/lit/ - Literature

>>12500844
Just find something interesting and read it, dumbass.

>>12500844

>>12500844
>how do i into Marxism
start with Marx

Start with the basic politics of marxism. Read Critique of the Gotha Programme. it’s a pamphlet. You should probably also read the memefesto but be aware it’s extremely rhetorical and lacks substance. Critique of the gotha programme has much more substance. The german ideology is also good for the philosophical side of marxism, as in its historical materialism. For the economics side (which is absolutely essential) read capital. Vol. 1 is absolutely critical to understanding marxist economics. Capital is no where near as hard as people make it seem to be. If you can read plato you can read capital . from there read wage labor and capital. after that read lenin, stalin, and mao, and you will have successfully introduced yourself into scientific socialism. some engels is good as well.

>>12500871
Or Adam Smith even.

>>12500844
>>12500877
Oh yeah and read cockshott. Cybernetic communism is absolutely essential.

do not read cockshott
you are being memed

>>12500844
Usually I'd tell people who like Marx to off themselves but I'm feeling nice today

>>12500877
>reading the revisionist cucks
I'd take Lenin with a grain of salt already, although he's mostly coherent.
That said, obviously it doesn't hurt to read all the material, at a minimum to learn from others mistakes, but Stalin and Mao aren't essential in that respect.

>>12500914
Stalin and Mao don't count. They were real socialism

>>12500877
would this work? or should i look for a better translation?: https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Writings-Karl-Marx-Philosophic-ebook/dp/B002W5RCRK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1548810112&sr=8-3&keywords=critique+of+the+gotha+program

One of the more larger faults with Marxism, especially if one were to try to implement his ideaolgy in the America is the proletariat class. This class in the USA is overwhelmingly comprised of blue collar individuals who work with their hands for a living and for pleasure. The western working man is the epitome of self reliance. These men and women and families will never bow to any socialistism (conformity). As it directly threatens their almost instinctive way of life that's been handed down in American generations. Push, pull or get the fuck out of the way!

>>12500914
I’m not a maoist but mao’s contributions are absolutely essential to understanding socialism today. from proving the three and a half Bolsheviks wrong to achieving basically full communism in certain farms. obviously every leader has made mistake. china’s failing to industrialize caused it to pale in comparison to the soviet union, but to deny mao as a simple revisionist and not a theoritical and material contributer to the fight against imperialism would be silly
>>12500949
Id read all those but skip the manuscripts. there is no substitute in marxist economics to capitalism. it literally explains everything.

>>12500968
Let's pick this apart, shall we?
>This class in the USA is overwhelmingly comprised of blue collar individuals who work with their hands for a living and for pleasure.
"For a living" and "for pleasure" are two different - in fact, opposite - things. After creating socialism, they could still work for pleasure if they chose, or do virtually anything else for that matter. However, "for a living" hides a deeply sinister reality - they are currently being *forced* to work, lest they be impoverished and starve. There is no "pleasure" in this, at least for the great majority.
>The western working man is the epitome of self reliance.
This is straightforwardly not true. If you work, you sell your labor to a boss, and rely on them to pay your wages; you cannot live without someone willing to purchase your labor. Every year, some percentage *don't* live, because they fail to find a job and starve.
>These men and women and families will never bow to any socialistism (conformity).
And yet, they bow to capitalism, and conform to whatever the boss desires in exchange for wages, and therefore survival. Socialism, far from worsening this state of affairs, would end it.
>As it directly threatens their almost instinctive way of life that's been handed down in American generations.
Handed down by whom, and for what reasons? By the owning-class, of course. Far from being "instinctive" - capitalism certainly doesn't exist in nature - what we're looking at is an artificial structure, built by an elite few for their own benefit. By thinking these things, and attempting to spread them to others, you actively defend their position of power.
>Push, pull or get the fuck out of the way!
I choose "push". Up the scale of power, not down.

>>12500982
Definitely belongs into the curriculum, that is true, but it's important to weight them correctly. Correctly being highly subjective, I admit.

I don't think there's any figure bigger or more correct and applicable then Chomsky. If you want to have a solid understanding of the problems of today then you should start with "Understanding Power".

If you're looking for some older stuff I really love Bakunin's "God and the State".

Marx is hugely important but don't focus on him solely at the expense of other great writers.

>>12501008
You seem to disagree with a lot of what I have to say and that is okay, brother. However the sum of my statement remains the same and unchallenged. They will never bow to socialism. Do they bow to capitalism? Yes some do. But they will die before bending to the later.

Why don't you start with Marx

Here's a pretty good introduction lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35cr_whPC88

Always learn from your mistakes. Start with how actually existing communism fails and maybe next time you try you can make it work!

>>12501061
Socialism isn’t something you ‘bow’ to. Socialism is an inevitability, not an invitation. Capitalism collapses when it has no further bribes to give to the fed up workers.

Start with Hal Draper's Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution. It's xbox hueg and you can skip boring parts, but it might be the best series of works out there to give you a solid understanding of Marx's actual political positions and how he arrived at them through theory. It also goes deep and autistic into questions of the actual meaning of the terms Marx employed and explains his historical context really really well.

And honestly, you need this foundation first before you start reading theory or before you start reading Marx himself. The problem with reading Marx is 95% of the time he was arguing against some school of Socialism or Hegelianism that are now completely forgotten, and you'll read his arguments against these specific targets but, lacking the proper context, will take the wrong conclusions. It also makes no sense to read theory before you have had someone explain to you what Marx meant when he used certain terms, because Marx's vernacular is very distant from our own (and when you do read it, have Bottomore's Dictionary of Marxist Thought around to assist you with that). Trying to grasp the theoretical principles without knowing how Marx applied them is very likely to lead you to dumb interpretations of Marxism, which is why people often take Marx's attempt at lucid, detached sociological and economic characterizations as morals rejections of political institutions or economic mechanisms.

For his theory of History, get this
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.46573/page/n3
It's a small selection of writings and letters, and it's very to the point. Engels' letters on the subject during the days of the Second International (after 1890) are particularly valuable, because that's when there was surge of popular interest in Marxism and Engels had to clarify certain things to a new audience. Many people draw deterministic and mechanistic conclusions from historical materialism, and in these letters Engels carefully explains why they're retards

Marxist economics is a lot more troublesome to get into. Maybe get George Catephores's book? Michael Charles Howard has this two-volume history of Marxian economics that covers a lot of different schools and later developments, since you're interested in a wider view. Obviously you can go straight to the source and read Das Kapital, but only losers do that.

socialism is a meme

>>12500844
Kołakowski is all you need.

Skip this shit and read the Naked Communist and The Naked Socialist

Read Sowell and Hayek instead, Marxism is a cancer.

>>12500844
Just turn your brain off.

>>12503011
>libertarians

So who do I read if I want to be an intellectual centrist who believes in the efficiency of the capitalist system but also sees a need for it to be reigned by the government to provide optimal social outcomes?

>>12503159
fascism lol