Get organized and read theory, comrades. I made an introductory reading list on Marxism, if anyone is interested but doesn’t know where to start. Also taking suggestions for improvement! Honestly, I’m looking for feedback more than anything right now, haha.
The only real monkey wrench when it comes to cooperating are the Leninists. Demsocs, leftcoms, anarchists, and even succdems are usually more than happy to work with each other and not stab each other in the back.
To be fair, throughout history it has been common for the two general camps of Leftists, Marxists and Anarchists, to willingly join the other and convert. The biggest problem is that it isn’t a mere disagreement with means, but on ends as well.
Marxists seek full public ownership and central planning in a democratic world republic. This is “Stateless, Classless, and Moneyless” in the Marxist sense, but not the Anarchist.
Anarchists typically seek decentralized networks of mutual aid and cooperation, in a sort of spiderweb formation, a sort of “building the new out of the shell of the old.”
Left-Unity serves a vital role in aligning in similar interests and achieving broader goals, but at some point these conflicts in desire must be rectified in some manner.
I’m not arguing against Anarchism, I’d rather people read and decide for themselves what they believe is the best course.
Lmao! For what it’s worth, I used to consider myself an Anarchist, so I’m familiar with common tenets like “Means-Ends Unity” enough to hopefully represent Anarchists faithfully.
My personal belief is that the more people that read theory of both the Marxist and Anarchist variety and actually put theory into practice, the more data points we can have, so to speak. Theory guides practice, which affirms or denies aspects of theory to allow modification of theory to be re-applied to new practice, in an endless spiral of repeated testing.
This is actually just straight up the Marxist conception of the Dialectical Theory of Knowledge. It’s sometimes dismissed as common sense, of course, but this sense isn’t so common. It’s extremely similar to the Scientific Method.
Yeah people, including myself, tend to forget that, before dialectics/etc were explicitly articulated in writing, such methodologies absolutely weren’t common sense. The concept of hypotheticals wasn’t even widely comprehended until the last couple centuries iirc
Yep! A super interesting look at how philosophy and ideas evolved over time is Prof. Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy. It’s also in my linked reading guide for Marxism, as the third work recommended in the list.
I wouldn’t call central planning “Marxist”, it’s just better for many things. And Marxism is about trying to find the best solutions scientifically to the issue of capitalism. Namely a revolution and a restructuring of society by the workers “in their image”. And practice of attempting that and building that new society brought new innovations and ideas.
Also, the end goal for Marxists, like for all communists, is and should be a “stateless, moneyless, classless society”. Not in any “words mean different things” way. In a “there is no more class divisions, no more commodity production and capital, and no more state or hierarchical authority. Like anarchists want as well.
I’m sorry, and I don’t mean to be rude, but what you said is wrong, and a common misconception among those who haven’t really delved into Marxist theory yet.
Central Planning isn’t Marxist by itself, but Marxists want Central Planning. This is because Marxists believe Capitalism necessarily creates the conditions for central planning by competitive markets coalescing into large monopolist syndicates that already have to plan themselves. This is Scientific Socialism, a prediction of the future based on what the current direction of society is heading towards, and harnessing that via worker revolution so that these large syndicates can be gradually folded under one banner and run by a democratic government.
For Anarchists and Marxists, the State is an entirely different concept.
For Anarchists, the state is representative of enforced hierarchy, a monopoly on violence. Thus, it must be horizontal, but there can be different classes like the Petite Bourgeoisie who own their own tools or Small Handicraftsmen. Most Anarchists want abolition of classes as well, and thus usually also advocate for communes and Mutual Aid Networks with shared ownership.
For Marxists, the state is a representation of class oppression. Once classes are abolished by the folding of all of industry into the public sector, and there are no class divisions, the state is abolished in the eyes of Marxists, whithered to what Engels calls “an administration of things.”
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.
I recommend reading or re-reading Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, which is the source of that passage (and explains Scientific Socialism). Hierarchy is not a problem for Marxists necessarily, but it absolutely is for Anarchists. Marxists believe that communes can result in trade, resulting in differences in material conditions and thus accumulation, starting the entire process of Capitalism anew, this is why Marxists do not want what Anarchists want, just like Anarchists don’t want what they consider a state, but Marxists do not. For further reading on this critique of cooperatives from the Marxist perspective, see Engels’ Anti-Dühring.
Alternatively, for a short, 20 minute article going over the same concept I just outlined but in greater detail, Marxism vs Anarchism is a good middle ground between reading the aforementioned Engels books and just my comment alone. Your sentiment is a common one, but I have yet to see such sentiment backed up by quotations from Marx and Engels that go against what I have just laid out. Normally, people who share your sentiment stop purely at the phrase “stateless, classless, moneyless society” and cease to dig in more to how Marx and Engels used those terms in their broader writing.
I am not arguing against Anarchism here, many Anarchists have tried to tackle the problem Marxists raised a long time ago and thus there are good arguments from Anarchists on how to avoid this, but the crux of the matter is that the 2 camps want what I outlined for them and believe the other to be unsustainable or unjust.
Really, I’m just a theory-nerd for Marxism, which is why I made my reading list to begin with.
Any suggestions? Alternatively, you could add them as a suggestion on the post itself so they have further visibility. I have a US POV because that’s what I’m familiar with, and the driving reason for the creation of my list is helping dissaffected liberals radicalized by the results of the US election. If you have a non-US POV that would be appreciated!
Not a problem! I’ve been purposefully spreading it (though hopefully not in a “spammy” manner), so I encourage it! I just ask that, rather than copying and pasting, you link it so that all questions are held in one place.
That’s a good point on the “organization list” idea, I just don’t have the familiarity with orgs outside the US.
To add on to the theory part. Don’t just read it, watch it too! There are a lot of YouTubers out there that do a good job covering it. Also, keep in mind if you’re reading older theory, there’s probably better versions of it out now. Stuff that has had more time to cook and is more applicable to what’s happening today.
There are indeed good YouTubers! If you check my list, it has a good mix across the board of older and newer theory and history, it is designed to build on itself as you read it.
Can you elaborate? Is my half-joking usage of the word “comrade” what’s putting you off, or is it my suggestion to get organized, which is part of the claim of the post itself (unless you take it to mean shooting up a local Wal-Mart)?
What area, specifically, are you referring to? It’s already happened in several countries, usually it doesn’t require everyone to be well-read but for those who are to help guide the ones who aren’t, and this trust is built by placing material benefits for the working masses at the forefront. The Black Panther Party tried to do this with children’s feeding programs, as an example.
If you’re asking about if I think it will happen in the US, my answer is that yes, it certainly can. Capitalism and by extension Imperialism are unsustainable as they naturally kill off competition and centralize. Where the course of this collapse is steered depends on the Workers themselves, hence the necessity for at least some of them to take theory seriously.
What does marx say about combating clusters of ai drones? Because to be clear, if we are going the violent route, it wont be a matter of storming the capital of a third-world country.
And wouldnt that require everyone being on the same ideological page? How bad would the state of the country need to be for people to coordinate on one idea when they are inundated with psychological warefare and disinformation? People dont want to educate themselves or be brave, especially at the advice of an anonymous social media comment on a fringe platform.
All that said, you want to dedicate yourself to fostering a violent marxist revolution instead of getting involved in local political reform yourself?
Idk, it just seems delusional (though for good moral reasons).
For the first question, on the how of revolution, we can look to historical, successful revolutions, and again, the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism. It isn’t a matter of if, but when, Capitalism crumbles. Additionally, as the contradictions within Capitalism sharpen, so too does the social consciousness of the international working class. Ideas come from material conditions, not the other way around. I spend sections 2 and 3 explaining both the formation of ideas and the transition to Socialism from a Materialist perspective, and showcasing the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism and Imperialism.
Secondly, if reform were possible, Marxists would be the first in line. I spend section 4 going over the futility of reform and the necessity of revolution.
I recommend at least taking a peak at the list I made, plus if you ask questions there they can all be answered in one place, which I selfishly prefer to save my own time.
I just cant believe a claim of inevitability from past history with the extraordinary circumstance of the information age.
I certainly agree that captialism is a process with a conclusion, when we are talking about organic growth and not some perpetual strategy to maintain the illusion.
But intelligence is an unprecedented disruptor in what could otherwise be a predictable repetition of history. What if we need a lot less people than before to thrive?
Who do we even kill? Could a revolution even develop without being recognized? In the past the power structure couldnt deal with so many people in its opposition. In the past the system needed the people who opposed it. Is that still true? I think the game has changed quite a bit.
Strategy from the ruling class is how they maintain power. What about strategy derived from super computer analytics (predicting the future) with more data input than ever by astronomical margins, and language models to digest it? When there are paths for ai to interact and influence these problems more directly by building it into infrastructure i wonder how deeply the people can be disrupted and how perfectly counter strategies to resistance will be instantly carried out.
If you are recruiting people to read text on inequality, and hope to have a lot of peoppe arming themselves for your cause, i suggest hurrying.
Each of these paragraphs can spiral into its own conversation. I suggest giving the first section of my list a try, if you don’t want to read further then feel no need to.
Your questions on technology, cybernetics, computerization, and climate change can all be tackled, but it would be best for us to be on the same relative page first before diving into a Marxist answer to said questions.
Get organized and read theory, comrades. I made an introductory reading list on Marxism, if anyone is interested but doesn’t know where to start. Also taking suggestions for improvement! Honestly, I’m looking for feedback more than anything right now, haha.
Might as well get in on the action here with an intro reading list on Anarchism then :p
Feel free! People can pick one or read both.
“Are you a communist, too?” the kangaroo asked.
“No, I’m an anarchist!”
“Great”, the kangaroo said, “then we can be friends — until after the revolution…”
The only real monkey wrench when it comes to cooperating are the Leninists. Demsocs, leftcoms, anarchists, and even succdems are usually more than happy to work with each other and not stab each other in the back.
Until the revolution…
Left-SRs didn’t fight much with the Makhnovists.
Even the Mensheviks were pretty chill with the two abovementioned groups.
The sailors of Kronstadt even had all three among them.
The Bolsheviks shot all of them.
The anarchists of Spain got along quite well with the POUM (half-demsocs, half-Trots). The Stalinists shot them both.
To be fair, throughout history it has been common for the two general camps of Leftists, Marxists and Anarchists, to willingly join the other and convert. The biggest problem is that it isn’t a mere disagreement with means, but on ends as well.
Marxists seek full public ownership and central planning in a democratic world republic. This is “Stateless, Classless, and Moneyless” in the Marxist sense, but not the Anarchist.
Anarchists typically seek decentralized networks of mutual aid and cooperation, in a sort of spiderweb formation, a sort of “building the new out of the shell of the old.”
Left-Unity serves a vital role in aligning in similar interests and achieving broader goals, but at some point these conflicts in desire must be rectified in some manner.
I’m not arguing against Anarchism, I’d rather people read and decide for themselves what they believe is the best course.
You addressed this so neutrally that my bias took over and I assumed you were arguing in favor of anarchism lol
Lmao! For what it’s worth, I used to consider myself an Anarchist, so I’m familiar with common tenets like “Means-Ends Unity” enough to hopefully represent Anarchists faithfully.
My personal belief is that the more people that read theory of both the Marxist and Anarchist variety and actually put theory into practice, the more data points we can have, so to speak. Theory guides practice, which affirms or denies aspects of theory to allow modification of theory to be re-applied to new practice, in an endless spiral of repeated testing.
This is actually just straight up the Marxist conception of the Dialectical Theory of Knowledge. It’s sometimes dismissed as common sense, of course, but this sense isn’t so common. It’s extremely similar to the Scientific Method.
Yeah people, including myself, tend to forget that, before dialectics/etc were explicitly articulated in writing, such methodologies absolutely weren’t common sense. The concept of hypotheticals wasn’t even widely comprehended until the last couple centuries iirc
Yep! A super interesting look at how philosophy and ideas evolved over time is Prof. Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy. It’s also in my linked reading guide for Marxism, as the third work recommended in the list.
I wouldn’t call central planning “Marxist”, it’s just better for many things. And Marxism is about trying to find the best solutions scientifically to the issue of capitalism. Namely a revolution and a restructuring of society by the workers “in their image”. And practice of attempting that and building that new society brought new innovations and ideas.
Also, the end goal for Marxists, like for all communists, is and should be a “stateless, moneyless, classless society”. Not in any “words mean different things” way. In a “there is no more class divisions, no more commodity production and capital, and no more state or hierarchical authority. Like anarchists want as well.
I’m sorry, and I don’t mean to be rude, but what you said is wrong, and a common misconception among those who haven’t really delved into Marxist theory yet.
Central Planning isn’t Marxist by itself, but Marxists want Central Planning. This is because Marxists believe Capitalism necessarily creates the conditions for central planning by competitive markets coalescing into large monopolist syndicates that already have to plan themselves. This is Scientific Socialism, a prediction of the future based on what the current direction of society is heading towards, and harnessing that via worker revolution so that these large syndicates can be gradually folded under one banner and run by a democratic government.
For Anarchists and Marxists, the State is an entirely different concept.
For Anarchists, the state is representative of enforced hierarchy, a monopoly on violence. Thus, it must be horizontal, but there can be different classes like the Petite Bourgeoisie who own their own tools or Small Handicraftsmen. Most Anarchists want abolition of classes as well, and thus usually also advocate for communes and Mutual Aid Networks with shared ownership.
For Marxists, the state is a representation of class oppression. Once classes are abolished by the folding of all of industry into the public sector, and there are no class divisions, the state is abolished in the eyes of Marxists, whithered to what Engels calls “an administration of things.”
I recommend reading or re-reading Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, which is the source of that passage (and explains Scientific Socialism). Hierarchy is not a problem for Marxists necessarily, but it absolutely is for Anarchists. Marxists believe that communes can result in trade, resulting in differences in material conditions and thus accumulation, starting the entire process of Capitalism anew, this is why Marxists do not want what Anarchists want, just like Anarchists don’t want what they consider a state, but Marxists do not. For further reading on this critique of cooperatives from the Marxist perspective, see Engels’ Anti-Dühring.
Alternatively, for a short, 20 minute article going over the same concept I just outlined but in greater detail, Marxism vs Anarchism is a good middle ground between reading the aforementioned Engels books and just my comment alone. Your sentiment is a common one, but I have yet to see such sentiment backed up by quotations from Marx and Engels that go against what I have just laid out. Normally, people who share your sentiment stop purely at the phrase “stateless, classless, moneyless society” and cease to dig in more to how Marx and Engels used those terms in their broader writing.
I am not arguing against Anarchism here, many Anarchists have tried to tackle the problem Marxists raised a long time ago and thus there are good arguments from Anarchists on how to avoid this, but the crux of the matter is that the 2 camps want what I outlined for them and believe the other to be unsustainable or unjust.
Really, I’m just a theory-nerd for Marxism, which is why I made my reading list to begin with.
Add links to different political party’s and internationals aligned with leftist values.
Any suggestions? Alternatively, you could add them as a suggestion on the post itself so they have further visibility. I have a US POV because that’s what I’m familiar with, and the driving reason for the creation of my list is helping dissaffected liberals radicalized by the results of the US election. If you have a non-US POV that would be appreciated!
Got a few but tbf it would be better to have an easy resource to link with definitions by country.
Awesome work with this resource though, I will link it into UK leftists if that’s okay?
Not a problem! I’ve been purposefully spreading it (though hopefully not in a “spammy” manner), so I encourage it! I just ask that, rather than copying and pasting, you link it so that all questions are held in one place.
That’s a good point on the “organization list” idea, I just don’t have the familiarity with orgs outside the US.
That’s the plan anyway as well as added to account bio ✊
Thank you!
To add on to the theory part. Don’t just read it, watch it too! There are a lot of YouTubers out there that do a good job covering it. Also, keep in mind if you’re reading older theory, there’s probably better versions of it out now. Stuff that has had more time to cook and is more applicable to what’s happening today.
There are indeed good YouTubers! If you check my list, it has a good mix across the board of older and newer theory and history, it is designed to build on itself as you read it.
Do you intentionally try to put people off by making any reader think they are joining the communist party by confiding in this post?
Can you elaborate? Is my half-joking usage of the word “comrade” what’s putting you off, or is it my suggestion to get organized, which is part of the claim of the post itself (unless you take it to mean shooting up a local Wal-Mart)?
How likely do you think it is that masses of people will become well-read marxists and start a violent revolt? Is it even within the realm of reality?
What area, specifically, are you referring to? It’s already happened in several countries, usually it doesn’t require everyone to be well-read but for those who are to help guide the ones who aren’t, and this trust is built by placing material benefits for the working masses at the forefront. The Black Panther Party tried to do this with children’s feeding programs, as an example.
If you’re asking about if I think it will happen in the US, my answer is that yes, it certainly can. Capitalism and by extension Imperialism are unsustainable as they naturally kill off competition and centralize. Where the course of this collapse is steered depends on the Workers themselves, hence the necessity for at least some of them to take theory seriously.
What does marx say about combating clusters of ai drones? Because to be clear, if we are going the violent route, it wont be a matter of storming the capital of a third-world country.
And wouldnt that require everyone being on the same ideological page? How bad would the state of the country need to be for people to coordinate on one idea when they are inundated with psychological warefare and disinformation? People dont want to educate themselves or be brave, especially at the advice of an anonymous social media comment on a fringe platform.
All that said, you want to dedicate yourself to fostering a violent marxist revolution instead of getting involved in local political reform yourself?
Idk, it just seems delusional (though for good moral reasons).
For the first question, on the how of revolution, we can look to historical, successful revolutions, and again, the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism. It isn’t a matter of if, but when, Capitalism crumbles. Additionally, as the contradictions within Capitalism sharpen, so too does the social consciousness of the international working class. Ideas come from material conditions, not the other way around. I spend sections 2 and 3 explaining both the formation of ideas and the transition to Socialism from a Materialist perspective, and showcasing the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism and Imperialism.
Secondly, if reform were possible, Marxists would be the first in line. I spend section 4 going over the futility of reform and the necessity of revolution.
I recommend at least taking a peak at the list I made, plus if you ask questions there they can all be answered in one place, which I selfishly prefer to save my own time.
I just cant believe a claim of inevitability from past history with the extraordinary circumstance of the information age.
I certainly agree that captialism is a process with a conclusion, when we are talking about organic growth and not some perpetual strategy to maintain the illusion.
But intelligence is an unprecedented disruptor in what could otherwise be a predictable repetition of history. What if we need a lot less people than before to thrive?
Who do we even kill? Could a revolution even develop without being recognized? In the past the power structure couldnt deal with so many people in its opposition. In the past the system needed the people who opposed it. Is that still true? I think the game has changed quite a bit.
Strategy from the ruling class is how they maintain power. What about strategy derived from super computer analytics (predicting the future) with more data input than ever by astronomical margins, and language models to digest it? When there are paths for ai to interact and influence these problems more directly by building it into infrastructure i wonder how deeply the people can be disrupted and how perfectly counter strategies to resistance will be instantly carried out.
If you are recruiting people to read text on inequality, and hope to have a lot of peoppe arming themselves for your cause, i suggest hurrying.
Each of these paragraphs can spiral into its own conversation. I suggest giving the first section of my list a try, if you don’t want to read further then feel no need to.
Your questions on technology, cybernetics, computerization, and climate change can all be tackled, but it would be best for us to be on the same relative page first before diving into a Marxist answer to said questions.