I’ve been enjoying reading Krupskaya’s works on education and how to study (e.g. How Lenin Studied Marx). I’m wondering if there’s anything similar in the Marxist canon (or just worth reading for Marxists in general) on the subject of study and self-education. I’ll try to compile the Krupskaya I’ve been reading in an edit.
edit:
The Organization of Self Education
General Rules for Independent Study
Unfortunately that’s all I could find online
You must log in or register to comment.
I wonder if this count, it is the cornerstone of critical pedagogy
hmm yeah Pedagogy of the Oppressed could fit. I never actually finished that book, nonetheless it’s like my favorite book to recommend to others. Changed my perspective on a lot of things, even only reading ~half the book.
Are you only looking for texts in the canon, or are you looking for study tips in general/written by a Marxist?
Oh no literally just anything, it doesn’t even have to be written by a Marxist. Just anything along these lines that you think would be useful for a Marxist to read.
If you want to study like a traditional Marxist, just read stock reports and industrial publications.
Look at the citations in Marx and Lenin, they’re like 60% banking publication and mining reports.
oh yeah I was more referring to writings concerned with how to approach Marxist study and education/self-education. Meta-study if you will. Studying how to study.
In that case, I’ll copy some comments over for you. The main posts were deleted, so you can’t search for them. They could be helpful.
Apologies, this is going to be a bit spammy. I’ll use spoiler tags to minimise clogging the thread.
EDIT: Some of these comments may be contextual as I wrote them in answer to specific questions. I hope they are still helpful.
1/7: Starting to research a topic
If I wanted to learn about a particular subject that I don’t know anything about, how should I go about it?
If for example I wanted to learn about the GDR in general, how should I go about that? Should I skim the relevant wikipedia article and go over the sources?
Depending on what you hope to learn, you could just search or browse marxists.org for e.g. ‘GDR’ and see what Marxists have written about the GDR.
If you’re talking about a research project, this will involve a few steps:
- Identify a topic for investigation.
- Identify a research question (or questions).
- Conduct a literature review.
- Critically analyse the literature.
- Come to your own conclusion about the literature / answer the research question(s).
Research often involves writing, but it does not have to. If you want some (or more) tips on writing, research questions, literature reviews, critical analysis, conclusions, etc, feel free to ask. I will say:
- When identifying a topic, you can use Wikipedia or just search the web to see what you can find. You will start to form an opinion but do not come to any conclusions, yet.
- Research questions work better if they are focussed on a defined period or issue, such as ‘How did government policy affect workers’ rights in the GDR in the years 1949–52?’ (Notice the time period in this example coincides with the first GDR government, according to wikipedia: ‘Federal Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic (1949–1952)’. At this point, it does not matter how accurate this claim is. I’m just showing how to pick a timeframe. Government policy and workers’ rights change during different periods, so we cannot come to an overall conclusion about this topic in the GDR unless we conduct research into each period, then piece everything together – but that kind of project would be enough for a PhD – the further research into each period will give us a more accurate picture of where to draw the lines (e.g. you might later decide that the better period to consider is 1949–54, depending on what you find).)
- Research questions work better if they encourage discussion (i.e. yes/no questions do not work very well).
- You can use scholar.google.com to search for literature. With my example, above, you might start with three broad searches: (i) ‘GDR 1949’ (repeat for each year in the period); (ii) ‘GDR policy’; and (iii) ‘GDR USSR 1949’ (because we can guess that GDR policy, etc, will likely be influenced by USSR policy). As you learn more, you can refine your search terms.
- You can also search on JSTOR, Academia.edu, ResearchGate.net, or SSRN.com (might have to search a few keywords and e.g. ‘Academia.edu’ in google, as these websites aren’t always great for searching).
- If you know that someone specialises in a topic, you can search for their name in a search engine. If they work at a university, their work might be on one of the above pages or on their university webpage.
2/7: Being critical
Critical analysis is difficult. It is probably helpful to achieve this in writing, especially if the research process is unfamiliar. The following may help:
- Do not jump straight to the critical analysis. Begin with a description. Then analyse the evidence / arguments / literature. At this stage, you separate the bigger ideas / issues / time frame into smaller, manageable chunks. Then be critical, of the evidence / arguments / literature. Then evaluate the literature. You can also ‘synthesise’ the arguments. Then come to a conclusion.
- When writing, use one paragraph to make one point. This will help to keep your ideas organised.
- Each paragraph will begin with a descriptive topic sentence. Then it will analyse a source that touches on that topic. You may include a quote as evidence. Then the paragraph will offer a criticism. Then it will offer an evaluation (in light of the criticism, is the source / argument valid or to be trusted?). Finally, it will end with a conclusion, stating how the paragraph helps to answer your research question(s).
3/7: Approaching sources
When looking at sources, how can I verify them? Obviously everything has a bias, sources can be faked or taken out of context. How do I account for this?
This is difficult. Essentially, you have to work it out through the research process. There are some tricks, but these can be double-edged swords:
- Focus on primary sources, where possible. For example, if you speak German, you could look for GDR government reports, court transcripts, factory inspection reports (or their equivalent). Or translations, if they exist. Or you could look for US / Canadian / British / etc sources. These countries will have policy documents or official messages, etc, about or sent to the GDR. One problem is that GDR government reports may be biased in favour of the GDR, and e.g. US sources against the GDR – but not necessarily.
- Use reliable secondary sources. At the top of the list are peer-reviewed articles. Then there are academic monographs (books). Peer-review is a process where an academic sends work to a journal and the editor sends it to two reviewers (the reviewers don’t know who wrote it, and the writer doesn’t know who reviews it). This does secure a certain kind of quality. But critical (e.g. Marxist) work is very difficult to get through peer-review. So peer-reviewed work will not necessarily give you accuracy, even if it is ‘rigorous’ by bourgeois standards.
- Use unreliable sources carefully. Wikipedia, blogs, tabloid newspapers, self-published works, works without citations (references / a bibliography) should be treated as unreliable. This does not mean they are wrong, but it is impossible to know whether even the most basic details are accurate. For example, tabloids often report about stories that are wholly false.
- The problem is that if e.g. a Marxist struggles to get their work published in a peer-reviewed journal or with a ‘big’ publisher, they may resort to a blog, etc. So these ‘unreliable’ places are also where you’ll find the most ‘unorthodox’ work, whether that is flat-earth conspiracies or the most rigorous historical materialist analysis.
- Expect everything to be biased, faked, and taken out of context, then consider it in detail. For example, recently there have been many stories about China’s threat to the economy. To get to the truth, ask, ‘in what respect’ and ‘whose economy’?
- Apply a class-analysis. Usually, the problem with bourgeois sources is its lack of class-analysis. A report might explain, for example, that wages cannot be increased because employers cannot afford it. The report is not wrong, but we need to understand that employers see all the value produced by a company as their own. From the worker’s perspective, they produced it so they own it. So an equally correct report would state that the company cannot but decrease shareholder profits and increase wages. The ‘truth’ depends on one’s class position.
- Compare multiple sources. This applies to primary, secondary, reliable, and unreliable sources. You can see what different writers agree or disagree on, and then decide who seems correct and why.
- Look for logical problems. If A + B = C, and we have A and we have B, then we must have C. This is called a syllogism. If a text argues that A + B = C, but then shows evidence for A and D (but not B), they cannot conclude C. (Even if C seems a reasonable conclusion, it would require a different argument, and if such logical flaws exist, it is grounds for being more critical of the source.)
- In a syllogism, A, B, and C are propositions. You can criticise any or all of them. In a syllogism, A and B are also known as premises, and C is known as the conclusion.
- Look up ‘logical fallacies’. Focus on one or two at a time, because there are lots and you don’t need to memorise them all. See if the text you’re looking at makes any logical fallacies. Three big ones are (i) reductio ad absurdum (one or more of the argument’s premises is absurd); (ii) begging the question (the argument uses the conclusion as one of the premises – so there is only a claim, rather than an argument); and (iii) ad hominem (the author targets a person rather than their argument).
- Know that publishing work usually requires making an argument. It is rarely enough to describe an issue (although close, detailed analyses can get published). This argument can be subtle or obvious. It means that almost everything you read will have a ‘take’. If you figure out the author’s argument (often they state it in the introduction), you will know what they are trying to argue. This can be useful. If you know the author is trying to argue that landlords are our best hope of resolving the housing crisis, you know that they might cite some accurate statistics, but their interpretation of those stats will be designed to support their (shaky) argument.
- The problem with a lot of sources is not the description, but the narrative or the author’s interpretation. If you can learn to analyse (break apart, separate) the description from the narrative (analysis, interpretation, evaluation, conclusion), you will be able to figure out what you can rely on and what should be disregarded.
4/7: Narrowing the focus
And if I want to learn about a slightly more specific topic, such as the Berlin wall, would I go about that the same way?
Yes. It may even be better to start with the more specific topic.
On a slightly related note, how can I know what biases a given newspaper has? Is this something I can learn quickly for each journal, or do I have to dig deep into it to find out?
Most ‘smaller’ publications will tell you about their editorial line on their website. Usually in their ‘About’ page. This can be helpful, but often can obscure the politics.
You probably need to dig deep into a couple of articles, but note that different authors for a single publication will have different views, and the editor may allow a range of opinions.
You could also just read a few articles without digging too deeply. While reading, ask what type of story the author is telling. Some ‘progressive’ publications, for example, will pick up on a social problem, like homelessness or poverty. But they will explain the problem as being related to (a lack of) individual hard work or as something that more capitalism can fix. These sources need not be ignored, but you can challenge the narrative.
As a rule of thumb: if it was written in the last 500 years, it will be more or less pro-capitalist and anti-communist. Before that, pro-feudal and anti-capitalist. As Marx and Engels wrote in the German Ideology, the ruling ideas of the epoch are the ideas of the ruling class. This is true of most ‘left-wing’ publications as much as it is of right-wing publications. If you want to go straight to a critical view, you need to find explicitly Marxist publications or publications from communist states, but even then, all the above caveats and warnings apply. For example, documents from early in the Soviet Union might be much more anti-capitalist than documents from the 1970s onwards.
5/7: Guides
Are there any guides that cover things like this?
Marx and Engels, The German Ideology presents a kind of summary of how they analyse and understand history. This may be useful for you to read.
Michael Parenti, History as Mystery. The whole book is great and talks directly to what you’re asking. You might find the prologue and chapter 1 especially helpful. This would also be a good example to analyse to see how Parenti deals with sources. Read chapter 1 and just be aware of the referencing (use of endnote numbers). Then read the endnotes and see what kinds of sources Parenti relies on.
Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy. A good Marxist example of the research process. Marx takes a quote from e.g. Proudhon, then spends a few pages taking it apart (describing, criticising, analysing, etc). Then he takes another quote, etc, until he feels that he has understood and criticised the literature enough to come to his own conclusion. Just skim it to see the structure for now.
Grover Furr, Khrushchev Lied. Furr is very honest about how he is using his sources. He explains this in the intro. If you read this, you might get a better idea of how other writers misuse their sources. Through the rest of the book, Furr quotes, in full, each claim made by Khrushchev, then Furr describes the main point in the quote, analyses the quote to find its constituent parts, then presents counter-arguments and counter-evidence to dispute each part of each of Khrushchev’s claims. The second half of the book, about 200 pages, are quotes from the sources that Furr relies on to dispute Khrushchev. (Usually there might be a bibliography to say what sources were relied on, but Furr knows English-speakers might struggle to access his sources, so he includes them in the appendices.)
Booth, Colomb, and Williams, The Craft of Research (PDF of the 3rd edition can be found online). This goes into more detail on some of what I wrote above. You would not need to read the whole thing, just the sections that look the most useful.
Bryan Greetham, How to Write Better Essays (PDF available online). Have a look at the section on research.
6/7: Reading: Part One
As for school and studying do not see these as separate to reading. The school system encourages that view, but reading will make study easier.
Planning reading
A good way to manage your reading list is to follow a plan. The plan can change over time. Work out what new ideas are most important to you, and start with the most helpful text on that topic, then move to the next text, and so on. It takes as long as it takes to get through the materials that you have chosen.
Usually, I am a polygamous reader, working through a pile of books and articles at any one time. Sometimes, I will focus on one text from start to finish – this is probably the most productive approach. But if I get distracted by life, I just pick up the nearest book and forget about the previous one. Later, I will remember the other book I started and go back to it. Reading groups and book discussion clubs help, because they require you to focus on finishing the selected text.
Attention span
It takes twenty minutes for your mind to focus on a task. After 50 minutes, your mind will likely lose focus. So reading should be in 20–50 minute bursts. Turn your phone on aeroplane mode for this time – you don’t need the distraction.
As soon as you realise that your mind has wandered and that you were not paying attention, decide how important this part of the text is. If it’s important, go back and read it again. After 20 minutes, you will find it much easier to stay focussed.
It’s almost impossible to read and fully process more than 10,000 words at once, even for advanced readers. The less familiar the reader is with the subject, the smaller this number. For example, if I were to read a book about physics, I would struggle reading more than 1,000 words at a time (unless it was written very simply). Chapters in modern books tend to be 10,000 words or less for this reason. If a book includes longer chapters, it will be helpful to divide them up yourself and take a break at a suitable point.
You can only hold around five items of information in your head at any given time. Each of these five ‘items’ can be a ‘chunk’ of information.
So the first time someone reads Marx and reads ‘bourgeois’, ‘proletariat’, ‘commodity’, ‘exchange value’, and ‘use value’ that’s it – five new items – their brain is full.
But the next time, ‘bourgeois and proletariat’ are one item, and ‘commodity, exchange value, and use value’ are one item. That’s only two items in total. So they can add three more items, such as ‘class struggle’, ‘mode of production’ and ‘means of production’. Eventually, these all become one item, perhaps ‘capitalism’, to which the reader can add another four single items and keep all that information in their mind at the same time.
So the more familiar the topic, the easier it is to read new and difficult texts talking about the same issue(s). Reading slowly and in short bursts allows you to create new ‘chunks’ out of items.
It takes practice to be able to read continuously, even for 15 minutes. The more difficult the text, the slower you will read, and the harder it is to stay focussed. It will get easier.
Still, I often get distracted, or my mind just wanders. It’s normal.
It is possible to get into a ‘flow state’ (an idea of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s). This is the holy grail. You may have felt it before. Once I am in a flow state, I can read (or type) for hours on end. I forget to eat and drink. It’s hard to plan for a flow state. It just happens. It is easy for other people and distractions to pull you out of a flow state. Once they pull you out, you’ve lost it :(
You can encourage a flow state: you need to get rid of distractions and start small. Create a low pressure environment. You’re not trying to see how many pages you can read. Focus on understanding and enjoying one page at a time. Be careful if you can do this because you will be oblivious to the time: set alarms for appointments/classes/etc that you cannot miss.
7/7: Reading: Part Two
Read slowly
I read as slowly as a I need to and I am a slow reader in general.
Better to spend twenty minutes reading a page and understanding it than getting through 10 pages in the same time and forgetting the content or not fully understanding it.
IMO, don’t bother speed reading. I taught myself how to speed-read. Then I practised until I could read four (substantial) novels in an evening. This takes most of the enjoyment out of fiction, so it’s pointless. I was also told that I would need to learn to speed read to get through university – otherwise, there’s too much to get through. I tried that, and got nowhere because almost nothing goes in when speed-reading non-fiction. If it does go in your memory, it does not stay there.
Spending 3–4 hours reading each day is enough to be in the top of the class at university, even if you read ‘slower’ than your peers. The difference is in reading consistently. However ‘fast’ others might read, it’s a waste of time if it is inconsistent, unfocussed, and careless. Better to read carefully.
You do not have to read in the ‘right order’
It is okay to read just one chapter in a book, whether it is chapter 1 or chapter 12 – pick the chapter that interests you. When I first read Capital, I started with the chapter on bloody legislation, then a month later read the chapter on the working day, then a month later read other chapters on primitive accumulation.
Some time later (6 months?), I started at the beginning and read it from cover to cover. Having read the other chapters and some other Marxists in the meantime, I needed to know how Marx and Marxists gained their insights. From that point, you couldn’t have torn the book from my hands. I’m not suggesting this reading order; I’m just showing you that there is no ‘right way’ to read a text.
This is not a systematic approach, but it is how I read most things. It relies on reading enough material – over as long a time as it takes – to become interested in the subject. The more you learn about a subject, the more interesting it becomes, the more questions you have, and the more you want to know. The easier it gets to enter the flow state.
Knowing which parts of a text to read
There are some useful techniques for reading faster. Skim-reading (for the ‘gist’) and skipping paragraphs or sections as soon as you realise that you know the content already. Through practice and familiarity, you will learn that most (good!) writing will follow a certain structure.
Good writers tend to start by telling you what other people have said; only then do they tell you why the others are wrong, and finally they tell you the solution. If you already know the field and the arguments, you only need to read a few lines of the earlier sections. The important sections are where the writer tells you what they are adding to the subject. They summarise this in the introduction and explain its implications in the conclusion.
Some writers do this section my section (modern published academic papers tend to do this). Some writers may do this point-by-point (essays, books ‘for the public’, and older texts tend to do this).
- Example 1
- Introduction (1 page)
- The state of the field (2 pages) (outline of arguments 1, 2, and 3)
- The problems with the state of the field (2 pages) (relating to arguments 1, 2, and 3)
- The new way of looking at the field (5 pages)
- Conclusion (1 page).
- Example 2
- Introduction (1 page)
- Argument #1: the state of the field (1/2 paragraph)> the problems with the state of the field (1/2 paragraph) > the new way of looking at the field (2 paragraphs)
- Argument #2: the state of the field (1/2 paragraph) > the problems with the state of the field (1/2 paragraph) > the new way of looking at the field (2 paragraphs)
- Argument #3: the state of the field (1/2 paragraph) > the problems with the state of the field (1/2 paragraph) > the new way of looking at the field (2 paragraphs)
- Conclusion (1 page)
In example 1 or 2, once you know the area, you can jump to the text on ‘the new way of looking at the field’, whether that is all together in one section, or spread out at the end of several sections. You can skim the rest for keywords, just to see if anything jumps out at you.
When reading any text, start with the chapter and section headings to get an overview. If there is an abstract, read this next. Then read the introduction and the conclusion. (You could read the conclusion first.) Then read either the whole book or a selected chapter from start to finish. This way, it is easier to hold the pieces of the argument in your mind as you encounter each idea in the text, and you start with the overall argument as one ‘chunk/item’, to which you can slowly add the details.
It’s practically impossible to learn everything in a text the first time you read it. Fully understanding a text requires reading it 2–3+ times. Once to understand what the author is saying. Twice to understand how they are saying it. Third to understand whether they are persuasive and to decide what you think.
You do not need to fully understand everything you read. Often, it is enough to know the broad argument. And if that is all you need to know, you can often work this out from the introduction and conclusion, then move on to something more interesting and important.
Okay this is really good, thanks