The kind and humble Stalin would wedgie whoever made this and call them a personality cultists.
Stalin’s own library of theoretical and ideological studies was broad and deep. He would not only study Marx, Engels, and Lenin, but would greatly study those who positioned themselves as ideological opposition to Marxism-Leninism. He actively read the writings of Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Plekhanov, etc. He made it a point to learn what and how his enemies think to better understand them and how to counter them. He did not simply hedge himself in a corner reading in an incestuous loop only books that served to reinforce his worldview. He went above and beyond what would be expected of an ideological leader and set the example for the rest of us disciples of Marx, Engels, and Lenin should follow.
That is to be well-read in both depth and breadth.
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is a shocking omission. At least they didn’t put the manifesto in there.
The only Marxism of value is the immortal science of u/smokeuptheweed9 -ism, to the dustbin of history with the rest
I mean at least it’s not all Trot stuff. It’s mostly good recs on there.
its mostly good recs
Grover Furr’s proof that Trotsky was a Nazi collaborator: if there was evidence it would have been destroyed, no evidence exists therefore he was a Nazi collaborator
very weird to include so much by stalin but nothing by marx or big vlad. reddit and its consequences
Death to America
Why the hell is Combat Liberalism on the beginner list??? Sure, it’s easy to read and a quick one at that, but it’s not helpful in the slightest for understanding Marxism (or Leninism for that matter).
Also Jakarta Method as Advanced Theory is strange as hell, since it’s like the most beginner friendly book on that entire list and requires almost no prior knowledge to understand.
Yea, putting Combat Liberalism at the front implies a call to action before reading theory, aka it sets up the reader to go online and debate endlessly without knowing theory. It’s silly, and is totally not exactly what I used to do before taking theory seriously hahahah of course not hahhaha
Truly all the theory teaching I do on my Lemmy.ml account is punishment for years of thinking I knew what Marxism was after reading the Manifesto and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific alone…
Same with Oppose Book Worship, like, at the beginning of a reading list and not at the end, a text focusing on touching grass and really working can be a double-edged sword. The central idea is to do both, read and practice, but with 2 summaries of summaries of the basics under your belt you aren’t at risk of only reading yet, right? Just confusing.
I don’t know that sounds perfectly in line with the ideology of the online left
Combat liberalism is just yourlogicalfallacyis.com for leftists.
Oh boy that’s an inflammatory assertion right there, I love it
I asked Mao and he said I’m right and he’s very disappointed in you all.
Thank God I’m not a moaist or else I’d actually be upset.
That’s right! Aren’t you the one who posted the legendary “I’m literally an anarcho-tankie” post on the subreddit way back when?
Truly the twelfth type of Liberalism, debating online without reading… So much wasted time…
They should make a website where they do exactly that. Let’s call it something after a geometrical shape and an ursine creature.
Swap Marx and Engels, because the meme would hit harder, but also the constitution of Stalin’s formulations of Dialectical Materialism, as well as other philosophic formulations in Foundations of Leninism is adapted from Anti-Duhring, so arguably Engels is more prominent in ML canon than Marx, assuming the canon features Stalin more prominently than Marx, Engels or Lenin.
I just personally like Engels’ writing style
He’s better than Marx at getting to the point of what he’s trying to sayI also love reading Engels, and Anti-Duhring is every bit as important of a theoretical basis as a work like Capital. Capital achieves in practical analysis what Anti-Duhring achieves in theoretical analysis.
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1944 I think is Marx at his most digestible although he’s much hazier on the mechanics of capitalist appropriation than in later works. Thesis on Feuerbach is a work of Marx’s that is extremely concise and IMO understudied and poorly understood if not outright ignored. In a few hundred words Marx thoroughly obliterates any notion that he never considered “human nature” in his analysis, on the contrary his entire analysis begins with and stays permanently grounded in his deep love and optimism and hope for the spirit of humanity and our development; our immense potential for self actualization through revolutionary socialist cooperation.
There’s just so much that can be learned from Marx specifically, and even if his later work is complicated, it can be understood best when you work with a group to understand it. It isn’t something for the individual to master, it is for us all to free ourselves. But Engels in his own right, as difficult as it is to separate them, is a fantastic writer and theoretician.
Karl “this convoluted 19th century paragraph argument is going somewhere bro, trust me bro” Marx
Is Marx highly outdated and been surpassed in some ways by newer works? Perhaps. But seeing the massive number of references to Marx just makes it seem like you’d be missing some foundational pieces if you skip it.
I wouldn’t say Marx is outdated, his analysis and frameworks still hold up. He did not live to see the extent to which Capitalism would shift towards Imperialism, but Lenin and other Marxists consistently applied the frameworks laid out by Marx. I guess this is what you mean when you say you’d be missing foundational pieces by missing Marx, however, so I may be splitting hairs.
In my opinion, Marx is crucial for understanding the basics of political economy, Engels does a great job of simplifying dialectical materialism, Lenin forms the basis for understanding Imperialism, and Mao is the best source for practical applications of theory. Stalin’s works are very easy to read and can be handy, but focusing on Stalin’s works over Marx, Engels, Lenin, and even Mao feels… off. I would recommend reading all of the texts here eventually, but it doesn’t make a concerted effort to teach the real aspects of Marxism in a practical manner, it reads more like a “best of” list than an actual training and learning regimen.
Just my 2 cents as someone with their own reading list.
Marx’s work is not outdated, even if some of his earlier theories are less developed. But if you know who Grover Furr is then you know that this is not the kind of Marxism Leninism that has anything to do with Marx or Lenin.
Liberalism: A Counter history is honestly a pretty cruisy read, I recommend it to any budding hexbears. Much easier than Capital Vol. 1.
Not doing any reading until Hasan Piker releases a book
Jakarta Method is such an easy read (well, ignoring the unpleasantness of the history it covers, anyway), wtf is it doing in advanced?
They probably are categorizing it more by what order they think people should read them and less how complicated they are, per se. The beginner category seems to have more rhetorical value getting people interested in MLism I guess?
Edit: Would put Capitalist Realism in the intro though if that’s the case and the Stalin stuff after it. I don’t know. I can almost tell this is made by a 20-something marxist-leninist who’s probably excited to recommend what other people should read but aren’t particularly well-read themselves.
I’m reading Revolutionary Suicide right now and it’s also a really easy read. It’s basically Huey’s autobiography and around 250 pages. The Conquest of Bread is more difficult because you have to look up a bunch of shit about the French Revolution and Franco-Prussian War to understand what Kropotkin is talking about.
With Revolutionary Suicide, you just have to be somewhat familiar with Civil Rights and who/what the Black Panther Party were. Maybe if you’re not an American it’s a struggle? IDK.
It being included at all makes me pretty sure whoever made this list has not read these books themselves.
Granted I haven’t read it, but I really don’t think a Grover Furr book about the historical debate around the secret speech is intermediate.
I’m not sure I would include a work like that at all on a general reading list but at the very least it seems like something you’d get into on an advanced focus level.
I’m also not sure Mark Fisher actually needs to be there, but I see possible arguments at least.
14·9 hours agoPat Sloans Soviet Democracy is advanced??? Very weird list
Why are a bunch of autobiographies in advanced? This borderline feels like some Trot troll came up with this list.
Das Kapital is just revisionist garbage anyway.
