/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13319430]

Is this book even worth reading?

[Anonymous No.13319467]

>>13319430
Bump, I need to know too

[Anonymous No.13319474]

>>13319430
better start with Cancer ward or First circle.

[Anonymous No.13319483]

>>13319474
Is The Gulag Archipelago worth reading or not? I'm not worried about what I should "start with." I'm not going to read everything by every author I read. So just please tell me if this one is worth it or not.

[Anonymous No.13319489]

>>13319483
Only read In the first circle and Life of Ivan, based on those I would say go for it

[Anonymous No.13319498]

>>13319489
If you haven't read it your opinion won't help much sorry.

[Anonymous No.13319517]

>>13319430
Yes. It cured me of my cringy communism part of life. I didn't end it because my local bibliotheke hadn't got part three and im too poor to buy it on my own.

[Anonymous No.13319603]

>>13319430
it's kind of depressing. the textual equivalent of the long march, and lefties and Stalinists will say he's exaggerating/lying/trying to destroy Stalin's great legacy. but.

funniest part is when the secret police turn up to arrest a guy.. he's not home.. so they arrest the woman who lives next door.

i think at this point it was obvious they weren't after subversives. they were filling quotas.

[Anonymous No.13320484]

>>13319603

his own wife admitted the author was telling "campfire tories", urban legends inmates told each other and repackaged them as a factual report on the gulag system. he only won the Nobel Prize because of Cold War Powerplays,his writing style is rather uninteresting imo

[Anonymous No.13320492]

It BTFO out of communism once and for all

[Anonymous No.13320502]

>>13319430
What archipelago is he referring to where all these gulags were?

[Anonymous No.13320505]

>>13319430
Jordan Peterson likes it, so no it isn't.

[Anonymous No.13320510]

>>13320492

>provides report of forced labour system in place in Russia since centuries
>proof that Marx' analysis of class relations was wrong

im bored

[Anonymous No.13320517]

>>13320510
>anime poster
way to discredit your own argument

[Anonymous No.13320532]

>>13319430
It's worth reading, but I prefer Varlam Shalamov's 'Kolyma stories'. Not as much moralising as with Solzhenitsyn.

[Anonymous No.13320546]

>>13320484
Do you mean the memoir written by the KG--I mean, the wife that he divorced twice?

[Anonymous No.13320669]

>>13319430
theoretical communist criticisms of the Stalinist counter-revolution are infinitely more interesting than this sentimental crap

[Anonymous No.13320810]

>>13319430
Not unless you like Solzhenitsyn.

[Anonymous No.13320820]

>>13320669
You mean yet more orthodox Marxist apologia and epicycling?

[Anonymous No.13320836]

>>13319430
No, it's too smart for you

[Anonymous No.13320841]

>>13320820

do you want anecdotes about prison life or do you want an actual analysis of the Soviet Union?

[Anonymous No.13320864]

Ilf and Petrov or Platonov did a better job of ridiculing USSR without writing a melodramatic compendium of campfire tales. Pass.

[Anonymous No.13320996]

>>13320820
Epicycling is a fitting expression for exactly what Stalin was doing to try to justify his whole project theoretically ("socialist commodity production" lmao). So what I mean by criticism of Stalin is not apologia but, well, criticism, and not epicycling but exposing epicycling as epicycling. Criticism preferably based not on "orthodox Marxism" but just on the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

[rolling No.13321191]

Better read Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together instead OP

[Anonymous No.13321348]

>>13319430
I've only read an abridged version but I'm planning to read the entire thing. I suppose that's a recommendation :)

[Anonymous No.13321367]

It's literally
>soviet
>bad

That's it, don't bother.

[Anonymous No.13321398]

>>13321367
It's literally
>soviet
>good

Corrected that for you.

[Anonymous No.13321524]

>>13320841
>>13320996
The fragmentation of "Marxian" economics and sociology seems to indicate that "critique" based upon an "honest" reading of Marx and Engels is either practically impossible, or pointless epicycling by failing to create an accurate model in either field of study.

[Anonymous No.13321538]

>>13320841
Anecdotes are more valuable that some idiot sniffing his own farts in magic theories about retarded shit.

[Anonymous No.13321561]

>>13321524
Marx's method doesn't allow for the existence of """Marxian economics""" or """Marxian sociology""", so nothing that happens within those "fields" can indicate anything with regards to Marx.

[Anonymous No.13321574]

>>13320517
Worse
>tv poster

[Anonymous No.13321580]

>>13321561
...thus illustrating my point.

[Anonymous No.13321616]

>>13321561
Pedantic. Go sublate a cock.

[Anonymous No.13321640]

>>13321580
No, the fact that Marx's method is different from the methods of the science called "economics" or the science called "sociology" doesn't illustrate the point that it's impossible to criticize Stalin using Marx's method.

>>13321616
It can definitely seem pedantic to someone who got their knowledge of Marx from internet memes, I agree.

[Anonymous No.13321645]

>>13319430

No. It's literally bullshit and his wife said so. Nice anti-communist propaganda from a fucking Tsarist.

[Anonymous No.13321760]

>>13321645
see >>13320546

[Anonymous No.13321877]

>>13321640
Calling it a "historical" method does nothing to diminish from the fact that it has been applied (with little success) to both fields. Insisting that economic and social history form an inseparable unity which is 100% mutually inclusive is a position from which even Marx himself had to backpedal. However, this is all superfluous to the point being made. You were "pedantic" because the issue isn't that there is a fragmentation among Marxists between the "sciences" of economics and sociology, but rather a general fragmentation of Marxists in all facets of exegesis per Marx. Not only is it impossible for non-Marxists to engage with Marxists in academic dialogue, but it is equally impossible for the disparate branches of Marxism to engage in dialogue with each other that would lead to some semblance of consensus allowing for Marxism to even begin making a crtique of the political economy in this century. It's a dead theory. A Marxist critique of Stalinism is pointless.

[Anonymous No.13321887]

>>13321877
*in this century or the last

[Anonymous No.13322305]

>>13321877
I never called anything "historical method".

Marx's method can't be "applied" to contemporary "social sciences", since the latter presuppose an approach that is irreconciliable with that of Marx.

Marx didn't backpedal from anything of the sort.

I don't give a shit about so-called "Marxists".

It is indeed impossible for "non-Marxists" to engage with Marxists in academic dialogue if by "non-Marxists" we mean a bunch of retards suffering from either physics envy or some similar kind or anglo derangement and by Marxists we mean Marx, but this only speaks bad about the former group.

It is indeed impossible for disparate branches of Marxism to engage in dialogue with each other, which is not a surprise since any kind of retard who namedrops Marx or says "dialectics" enough times can pass as a so-called Marxist.

The critique of political economy has already been made. The discipline concluded with Ricardo. Since then "economists" have only been looking at appearances, so there's nothing new to even critique there. And of course we're still living within the same old capitalist world, no matter how "revolutionary" Facebook, Apple, or buzzwords like "post-industrial economy" might appear for petty bourgeois consciousness.

A critique of Stalinism based on the work of Marx is not pointless, since it clears up a lot of confusion by showing that behind all the red flags it was a purely capitalist phenomenon, and that all the apologia relies on claims that are in contradiction with the discoveries of Marx and Engels.

[Anonymous No.13322624]

>>13322305
I'll do my best to respond to this scattershot. Marxism is a theory ostensibly derived from a system of historical materialism, so don't attack me for demonstrating your own ignorance. After being (rightfully) accused of economic determinism, Marx and Engels famously backpedaled by claiming that there was "no royal road to science" by their own or any method, though a vulgar determinism exists in their system nonetheless. I think your disdain for "Marxists" and "Non-Marxists" vindicates my earlier contention, though I'm dubious of whether you have ever seriously engaged in dialogue with a non-Marxist. If you had, you'd surely realize that there is a fundamental disconnect in both definitions as well as method that makes any sort of meaningful engagement possible. When Böhm-Bawerk attempted this in the 19th century, the only response he got from Marxists (Hilferding and Bukharin et. al.) was the usual apologia as well as huffing and puffing about historical context that would become the standard line for Marxists whenever they were brave enough to attack the neoclassical establishment over the next century. As far as other Marxists, I suppose that your reading of Marx is the true inheritor of his theory, and not that of Althusser, Trotsky, Luxemburg, the Neo-Ricardians, post-left Marxists, analytic Marxists, TSSI Marxists, Maoist-Third Worldists, Fabians, Humanist Marxists, Anti-Humanist Marxists, etc. You alone are sacrosanct. I suppose a person who thinks that the development of economic analysis ended with Ricardo might believe that, let alone someone who thinks that Marx's Hegelian reinterpretation of the exploitation theory of interest doesn't constitute a fundamental departure from Ricardo's more open-ended system. No, marginalism has only ever been concerned with "appearances." Anyhow, even if Stalin was not a "true Marxist"--a claim that I never made--any response from the dead theory of Marxism necessarily rings hollow. It's like if a blind pre-Raphaelite tried to critique a Klimt painting.

[Anonymous No.13322635]

>>13322624
*engagement impossible

[Anonymous No.13322808]

>>13322624
There's no "system" of "historical materialism" in Marx. If by Marxism you mean "not-Marx" then I don't care, as I already told you, because there's a whole lot of retarded shit this Marxism, I won't deny.

The "no royal road to science" was an appeal to French readers of Capital to not give up when going through the early, relatively harder chapters. It has nothing to do with any kind of determinism or any kind of backpedaling. Are you trying to bullshit me by or something? Maybe you should've picked something from Vol. 3 or from some obscure letter, and not from one of the fucking prefaces to Vol. 1.

I don't have any disdain for "Marxists" and "Non-Marxists", I just don't really care about them. I don't care for Althussers, Bohm-Bawerks, Carnaps, Durkheims, ..., Zizeks, except when they show a genuine understanding of Marx, which is quite rare.

Yes, good job listing a bunch of Marxist retards. I'm not inheritor of anything, I'm just a simple man who can read AND doesn't feel the need to make the name for himself by tearing a bunch of pages from Marx and mixing it with content that has just escaped his bowels.

[Anonymous No.13322831]

>be literal monarchist, agitate to bring back the tsar
>be surprised when you get gulag'd

[Anonymous No.13323175]

>>13322808
Lel ok, I guess you're a truer Marxist than Marx and Engels, at least the Marx and Elgels who wrote The German Ideology and Anti-Dühring. Can you tell me what constitutes the tentpole of Marxist analysis, if not historical materialism? I just want to be sure that I haven't been playing chess with a pigeon for the last four hours, thanks. The quote in the preface was part and parcel for Marx and Engel's standard line regarding those who identified in their theory a "vulgar" determinism. From the same preface:
>and it is to be feared that the French public, always impatient to come to a conclusion, eager to know the connexion between general principles and the immediate questions that have aroused their passions, may be disheartened because they will be unable to move on at once.
I could find an obscure letter from Engels reiterating as much with more direct concern for what he called "sweeping generalizations" that people made using their system. I applaud them for realizing that they needed to cover their ass, but as Weber and others demonstrated over the following decades, this systematic determinism was more inherent to their theory than either of them were willing to admit after the publication of the first volume.

[Anonymous No.13323183]

>>13322808
Lel ok, I guess you're a truer Marxist than Marx and Engels, at least the Marx and Elgels who wrote The German Ideology and Anti-Dühring. Can you tell me what constitutes the tentpole of Marxist analysis, if not historical materialism? I just want to be sure that I haven't been playing chess with a pigeon for the last four hours, thanks. The quote in the preface was part and parcel for Marx and Engel's standard line regarding those who identified in their theory a "vulgar" determinism. From the same preface:
>and it is to be feared that the French public, always impatient to come to a conclusion, eager to know the connexion between general principles and the immediate questions that have aroused their passions, may be disheartened because they will be unable to move on at once.
As you suggested, I could find an obscure letter from Engels reiterating as much with more direct concern for what he called "sweeping generalizations" that people made using their system, but it's all roughly the same sort of apologia. I applaud them for realizing that they needed to cover their ass, but as Weber and others demonstrated over the following decades, this systematic determinism was more inherent to their theory than either of them were willing to admit after the publication of the first volume.

[Anonymous No.13323342]

>>13319430
Only to btfo some pseuds who unironically like the book

[Anonymous No.13323367]

>>13320484
Because we all know that women are honest.

[Anonymous No.13323418]

>>13320505
lobster man bad

[Anonymous No.13323439]

I can't stand realism in the concentration camp/gulag/slavery books, but I know a guy who said Kolyma Tales is better than Gulag Archipelago.

[Anonymous No.13323441]

>>13319430
Volume I is. I couldn't finish Volume II.

[Anonymous No.13323446]

Isn't this more a book about totalitarian atrocity?

[Anonymous No.13323718]

>>13322305
>It is indeed impossible for "non-Marxists" to engage with Marxists in academic dialogue if by "non-Marxists" we mean a bunch of retards suffering from either physics envy or some similar kind or anglo derangement and by Marxists we mean Marx, but this only speaks bad about the former group.
Marx is quintessentially British though.

[Anonymous No.13323816]

>>13319430
If you needed more evidence that Jews and Communists are pure evil, sure. I guess.

[Anonymous No.13323848]

>>13320484
He refused to stop sleeping with other women because "research for books" and then divorced her. And then suddenly he is a total shitbag run by spooks? Fuck commie revisionists

[Anonymous No.13323854]

>>13323446
its not an atrocity if you dehumanize the victims. for someone like arendt this is just natural progression and shocking efficiency.

[Anonymous No.13324028]

>>13323816
Find another site to sully, you evil coward.

[Anonymous No.13324036]

>>13319430
Yes, it's very well written as well as informative

[Anonymous No.13324368]

>>13320546
>It wasn't his real wife
Sure

[Anonymous No.13324439]

>>13324368
Oh, they were married. The memoirs were OFFICIALLY published by the KGB, though, and were more than likely written by them as well. Andropov would have agents send Solzhenitsyn pictures of car accidents while he was living in America.

[Anonymous No.13324550]

>>13319483
Read Matryona's Place and An Incident at Kochetovka Station to shield yourself from stupid political arguments about literature.

Why does no one start political arguments about Three Musketeers?

[Anonymous No.13324559]

>>13319483
I am actually enjoying it. But I like reading about human suffering.

[Anonymous No.13324563]

>>13320510
Yeah this guy hasn't read the book and is currently dilating his wound

[Anonymous No.13324579]

>>13319430
>No one in the thread seems to have read it enough to write up their opinion

I read the first volume and liked it a lot, and bailed on part two because the ebook for it I had was unreadably low quality.

He (very slowly) walks you through every stage of what your imprisonment in a gulag is like, based on his experience and other accounts he gathered while there/in hiding.

The step by step through makes for a nice pacing, going through:
>Your arrest
>Your transportation to your arraignment
>Your interrogation (and confession)
>Your show trial
>Your transport to your prison
>Your first cell
>Meeting your cellmates

and so on, which really sets a mood and tone and provides a sense of progression in what he's describing despite it being biographical. The guy also is quite the writer, and gets really in the weeds about the Russian penal system at the time, in a way that explains how you end up in a society with show trials, torture, and arresting innocent people out of political convenience.

Here's a screencap of him listing off some of the various forms of torture you could expect to be used on you during your interrogation.

[Anonymous No.13324587]

>>13324579
This is correct.

I also love how it is all laced with sarcasm all the way through. The most terrible crimes committed against the human soul, the whole time he is elbowing you and winking you just in case you maybe have any lingering doubts about a centralized, autocratic government.

[Anonymous No.13324977]

>>13323183
>I guess you're a truer Marxist than Marx and Engels
I'm not a Marxist. Why would it make sense to group me with a bunch of people who believe all kinds of stuff about relevant issues that is in clear contradiction with what I believe about them?

>Can you tell me what constitutes the tentpole of Marxist analysis, if not historical materialism?
Whose "Marxist analysis"? Depends on a "Marxist". We're talking Stalin, Adorno, Kautsky? No, it's probably Plekhanov. If so then you better ask someone who gives a fuck about Plekhanov, because I don't.

>From the same preface:
Yes, that just confirms what I already said. It was an appeal to impatient readers. Nothing to do with any determinisms and backpedalings.

>Weber and others demonstrated
Dennis Prager and others demonstrated that communism killed 5 billion people

[Anonymous No.13324986]

>>13324028
Fuck off commie

[Anonymous No.13325047]

Leftists get upset about it because it tells the truth about Soviet terror system.
To me it just shows that Soviet Communism was monarchy in disguise. Just terrible oppression by an autocratic dictatorship.

[Anonymous No.13325052]

>>13324977
>Dennis Prager
That guy sure likes to explain our "judeo christian" values.

[Anonymous No.13325053]

>>13325047
You don't know shit about any monarchy if you think it's comparable to Soviet communism, any kind of communism really.

[Anonymous No.13325061]

>>13324986
Its a JBP joke you smoothbrain

[Anonymous No.13325124]

>>13323418
lobster man good

[Anonymous No.13325196]

>>13320484
>his own wife admitted the author was telling "campfire tories", urban legends inmates told each other and repackaged them as a factual report on the gulag system
so it's like every book on the holocaust?

[Anonymous No.13325226]

>>13319430
It's a literary and political milestone, so I'd say so. Even the abridged version gets quite boring and repetitive, in spite of Solzhenitsyn's nice prose.

[Anonymous No.13325337]

>>13325196
reported to the authorities

[Anonymous No.13325378]

>>13319483
Yes, it is worth reading, it is a fantastic book. However it is very, very long. The cover you posted is of the first volume, which is about between 600 to 700 pages long and written in quite small text and even smaller text for the often novel-length footnotes. The other 2 volumes have the same problem. It's quite accessible, the English translation is pretty good - it's a bit clunky at times but Solzhenitsyn's combination of sheer horror/outrage mixed with very black humour still shines through. It's just really fucking long.

As a result I usually reccomend starting with A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, a short story version of the Gulag Archipelago which Solzhenitsyn, somehow, managed to get published in Soviet Russia in the 60s. He censored the shit out of it so it could be published there, so it's nowhere near as bleak as GA, but it'll give you a good idea of what tone GA sets and it's basically a short story version of it.

There is an abridged version of Gulag but I've read a bit of it and it just skips too much, it's really not the same thing. It's like the cliff-notes version. The full Gulag Archipelago is a journey into misery and human suffering, but it's also kinda hopeful at times and horrifyingly funny at others. It's a fucking masterpiece and you should read it but it's really fucking long and might take you years to get through.

It took me years at least. I seem to remember getting up to the bit with the dead baby getting thrown out of its crib by the secret police and then putting the book down for a solid year after that image. Then when I finally worked up the courage to return I found the sheer volume of horror on every page made it seem almost mundane in a way. And then the gallows humour started coming through and I just couldn't stop laughing at certain points. There's some bit in Gulag that are laugh out loud funny - and then Solzhenitsyn hits you with an unimaginably grizzly scene out of nowhere, or a perfect paragraph describing the truth of human morality in detail in a way that's life-changing (and shows you where Peterson been stealing all his ideas from, well that and Carl Jung's shit) and some of the most beautiful writing about people in the history of literature.

So, yeah. Worth it but fucking long.

[Anonymous No.13326486]

>>13325378
Also this.

Stuff like the show trial of Stavrov and Vlasov in the section
>the Case of the AII·Union Burean of the Mensheviks--March 1-9, 1931

In which he refuses to cooperate with the show trial and police, keeps his village fed by using loopholes in laws restricting access to flour needed to feed everyone in bread lines, and all of the show trial witnesses when put on the stand refused to read their lines and fought the legitimacy of the court viciously, is highly gripping, funny, and horrifically depressing.

[Anonymous No.13326488]

>>13319483
>Is The Gulag Archipelago worth reading
Nope

[Anonymous No.13326494]

>>13319430
I grew up idolizing Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Che. I read about as much as one could on socialism, and the theories espoused therein. I then starting to get curious as to what really happened during the revolutions and subsequent societies that where shaped from these ideas. This lead me down a knowledge binge that has been taking place for the past 5yrs. This book is right at the top of the pile TO READ. It is a horrific account of the society that was created by the doctrines espoused by Marx, and how in every case when these ideas become a social reality, they end in the same way, because the ideology is fundamentally flawed.

[Anonymous No.13326498]

>>13326488
you are glowing

[Anonymous No.13326645]

>>13326494
4/10

[Anonymous No.13326824]

>>13325378
>It took me years at least. I seem to remember getting up to the bit with the dead baby getting thrown out of its crib by the secret police and then putting the book down for a solid year after that image.
lol if you think any of that actually happened. gulag archipelago is a self-admitted work of fiction

[Anonymous No.13326889]

>>13319430
I got about halfway through. It's very rambly anecdotal writing. I don't regret reading it but I think it's just too long for what it is

[Anonymous No.13326911]

>>13326824
work of fiction with real court docs, internal state communications, recorded prison populations, recorded deaths, state guidelines for various removal programs, and finally corroborated by numerous personal testimony. Did you pay a higher education institution for your opinion?

[Anonymous No.13327141]

>>13324977
Jesus, you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.13327974]

>>13319474
Would you agree that Cancer Ward starts out as good as any modern Russian novel, but ends like a throwaway pulp story? I spent much of the first half in tears and ecstasies of emotion, but the 2nd half did nothing for me.

[Anonymous No.13328032]

Yes and don't just read the abridged version. It's a trilogy.
It should be required reading in American high schools not just Russian ones.
>>13320502
The secret gulag camps make an archepeligo stretching across Russia

[Anonymous No.13328321]

>>13326645
How many marxist proffessors you sucked off / had crammed in your ass?

[Anonymous No.13328324]

>>13328321
4 out of 10 if I had to guess

[Anonymous No.13328361]

>>13326494
Based.

[Anonymous No.13328490]

>>13328032
This
>>13325378
This too

[Anonymous No.13328779]

>>13326911
soviet archives were opened only after the fall of communism but the anticommunist gulag prisoner writer had access to them in the 60s? sounds realistic.

[Anonymous No.13328812]

>>13328779
>Left wing people are corrupt and retarded and would sell their children for a loaf of bread
Yeah, we already knew that.

[Anonymous No.13328851]

>>13328779
>sounds realistic
yes it does considering all the variables

[Anonymous No.13328961]

>>13328779
you must be a history major from an elite left leaning school, tell me where else did the socialist professor touch you?

[Anonymous No.13329033]

>>13328779

You mean someone...
>with insider knowledge,
>who knew who to ask to get more,
>who were subjected to the system they’re writing about,
>who operated in a special space and under less supervision than most prisoners received,
>and who had a history of writing sympathetically about the plight of soviet political prisoners even before his arrest, thus making them a valuable and trusted person to dump documents to for any disgruntled governmental official who wanted justice...

SOMEHOW had access to a lot more information than most people at the time could’ve been expected to have?

Color me shocked.

[Anonymous No.13329045]

>>13320484
This is your brain on Communism

[Anonymous No.13329052]

>>13328779
smoothbrain

[Anonymous No.13329062]

>>13329045
A controversial work, authored by a historian suspected of working with British intelligence, claims that her memoirs were part of a KGB campaign, orchestrated by Yuri Andropov in 1974, to discredit Solzhenitsyn.

[Anonymous No.13329699]

>>13326494
> It is a horrific account of the society that was created by the doctrines espoused by Marx
You probably should've read Marx et al. instead of “idolizing” them.

[Anonymous No.13329804]

>>13320510
Yes, it is wrong. Marx oversimplifies human behavior.

[Anonymous No.13329868]

>>13327974
i liked the ending in all honesty. the romance bit put me off at first, but then i realised it fits the characters. even after the labor camps, thrown to rot in a remote area, and then cancer, after all of this a man is capable of love.
(spoiler) his death was predictable but it still hit me, very allegorical: he was engulfed into the buzz of anthill, overwhelmed and then spit out. a silent and calm death no one noticed.
and in original his style is very peculiar, i disliked it at first but accepted and loved towards the end. lots of neologisms and unusual uses of regular words.

[Anonymous No.13330025]

>>13326486
The bit where the first guy to stop applauding Stalin gets arrested is a classic obviously but I really love how Solzhenitsyn is able to tell a truly heartwarming story of heroism and then suddenly finish with, "And then they all starved to death," or, "And then they were immediately arrested and died in prison." It shouldn't be funny but the bluntness and timing is impeccable.
>>13319430
Yo OP. Really you should read it. It's pretty damn good.

[Anonymous No.13330065]

>>13329804
What are those oversimplifications of human behaviour he made? With quotes please.

[Anonymous No.13330760]

>>13330065
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"

[Anonymous No.13330766]

>>13330065
"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness"

[Anonymous No.13330771]

>>13329699
muh socialist professor

[Anonymous No.13330775]

>>13319430
It is.

Just don't get the abridged version.

[Anonymous No.13330880]

>>13321645
Its not the socialist fault, muh professor said so

[Anonymous No.13330932]

>>13329033
>a bunch of logic turds whose function is to grease the wheels of fact avoidance
wow impressive, too bad those aren't arguments

[Anonymous No.13330956]

>>13324028
idiot nigger

[Anonymous No.13331004]

>>13319430
>>13319467
There's enough nonfiction writing on the gulags now that you don't need to worry about something like this.

[Anonymous No.13331016]

what's an entry point to reading Trotsky?

[Anonymous No.13331035]

>>13330760
>>13330766
A lot of retards who have trouble understanding single sentences for a thread about a giant three-volume work.

[Anonymous No.13331097]

>>13331035
try harder, ask your socialist professor for help, or just let (insert proper pronoun) type for you.

the proof is every time these ideas are forced (and they are always forced) on a populace they end the same way. The narrative with in the texts is wrong, the quotes are a boiled down way to describe how.

[Anonymous No.13331100]

>>13331016
Fresh bullet in the chamber is a good start

[Anonymous No.13331110]

>>13331004
^^^only reads official Soviet literature on GULAG^^^

[Anonymous No.13331111]

>>13331097
good one jordan

[Anonymous No.13331330]

>>13331035

[Anonymous No.13333079]

>>13319603
>cops are corrupt liars
>that's why I'm pro-capitalism
ok kid

[Anonymous No.13333082]

>>13333079
who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.13333084]

>>13323418
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.13333563]

>>13330771
You people don't even understand. US talks about communism more than they do in post-Soviet countries, thanks to years of propaganda, and neither pro-Socialist nor anti-Socialist activists have actually read Marx. It's just a battle of stereotypes in a circus, and this thread is hardly an exception.

[Anonymous No.13333709]

>>13333563
Its kinda fucked up. At any given moment there's a bunch of people online arguing about the philosophical and economic works of Marx that frequently neither side of the argument has actually read. Wonder how we got to this point.

[Sneed & Feed !bfHIBbGpbI No.13333725]

>>13333709
Simple. You spend to much time on 4chan with illiterate radicals.

[Anonymous No.13334129]

>>13330932

Different anon, but literally all of those are arguments, they're reasons why

>the anticommunist gulag prisoner writer had access to them in the 60s

even though your dumbass (or more likely, your grandparents' and parents' dumbass) didn't.

[Anonymous No.13334136]

Part of it is. He ends up just repeating himself though

[Anonymous No.13334973]

>>13320484
>listening to women
Anon, I....