversation and leans away from what I'm talking about.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 21h
No, you're fundamentally incorrect about Marx's position, and you're butchering mine. Marx, like the Marxists that took after him, understood the national struggle as a struggle for sovereignty, the basis of which is in internationalism. Internationalism and nationalism are not contradictory, nor did I or Marx ever say that Marx supported the Polish because they were nationalist. This is reductive, as is collapsing the entire working class into one without nations. Marx did not see nations as bourgeois constructs, in fact he explicitly stated that communism would bring about the end of exploitation of nation by nation, not just man by man.
Lenin developed the national question further, as did Stalin. However, the basis of the national question as Marxists understand it today, as one where internationalism can only exist in practice between sovereign nations, and that therefore the quest for sovereignty is a progressive struggle, was with Marx from the onset, hence why he supported Poland against Russia, not just for the sake of Russian revolution but also for Polish independence. The same again happened with Marx supporting the freeing of the Statesian slaves.
As for Marx, he never bothered charting what a socialist state would look like, correct, but he always supported the dictatorship of the proletariat, the absolute rule of the working class against reactionary classes. This is a historically necessary process, one where he made the famous quote:
This isn't because Marx was a marvel villain, but was because he supported the absolute power of the working class as a historically necessary process.
procapra@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 1d
Stalin in particular is just such a departure from what Marx and even from what many of the "old bolsheviks" believed.
https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n2/5convers.htm
pg 233 molotov remembers
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1946/09/24.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1d
Stalin's views were not at all at odds with Marx and Engels.
Regarding Critique of the Gotha Programme, it's important to actually understand the context:
Essentially, laborers cannot recieve the "full individual value" of their labor-power. What happens is that the proletariat becomes in possession as a class of the total social product, to distribute as a class. Between capitalism and communism is the radical transition from one into the next, known as socialism.
Regarding communism in one country, this is a matter of practical building of socialism. Peace benefits socialism, and socialist construction. Therefore, one should focus on highly developing socialism so that it does not fall under risk of falling. Socialism was established not in the developed capitalist world, but in backwards feudal societies. Socialists have had to deal with these implications post-Marx.
Communism cannot be achieved in one country, but the fact of the matter is that the correct course was to bunker down and pursue the socialist project regardless.
You cannot mechanically apply analysis from one situation to another. Marxists do not read Marx as evangelicals read the Bible, we read Marx to understand the world so as to change it. Marx was not a prophet, and thus the world developed in ways he could not predict. This is why he never bothered with mapping out communist society, because to do so would violate how we understand dialectical materialism.
sangeteria@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 1d
It's always good to read more! Just like, in general. You should read the communist manifesto and then go on to read other things too, anything you fancy
TrollAccount69@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 1d
Someone suggested critique of the gotha program and someone else said capital (four volumes!).
Those are good alternatives to the communist manifesto which is basically a handbill for convincing people to go learn more.
Of course they’re both super old and many people have written about their contents since their publication.
Being interested in politics is maybe not the best reason to be reading about communism.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
Sure the Manifesto is short and easily understood so why not?
BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 1d
I'd honestly probably start with Lenin. Or at least not the Manifesto if you want anything more than, well, a Manifesto. If you wanna start with Marx/Engels then I would say Engels "On Authority" might be a good place to start. Or perhaps "The 18th brumaire of Louis Napoleon" by Marx.
ksh@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 1d
They derived their political ideology from their economic analysis, so it’s probably a good idea to read the context of world operating under the classical economic theories of those times.
Juice@midwest.social · 3 pts · 1d
It's good, it's def on the list. You'll be surprised by how moderate-seeming of Reforms it actually calls for, while being a revolutionary program.
Also read "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Wage Labor and Capital, and Critique of the Gotha Program. State and Revolution by Lenin and Reform or Revolution by Luxemburg are other great foundational works.
This is a good theory foundation to begin reading socialist history books: Wretched of the Earth, Black Reconstruction in America, Hammer and Hoe, Black Jacobins, History of the German Revolution, History of the Russian Revolution, etc.,
Also big recommendation for Ten Days that Shook the World by Jack Reed, it's legit one of the most exciting books you'll ever come across. It's better than any action fiction book, and it's just straight journalism of the actual October Russian revolution.
If you like podcasts, Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast is pretty good, his last season on the Russian revolution is a good primer for the years prior to the 1917 revolutions, and the first fiveish episodes are pretty good historical and theoretical primers on various revolutionary movements and theorists. Season 10 episodes 2 and 3 are about Marx and Engels specifically, and I know lots of people who had their eyes opened to M&E by these episodes. I think Duncan ends the series on a sour note wrt Lenin that lacks real complexity and depth, but those early episodes are pretty good as an entry-point to Marx&Engels and socialist theory.
the_abecedarian@piefed.social · 3 pts · 1d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_Gotha_Programme also worth reading. note that because these are 19th C documents written in that particular context, it's also helpful to read about the docs in addition to their text
peacepath@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Economical books of Lenin may also be of interest, Henri Ford studied them while he never was a communist. It is a bit harder to read than the manifesto of Marx and Engels, but it doesn't require to be an economist.
RockBottom@feddit.org · 2 pts · 1d
There are audio books.
TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 1d
Back when I was still on reddit (and r/askreddit wasn't a cesspool of AI ragebait) someone asked if there were books people recommended, everyone should read, and I came up with this list of 6 if you want a good basis for reasoned philosophical thought:
Plato's Republic
Sun Tzu's The Art of War
Marcus Aurelius's Meditations
Machiavelli's The Prince (Machiavelli also wrote an "Art of War" and that's also worth reading)
Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto
The Republic defines what society's goals should look like
The Art of War defines how to resolve conflict
Meditations teaches one how to remain objective under pressure
The Prince defines that what is OBJECTIVELY TRUE is not always what is MORALLY CORRECT
The Wealth of Nations lays out a case against Feudalism and how a functional economy should operate.
The Communist Manifesto details the natural rights of everyone to equality and shared prosperity.
Marxist Communism is a bit myopic as it really deals with factory work, and the failures of a Capitalist system to deliver on the promise of class mobility. He and Engels envisioned a classless society, and while that is a fine ideal, historically, achieving that though strictly amicable means is a bit pie in the sky, not to mention the arguments against it citing human ambition as a stumbling block aren't without merit.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 1d
Marxism did not deal strictly with factory work, but with proletarianized labor, which persists today as the dominant form of labor. Further, I am really not sure what you mean by saying communism is "pie in the sky" or that human ambition is in opposition to communism. The manifesto is a pamphlet for agitation, it isn't really the core of Marxism.
TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 15h
What i mean is that those who say Communism fails because of "human nature" aren't exactly wrong, but fail to see that the vast majority of people are at least attempting to be "good." (at least in their own mind). That's why I always delineate that there is a difference between socialism and communism. Communism is like a duck and Socialism is like birds: All ducks are birds, but not all bird are ducks.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 15h
More than attempt, the socialist countries run by communist parties, the ones attempting to build towards communism, have been responsible for some of the most rapid improvements in living conditions in history. Socialism and communism aren't like birds and ducks, but more like a sprout and a tree. Socialism is a transitional process between capitalism and communism, where production and distribution are gradually collectivized into communism.
TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 8h
I've always seen the end state as too difficult to stabilize. Mixed systems where Socialist ideals keep capitalist ones in check seem to work best long term because it satisfies natural human ambition without allowing the monied interests to acquire to much social and political power. (the New Deal, Nordic model)
Under most communist systems, especially in democratic societies, ironically, the proletariat still lacks true power as the operators of the means of production (the foreman or the managers) end up also being the leaders of the government. This is no different than oligarchy, just inversed.
In a proper system, there should be a separation of business and state just as there is a separation of church and state; for precisely the same reason.
emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 12h
I read it a long time ago, but my memory is that the Manifesto (and its writers in general) discard the idea of 'natural' rights, arguing that legal / moral principles arise from the economic conditions of the time.
Marx's biggest scientific contribution is the development of a 'materialist' (here meaning 'physical') theory of history. I feel that his specific stages are too eurocentric, but the general principles are universal.
The Manifesto is a call to action, so it is somewhat simplified theoretically and deals specifically with the issues and conditions of the time.
RamRabbit@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 2d
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.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 2d
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.
curious_beetle@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 2d
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
expletivedeleted@lemmy.zip · -8 pts · 1d
gualudengren@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 1d
The fact you have such a shallow understanding of the material as to have this be part of your takeaway of what Marxists advocate for while speaking with such unearned confidence truly boggles the mind. A worse grasp of the material than your average Chinese school child. Not to mind the pure mind numbing nonsense of the rest of this word vomit.
expletivedeleted@lemmy.zip · -4 pts · 1d
gualudengren@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 1d
I don't know about you but I came to Lemmy because my friend recommended the communist side of it as an interesting place to practice English without the racial abuse of non self hating Chinese that is normalised on Reddit and RedditorLemmy.
Sorry to hear that but I did no such thing I simply found your comment to be far too wrong and completely divorced from the material at hand for how confidently you were saying it.
I think I said the main things that were on my mind when I saw your comment. Honestly I don't even know where to begin to try explain this to you given that you didn't seem to be able to grasp such a base concept as the difference between the state and government not toind the complete strawman invention of your mind of the one world government idea or complete lack of understanding of the USSR and it's many achievements compared to where it actually had issues.
expletivedeleted@lemmy.zip · -4 pts · 1d
gualudengren@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 1d
I invite you to take a guess given the obvious context clues.
You're speaking to what you imagined it was proposing not at all what it actually proposed not to mind when you take into account the wider writings of both Marx and Engels (as is necessary to truly understand the pamphlet that the manifesto is) both consistently differentiate between the state as an instrument of class rule and what we would call the government as an institution providing a necessary function of administration in advanced societies.
I am also certain that you can provide nothing to back up the one world government claim (unless you choose to cherry pick and misinterpret harder than an evangelical) as it is simply not a position that Marx Engels or even any later Marxists have ever advocated for.
expletivedeleted@lemmy.zip · -2 pts · 1d
gualudengren@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 1d
Yes you are actually worse than the average Redditor was in my experience all the arrogance and somehow even less capable and intelligent (truly a spectacular feat I am very impressed).
expletivedeleted@lemmy.zip · -2 pts · 1d
gualudengren@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 1d
Marx, Engels, or even any later Marxists have ever advocated for.*
My apologies for not having perfect punctuation but your reading comprehension is truly abysmal.
expletivedeleted@lemmy.zip · -3 pts · 1d
gualudengren@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 1d
Really unnecessarily aggressive for not being able to piece together the blatantly obvious fact I'm Chinese. No wonder your understanding of Marx is so poor if you can't even manage this. Also what wall of text? It's a sentence, a short paragraph, and 2 quotes if that's a wall of text in your eyes it again speaks to your reading capability (or more importantly lack there of) and really demystifies how you could arrive at the completely nonsensical "understanding" you did.
expletivedeleted@lemmy.zip · -6 pts · 1d
EmmiLime@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 1d
coping by projecting
expletivedeleted@lemmy.zip · -5 pts · 1d
BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 1d
Yeah, that's called projecting, bud
expletivedeleted@lemmy.zip · -4 pts · 1d
BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 1d
Whatever you say pal
deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 1d
Is that first sentence supposed to be a joke, or?
deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 1d
Reading this original comment more is honestly incredible. If it’s not a joke I’m stealing it as a joke myself. Dude straight up started talking about fucking fantasy books what timeline are we in I’m scared
gualudengren@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 1d
Harrypotterism/starwarsism unfortunately remains alive and well at the heart of the empire.
davel@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 1d
You’d think, but no. This may be the dumbest, most confidently incorrect Lemmy user yet.
expletivedeleted@lemmy.zip · -3 pts · 1d
deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 1d
I really don’t want to be mean about this but your thinking is very simple, in a bad way. I advocate for you to read watership Down it’s my favorite book. 🐇
expletivedeleted@lemmy.zip · -5 pts · 1d
BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 1d
The book written by an aristocratic rapist snitch about how common people are just too stupid to take care of themselves?
deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 23h
I’d love to point out he said “how about animal farm”… No. 😅 I was recommending a good book.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 1d
A few quick points:
None of it was satirical.
Marx claimed that he wasn't a Marxist as a response to those of his time labeling themselves Marxists. He still developed what became Marxism as an ideology.
The dictatorship of the proletariat isn't one person, but the absolute rule of the entire working class itself over capitalists. It's saying that workers run the world, not capitalists, ever again, and that when there are no capitalists all workers will simply be people, a classless society.
sleeplessone@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 1d
I upvoted this comment because I couldn't make a more ridiculous caricature of what liberals believe capitalism is if I tried. "Dictator of the proletariat" is such an absurd distortion of dictatorship of the proletariat. All the other stuff. Like, I can't even be mad at how silly all the stuff you just said is.
R I P in penis, banned poster. You would have made a good pet.