/lit/ - Literature

[juxtaposer !!4p9q5vJPujS No.1154396]

Sup pro/lit/eriat, I want to read some communist lit. Its partially because I want to write something with a communist character and partially because I'm a nerd and want to learn about it. The only two books I know are The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Are these good to start? Are there other books that I shouldn't miss?

[None !UyhAEqbnp. No.1154400]

Don't forget Comrade Stalin and the dictatorship of the proletariat

[Anonymous No.1154404]

Anything by Obama

[Anonymous No.1154408]

If you just want to get a feel for the rhetoric/mindset, I'd skip Capital. It's mostly just economic theory.

Check out The Coming Insurrection and Empire.

[Anonymous No.1154412]

OP I think we need to have a talk.

[Anonymous No.1154443]

>>1154408
Definitely skip Capital. I'm not saying it's not important or good, because it definitely is, but it's not at all essential and it's a real bitch to get through (seriously. it's a bear). I would say the best starting point is the Communist Manifesto because, well, that was its intent - to be an accessible description of Marxism. You can probably just get by with that if you need to. Other Marx is, you know, whatever, it's okay. Young Marx, woohoo.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1154454]

animal farm lol

[juxtaposer !!4p9q5vJPujS No.1154466]

>>1154454
I've already read animal farm.

Any communist fiction? I heard Nikolai Gogol was a commie. Is this true?

[Anonymous No.1154480]

>>1154466
Hemingway, Arthur Miller, young Bellow

[Anonymous No.1154489]

>>1154466
Surprisingly, most authors either were communists, or had previous communist sympathies.

[Anonymous No.1154490]

Read "The Black Panthers Speak", interesting mix of communist- and black nationalist theory. Also, Leo Trotsky.

[Anonymous No.1154508]

>>1154490
Possibly some Russian literature from the time of the revolution. Doctor Zhivago comes to my mind. Unfortunately I never read the book but merely saw the movie, but I've read somewhere that it's a description of the revolution "through the eyes of an apolitical character, written by an apolitical author". Now I don't think there is such a thing as being apolitical, but I guess the point is that they are neither strongly in favour not strongly opposed to the Bolsheviks and their revolution.

[Anonymous No.1154517]

>>1154508

It's a piece of shit, worse than the movie because longer. AVOID.

[Anonymous No.1154523]

>>1154396
Play the Soviet campaign of C&C Red Alert. Motherfucking Stalin is your boss.

[Anonymous No.1154788]

>>1154396
If you want to read a book featuring a communist character that is not a complete cliché (bloodthirsty tyrant, angry revolutionary or noble idealist), I'd recommend "The Assault" (original Dutch title: "De Aanslag") by Harry Mulisch. Although she is not the main character, a young communist woman plays a very important role in the story. I'm not a communist, but this book and especially this character left a lasting impression on me.

[Anonymous No.1154800]

>>1154466

No he wasn't, he was actually pretty conservative and got a lot of shit from Bel-whatever (insky?) his name was, the socialist critic, when some letters were published where he talks about the right way to beat your serfs

>>1154508

Pasternak is fairly ambivalent about the revolution but not at all about the Bolsheviks, the book is (partly) about its complete failure and the loss of confidence in the party that all of that destruction and the poisonous political culture it entailed

>>1154517

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about

[Anonymous No.1154805]

I dunno if Dos Passos was a straight up commie but the USA trilogy has a strong socialist bent

[Anonymous No.1155137]

>>1154396

Mussolini in his early years wrote a lot about communism. He was friends with Lenin, actually.

Look up some of his writings. He's actually pretty smart in contrast to how he's typically portrayed. I know this, and I'm not even remotely a communist.

[Anonymous No.1155376]

bump

[Anonymous No.1155412]

[Anonymous No.1155504]

Hey OP, commiefag here. If you want a firm understanding of marxism, you won't get around reading Capital, at least try the first volume. It was edited by Marx himself (unlike the other two volumes which were published by Engels after Marx's death) and is actually quite readable. If you have the right kind of cynical humour, you might even laugh out loud sometimes while reading, Marx was a dirty old bastard.

If you want a tl;dr version of Capital vol 1, you might want to try "Results of the Direct Production Process" (you can find it online), it was intended to be a chapter at the end of vol 1, rehashing its contents (ie the production of surplus value) to lead over to vol 2.

The Communist Manifesto is a great piece of rhetoric, but you should always remember that Marx/Engels wrote it before they had really developed their economic theories, they even retracted some statements in it a couple of years after publishing it.

As to more reading tips: perhaps Lenin, after all he was really influential on 20th century communism. "What is to be done?" is for example one of the communist classics on the question of organisation. Council communism and left communism are pretty interesting, too, Pannekoek, Bordiga etc. Try marxists.org.

[Anonymous No.1155506]

>>1154408
>implying Marxism is something else than the scientific analysis of the material life process of capitalist society, ie political economy
Also, the Coming Insurrection is a load of horseshit, they give their best to sound as dangerous as the Situationists while spouting nothing but hot air. Insurrectionism, my arse. If you want to read something worth your time, stay with the original, you could begin with "On the poverty of student life".
And Empire... two old operaists looking for a surrogate for their holy cow, the industry proletariat. Actually, over here in Europe, the hype over that book died down soon, then the Multitude-concept was milked for half-arsed social democrat activism for a while (I think that's its only use) and now nobody cares about Multitude, Empire and all that crap any more. No loss.

[Isabelle Huppert !!lYVA4YXz75M No.1155516]

>>1154466

Check out some Bertolt Brecht. Should be right up your alley.

[Anonymous No.1156050]

>>1155506
What's wrong with democratic socialism and/or social democracy?

[Anonymous No.1156098]

http://fckvrso.wordpress.com/

[juxtaposer !!4p9q5vJPujS No.1156739]

So, just as a little update to anyone who posted in this thread last night. I ended up buying Ten Days that Shook the World by John Reed. Its an account of the Bolshevik Revolution written by an American socialist. I figured by reading this I'd learn both about communist philosophy and history and I'm pretty excited to start it (I need to finish the Brothers Karamazov first, I'm about 60 pages from finishing it).

[Anonymous No.1156764]

Archipelago of Gulag.

[Anonymous No.1156773]

>>1155506

>implying there's anything scientific about Marxism

Hahaha, wow.

[Anonymous No.1156849]

Everything you need to know about communism.

[Anonymous No.1156871]

Don't read anything by Lenin. Lenin was actually pretty conservative and wrote about the benefits of fascism at some point. The only time he ever wrote about true communism and socialism is when he realized it would be the easiest way to rise to power, by appealing to the mainstream Marxists. But after he attained power he reverted back to his old self. Look up a video on YouTube called 'Chomsky on Lenin.' He goes into detail why Lenin wasn't a communist or a socialist.

OP, would you be willing to read stuff that isn't quite communism but really similar? I'd recommend works by Bakunin who advocated something like anarcho-communism except wages would still be paid to workers who could then buy from a communal market instead of abolishing wages like the anarcho-communists want. It still calls for the collective ownership of the means of production.

[Anonymous No.1157229]

>>1156871
for the sake of all that is fine and good do not read or watch what is churned for either the right or the left wing with shit for brains. it makes no sense to argue semantics. read macchiavelli, google stuff on russian civil war and revolution and a summary to "what to do" and you have everything you need. other than that read history. read a lot of it.

[Anonymous No.1157714]

>>1156871
Do you have a citation for Lenin writing for fascism? Are you sure you're not speaking of Stalin?

[Isabelle Huppert !!lYVA4YXz75M No.1157735]

>>1156871
>>1157714

Nonsense. Read at least Lenin's What Is To Be Done? (you should look for the Lars T. Lih edition called What is to Be Done? In Context) and also The State and Revolution. Then make up your own mind about Lenin.

[Anonymous No.1157747]

>>1156871
>Don't read anything by Lenin. Lenin was actually pretty conservative and wrote about the benefits of fascism at some point. The only time he ever wrote about true communism and socialism is when he realized it would be the easiest way to rise to power, by appealing to the mainstream Marxists. But after he attained power he reverted back to his old self. Look up a video on YouTube called 'Chomsky on Lenin.' He goes into detail why Lenin wasn't a communist or a socialist.

What the fuck is "true communism"? Did Marx ever write about "true communism"? You're inventing ideas out of thin air, which is something neither Marx nor Lenin partook in. If you think you understand Marxism or Lenin by watching a Chomsky video on you tube, then you really don't know anything about Marxism or Lenin. Chomsky is extremely anti-Marxist, and his understanding of it doesn't even come close to how Marx himself conceived of it.

tl;dr read Lenin

[Anonymous No.1157754]

Read Trotsky. I recommend "the revolution betrayed".

[Anonymous No.1157758]

>>1157229

You know Machiavelli wrote satire, right?

[Anonymous No.1157782]

>>1157747
loled at the youtube bit

[Anonymous No.1157795]

Anything by Trotsky

[Anonymous No.1157857]

What exactly makes Trotsky so great?

[Anonymous No.1157875]

>>1157857
"One very popular myth is that Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky were comrades-in-arms and were very close both personally and politically. The origins of this idea, regarded in the West as an unquestionable historical dogma, come from the writings and claims of Trotsky himself. It is common to hear teachers in our American schools announce that it was obvious that Trotsky, and not Stalin, was the successor to Lenin, and even that Lenin had wanted Trotsky to be leader after he died. In this narrative, Leninism and Trotskyism are one and the same; Trotsky was the most brilliant Marxist to ever live next to Lenin himself; some go so far as to say Lenin was a Trotskyist. This fanciful myth states that Lenin and Trotsky were two sides of the same coin, that their political beliefs were more or less identical, and had Trotsky come to power rather than Stalin, the world would have somehow turned out for the better. This narrative ends with the tragic Shakespearean tale of Trotsky being deprived of his birthright and place in history as emperor of the Soviet Union by the low-class and mediocre personality of the Machiavellian Asiatic despot Joseph Stalin."

[Anonymous No.1157881]

>>1157857

Motherfucker was killed by an axe, in Mexico. You don't go out like that without having done some amazing shit.

[Anonymous No.1157887]

>>1157881

>killed by an axe

Awesome mental image there.

[Anonymous No.1157892]

Check out "The Icon and the Axe" a textbook I had for a Russian history class I took. Full of Russian cultural history

[Anonymous No.1157900]

>>1157857

Most historians agree that he is an amazing writer, and inspiring orator, the reason he lost out to Stalin after Lenin's death was that he was lazy - he saw the politics of the politburo beneath him, so through Stalin's inter personal skills, he managed to smear Trotsky and seize the organs of power.

I don't agree with much of his literature myself, but the bits I had to read for my dissertation was interesting. More Marxist, but Antonio Gramsci is a good read. I mention him, as for me Lenin et were not communist in the Marxian sense, was a bastardised version of it. But thats for a different thread I guess.

[Anonymous No.1157904]

>>1157881

I heard it was a pick axe to the ear

[Anonymous No.1157929]

>>1157881
He called for the overthrow of the Soviet government when it faced an inevitable German invasion. He advocated terrorism and military attacks against the USSR to bring about a "political revolution," saying this was the only way to crush the an evil bureaucracy (which he had been a part of and had few complaints about until he was removed by a vote) and to save the USSR.
I don't feel the assassination was necessary though.

[Anonymous No.1157937]

>>1157881
it was an icepick, not an axe.

[Anonymous No.1157938]

>>1157881
He called for the overthrow of the Soviet government when it faced an inevitable German invasion. He advocated terrorism and military attacks against the USSR to bring about a "political revolution," saying this was the only way to crush the evil bureaucracy (which he had been a part of and had few complaints about until he was removed by a vote) and to save the USSR.
I don't feel the assassination was necessary though.

[Anonymous No.1157949]

>>1157881
>The blow was poorly delivered and failed to kill Trotsky instantly, as Mercader had intended. Witnesses stated that Trotsky spat on Mercader and began struggling fiercely with him. Hearing the commotion, Trotsky's bodyguards burst into the room and nearly killed Mercader, but Trotsky stopped them, laboriously stating that the assassin should be made to answer questions.

Ice pick, not axe.

[Anonymous No.1157955]

>>1154396
Hey OP ,try reading something from Lenin , like Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. great book, and also notice name of the banks.

[Anonymous No.1158014]

>>1157875
What is that from?

[Anonymous No.1158062]

>>1158014
It's from a Hoxhaist group, the American Party of Labor. (so obviously they don't have a favorable view of him, but they at least cite Lenin and Trotsky's in their criticism)
Trotsky was obviously an old member of the party, but the idea that he was Lenin's chosen and rightful heir is a common misconception.

This is no reason not to read any of his work though.

[Anonymous No.1158244]

>>1158062
Why is the thought of him being the rightful heir a misconception?

[Anonymous No.1158324]

>>1157900
Lazy?!? Hardly, he organised the red army during the civil war he travelled all over the country supervising the troops in his personal armoured train. Hardly the actions or repsponiabilites of a lazy individual.

He was an internationalist and believed that world revolution was both necessary and inevitable, when this didn't happen he was discredited and left backing the wrong side against Stalin who pushed the concept that Revolution in Russia alone could be sustained and survive with a introvert policy. That and he was an idealist whereas Stalin was an archpragmatist and manipulator and they tend to win out in the end.

I totally agree with your other sentiments though Gramsci's good and Marxism–Leninism is not a pure form of Marxist theory as it's bent to fit in with the political context of the time and place, mainly using Marxism as a basis and a means of adding legitimacy.

[Anonymous No.1158325]

>>1158244
Because leadership (and direction) shouldn't be determined like in hereditary monarchy. Line struggle should. Lenin's "blessing," which wasn't given to anyone, is irrelevant. Trotsky wasn't the natural ideological heir of Lenin, and in Lenin's Collected Works there are many criticisms of Trotsky and his theory of permanent revolution.

I don't believe either Trotsky or Stalin were all that close to Lenin anyway.

[Anonymous No.1158555]

fuck lenin and his cheka
all power to the soviets eh? you fucking lying murderer

long live Nestor Makhno!

[Anonymous No.1158678]

>>1158555
All power to the white army?

[Anonymous No.1158826]

bump

[Anonymous No.1158845]

Economic Calculation, The Fatal Conceit, anything by Böhm-Bawerk

[Anonymous No.1158851]

>>1158555
they failed, kronstadt failed, CNT failed and the kibbutzim have all sold out. for the most part they're strigently zionist or judaist exploiting Arab guest-labour.
long live China!
long live Cuba!
long live Vietnam!

[Anonymous No.1158853]

The Cannery Ship by Takiji Kobayashi is ballin. He even got beaten to death by the police for being so radical.

[Anonymous No.1158860]

>>1158845
lol this

[Anonymous No.1158872]

>>1157875
tl;dr
lenin didnt call trotsky a political prostitute for nothing. being politicians both often switched sides and their cruelty surpassed that of josy stalin by far. there is no reason to read them except as a summary, anon.

you don't need idols. just read about the history of ussr and history of china.

[Anonymous No.1158890]

>>1157875
>Trotsky was the most brilliant Marxist to ever live next to Lenin himself

Pretty sad considering they were both awful

[Anonymous No.1158957]

>>1158872

Where did Lenin call Trotsky a "political prostitute"? It sounds like the "useful idiots" myth. If you're inferring that they had many differences of opinion over a period of twenty years, then you'd be right, but still a moron.

[Anonymous No.1160016]

>>1158872
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.1160060]

>>1158845

No.

[Anonymous No.1160123]

>>1158851
Long live revisionism? Out of those three, Cuba's the only one currently worth defending even though it may be starting on the path of "market socialism" as well. China was once worth defending before the Deng's coup and further betrayal in the establishment of neoliberalism.
>>1158957
>>1158872
I don't recall Lenin saying that either. I'm guessing he's abstracting a general sentiment from Lenin's works.

“Trotsky, on the other hand, represents only his own personal vacillations and nothing more. In 1903 he was a Menshevik; he abandoned Menshevism in 1904, returned to the Mensheviks in 1905 and merely flaunted ultra-revolutionary phrases; in 1906 he left them again; at the end of 1906 he advocated electoral agreements with the Cadets (i.e., he was in once more with the Mensheviks); and the spring of 1907, at the London Congress, he said that he differed from Rosa Luxemburg on 'individual shades of ideas rather than on political tendencies'. One day Trotsky plagiarizes from the ideological stock-in-trade of one faction; the next day he plagiarizes from that of another, and therefore declares himself to be standing above both factions” (CW 16, 391).

“What a swine this Trotsky is—Left phrases, and a bloc with the Right against the Zimmerwald Left! He ought to be exposed if only in a brief letter” (Letter to Alexandra Kollontai).

“Trotsky arrived, and this scoundrel at once came to an understanding with the Right-wing of Novy Mir against the Left Zimmerwaldians! Just so! That is just like Trotsky! He is always equal to himself – twists, swindles, poses as a Left, helps the Right, so long as he can” (Lenin, quoted in “Labour Monthly”).

Gramsci was more explicit (and vulgar) when he said, "Trockij è la puttana del fascismo." I'm not sure if that's exactly fair though. The problem was apparently factionalism which undermined party unity beyond principled debate and line struggle.

[Anonymous No.1160451]

bump

[Anonymous No.1160643]

>>1158851
Long live revisionism? Out of those three, Cuba's the only one currently worth defending even though it may be starting on the path of "market socialism" as well. China was once worth defending before Deng's coup and further betrayal in the establishment of neoliberalism.
>>1158957
>>1158872
I don't recall Lenin saying that either. I'm guessing he's abstracting a general sentiment from Lenin's works.

“Trotsky, on the other hand, represents only his own personal vacillations and nothing more. In 1903 he was a Menshevik; he abandoned Menshevism in 1904, returned to the Mensheviks in 1905 and merely flaunted ultra-revolutionary phrases; in 1906 he left them again; at the end of 1906 he advocated electoral agreements with the Cadets (i.e., he was in once more with the Mensheviks); and the spring of 1907, at the London Congress, he said that he differed from Rosa Luxemburg on 'individual shades of ideas rather than on political tendencies'. One day Trotsky plagiarizes from the ideological stock-in-trade of one faction; the next day he plagiarizes from that of another, and therefore declares himself to be standing above both factions” (CW 16, 391).

“What a swine this Trotsky is—Left phrases, and a bloc with the Right against the Zimmerwald Left! He ought to be exposed if only in a brief letter” (Letter to Alexandra Kollontai).

“Trotsky arrived, and this scoundrel at once came to an understanding with the Right-wing of Novy Mir against the Left Zimmerwaldians! Just so! That is just like Trotsky! He is always equal to himself – twists, swindles, poses as a Left, helps the Right, so long as he can” (Lenin, quoted in “Labour Monthly”).

Gramsci was more explicit (and vulgar) when he said, "Trockij è la puttana del fascismo." I'm not sure if that's exactly fair though. The problem was apparently factionalism which undermined party unity beyond principled debate and line struggle.

[Anonymous No.1160646]

>>1160643
I do agree with the sentiment that those three states should be defended from imperialism though.
>>1157747
Not really related, but Marx did write a bit about reactionary "true socialism."

OP, apart from what Isabelle Huppert suggested and Imperialism, I recommend Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, The Principles of Communism, and The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism.

[Anonymous No.1161686]

bump

[Anonymous No.1161706]

>>1160060

enjoy your willful ignorance

[Anonymous No.1161711]

what Marxist is your character?
From where? Which generation? what does he do? what is his educational background?
we need more details.
what is your first language, op?

[Anonymous No.1161724]

ITT: Westerners giving other westerners advice on what really went on in Russia.

[Anonymous No.1161755]

>>1161724
>implying Russia isn't western

[Anonymous No.1161762]

>>1161755

Geographically and culturally, Russia is in a very special position. It constantly strives to become as westernized as possible(and yeah, I know that it is very abstract to say "it" when talking about Russia). This ambition to westernized is constantly offset by the country's proximity to eastern nations. This mixing has led the Russian people to develop an enormous identity crisis, especially in the first years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I know this, because I was born and raised there and go back to visit on regular basis.

[Anonymous No.1161772]

Alright muthafakas, I'm through with this. Happy Soviet Sunday to all. Here is some porn. I'm going to sleep.

[Anonymous No.1161819]

>>1161724
>implying everyone here is a westerner

[Anonymous No.1161830]

das kapital is good but there are others that it's based on. like this book