/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4687272]

/lit/, i need a primer of what books to start with when you know nothing about leftist politics

[Anonymous No.4687298]

read the communist manifesto over a few times until you understand it https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

then go read zizek until you beat the liberalism out of you, then you can move on to the dense stuff (capital, grundrisse, engels etc)

[Anonymous No.4687320]

Start with the Greeks.

Nah, actually you should start with something light.

>>4687298
>communist manifesto

But not this light. The Communist Manifesto isn't a critical argument, it's a declaration of war, and a dated one at that. If you want a entry-level argument, read The Soul of Man Under Socialism, by Oscar Wilde.

Also try Homage to Catalonia, OP; it's easy to read and talks about real shit, so it's a good starting point.

[Anonymous No.4687326]

>>4687320
Oh, Manufacturing Consent is also good entry-level leftist argument.

[Anonymous No.4687337]

Das Kapital, silly.

[Anonymous No.4687356]

>>4687337
>tfw i actually bought a copy and it's just collecting dust on my shelf after reading a couple hundred pages of muh value crap
i hate you /lit/

[Anonymous No.4687364]

>>4687326

I've never understood why people say this. Sure, Chomsky is a leftist, but the premises of MC can just as easily be applied to liberal groupthink in academia.

[Anonymous No.4687371]

I'm a free market public choice libertarian. How would you cleanse me of evil, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.4687372]

>>4687364
Academia hardly affects votes as much as media
Chomsky is critiquing liberalism as well as conservatism, so, derp

[Anonymous No.4687376]

>>4687371
Read The Libertarian Manifesto

>rejects empiricism
Then he uses this argument
"Every reader of detective fiction knows that private insurance detectives are far more efficient than the police in recovering stolen property. "

[Anonymous No.4687389]

>>4687376

I've read it. I'm neither a praxeologist nor an anarchist, though, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Liberalism stands on its own without Rothbard.

[Anonymous No.4687395]

>>4687356
Capital is definitely not a casual book.
I would say though that if it's too much for you then just don't even bother. I don't want to offend but Capital is pretty much The Book of leftism.

[Anonymous No.4687399]

history of western political thought by j s mcleland.

I dont like these types of books in general.. but its well written and puts a lot of things in context.

I had it up on scribd but then i got a nasty email from a capitalist threatening to sue me. i sent a rebuttal quoting proudhon but it didn't hold much water with them.


im sure you can find another source

[Anonymous No.4687405]

>>4687395
Basically:
1. The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels
2. Capital by Marx
3. State and Revolution by Lenin
4. ???????
5. Profit

These are the real foundational texts. If you make it through these three then you will definitely know if and how to proceed. If this seems like too much then just read Wikipedia and pretend like you know what you are talking about, it will be enough to occupy you for ~2 decades.

[Anonymous No.4687411]

>>4687405
>3. State and Revolution by Lenin
Not even once.

"socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly"

Don't ever read anything by Lenin unless you're just trying to see what a retard sounds like. If every Leninist on the face of the planet died, leftism would really go somewhere; too bad that couldn't have happened a hundred years ago.

[Anonymous No.4687416]

>>4687405
>foundational texts
>no rousseau

[Anonymous No.4687417]

>>4687411

You have some strong opinions, mate
Ill just sit here and laugh on your strong opinions

[Anonymous No.4687422]

>>4687326
Profit over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order is a better fit as leftist book

[Anonymous No.4687424]

>>4687372


academia does affect media though, which is where it routes to votes.

[Anonymous No.4687438]

>>4687356
>bought a copy
Your foolishness is risible
>reading a hundred pages
But your endurance quit laudable.

[Anonymous No.4687446]

>>4687417
So did Lenin, who murdered far more people than Ted Bundy ever did.

[Anonymous No.4687448]

>>4687424
Regardless, liberalism is a major target of criticism by Chomsky, so I don't see what your point is.

[Anonymous No.4687465]

>>4687446
>muh communism killed ppl
>Implying there aren't people who wouldn't do with a good killing these days

[Anonymous No.4687468]

Get the second edition of the marx-engles reader and make use of some of the study guides on the revleft forum.

Thats of course if you want to learn about Marxism from the ground up. If you want to ease yourself into it try reading a book like affluenza.

[Anonymous No.4687472]

>>4687411
Of course he should read works by lenin he is the most important figure among authoritarian socialists.

[Anonymous No.4687518]

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.4687539]

>>4687472
But this thread is about leftism.

"Left-Wing Childishness"
a work by Lenin

"Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder"
a work by Lenin

Homage to Catalonia describes Bolshevism as affiliated with the right (which they directly were in Spain).

[Anonymous No.4687541]

>>4687465
Leninsts, maybe.

[Anonymous No.4687553]

>>4687465
That sounds awfully fascistic of you.

[Anonymous No.4687558]

It's good to know what the world looked like at the time to understand how it came about. There's a difference between impoverished laborers who get blown up in mines and knocked off oil rigs, and the modern equivalent.

Don't take the manifesto too seriously. It's streamlined, immature and basically a caricature at this point.

[Anonymous No.4687562]

>>4687558
The abuse of workers in Europe and North America might not be so apparent (it has taken more subtle forms) but it is still extremely relevant in other parts of the world.

[Anonymous No.4687565]

>>4687562
>other parts of the world

[Anonymous No.4687573]

>>4687565
That are producing for the West, which is sometimes funding terrorists and warlords in exchange.

[Anonymous No.4687584]

>>4687562
We've seen enough pre-industrial societies adopting socialism. It's not worth the bloodshed, and it always ends up in deformed capitalism.

[Anonymous No.4687596]

>>4687584
I'm not advocating violent revolution, I was just pointing out that just because things are mostly peachy over here doesn't mean the same is going on everywhere else.

[Anonymous No.4687612]

>>4687272
The bible.

[Anonymous No.4687617]

>>4687584
What of the Zapatistas?

[Anonymous No.4687619]

>>4687612
>leftism
opposition of hierarchy
>Bible
embodiment of it

Bible is liberalism, maybe, but certainly not leftism. Leftism wants a worker's state, liberalism wants a welfare state.

[Anonymous No.4687677]

>>4687612
how can the bible be leftist when Christ was the first Fuhrer

[Anonymous No.4687680]

>>4687596

You're right, but it is in fact going better for sweatshop countries than for socialist countries.

[Anonymous No.4687685]

>>4687680
Which one is China?

[Anonymous No.4687702]

>>4687617
shh, shh
You can't contradict the narrative. Violence is baaaaad when it serves the interests of the bourgeoisie. Baaaad.

[Anonymous No.4687697]

>>4687680
Its going better for the owners of the sweatshops, while their workers are as impoverished as ever. Also, most of the "socialist" countries you're referring to (like China, Vietnam) are ironically sweatshop countries. I think its important to distinguish socialist countries with ones that are state capitalist.

[Anonymous No.4687716]

>>4687553
>never heard of horseshoe theory

[Anonymous No.4687956]

>>4687539
If you arent willing to engage in authoritarian socialist works which by far have had the largest impact on history and society you are being intellectually dishonest and harming your own understanding of leftism as a whole.

[Anonymous No.4687972]

>>4687956
Authoritarianism is authoritarianism is authoritarianism. Machiavelli's works on it are interesting, but all others are just,"Everyone should do as I say or die and this is my reasoning." Lenin's opinions are less important to leftism than Robespierre's are to liberalism.

[Anonymous No.4687987]

>>4687364
Chomsky fairly regularly critiques academia and the higher education system for its groupthink and postmodern bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4687988]

>>4687272
Wages Price and Profit

[Anonymous No.4688002]

Communist Manifesto
Das Kapital
Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism
The State and Revolution
The Accumulation of Capital
One Dimensional Man
Society of the Spectacle
Simulacra and Simulation
The Most Radical Gesture (to help you understand the previous two books)
The Condition of Postmodernity
Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism
On Ideology
The Mass Psychology of Fascism
The Political Unconscious
Mutual Aid
Dialectic of Enlightenment
Less Than Nothing
The Sublime Object of Ideology
Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Manufacturing Consent
Necessary Illusions
The Theory of Capitalist Development
History and Class Consciousness
Labor and Monopoly Capital
The Conquest of Bread
Late Capitalism
Escape From Freedom
The Poverty of Theory
A Brief History of Neoliberalism
Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia


That should keep you busy for a few years.

[Anonymous No.4688024]

>>4688002
>The Conquest of Bread
>Mutual Aid
Start with these, OP. Then do
>Das Kapital
The rest of the list can be disregarded and nothing of value will be lost.

[Anonymous No.4688040]

>>4687972
Lenins works on the area go far beyond "Everyone should do as I say or die and this is my reasoning" he provides a strong analysis of the state and dialectics as well as the issues regarding reformism. To have OP wholly omit this rather large section of the left wing is wrong and will rob him/her of a great deal of understanding why it came about and why it failed.


>Lenin's opinions are less important to leftism than Robespierre's are to liberalism.

Can you explain this further

[Anonymous No.4688062]

Seeing people praise Marx and his successors makes me sad.

When I complain about Marx to one of his fans it activates the Hegelian dialect "Capitalism vs. Communism" program that has been insinuated into his mind, and he automatically dismisses me as a "reactionary", "capitalist", "bourgeois" or some other buzzword.

Because I'm outside of the Hegelian dialectic that everybody is swept up in I am never understood. Nobody realizes what I'm saying when I say that the goal of Marx and the Communists from the start has been to wreck Western civilization, destroy all religion and everything sacred to people, reduce the masses to wild beasts shepherded by a gigantic state, dismantle the family and make all children essentially owned and educated by the State, use mass brainwashing apparatus to keep people enslaved to the Party Line while falsely believing that they are free, spread nihilistic art and philosophy to reduce people to despair and apathy, etc. They are literally psychopathic. People seem to believe that Marx was well-intentioned, but he wasn't at all. He foresaw the Romanov family being brutally slaughtered and Russia being taken over by a brutal tyranny that kills its own people by the millions; he knew where his doctrines would lead and he wanted it. He was an enemy of civilization, simply a destroyer. Wherever the Communists have infiltrated a country they have spread misery and oppression, while the Bourgeois kids that are unaffected in rich countries still talk about how wonderful Marx was and how Capitalism needs to end.

It's so repugnant.

Look at this window of the Fabian Society. The Fabians are socialists that believe in converting society by steady reforms and propaganda rather than a violent overthrow like in Russia or China or Cuba. You have their coat of arms in the centre which is a wolf in sheep's clothing. You have the socialist mastermind shaping the world according to his desires. At the bottom you have the "useful idiots" (I.e. you) kneeling before the socialist propaganda books. Can't you see how malevolent they are? They despise you and mock you for thinking that socialism/communism is going to help the "working class".=It was NEVER even intended to help the working class, not by Marx or by Engels. All that utopian rhetoric is for the ignorant masses (I.e. you). Communism or Socialism is not opposed to Capitalism, it IS Capitalism just take to an extreme. Whereas in Capitalism you have a few corporations ruling the world, in Communism you have one corporation ruling the world. That's the only difference. This is why Marx and the Communists were funded hotly the bankers and capitalists from the start; they have always been on each other's side. The Big Bankers / Capitalists and the Big Socialists / Communists are the SAME people, the same elite.

You know that promoting homosexuality and the rest is Communist propaganda, right? They call it "Bolshevizing a nation", they rot it from the inside.

[Anonymous No.4688064]

>>4688062
>Because I'm outside of the Hegelian dialectic that everybody is swept up in I am never understood.

No you aren't.

[Anonymous No.4688072]

>>4688064
99% of people that support socialism or communism still think that it's an anger to "greedy capitalism". They are trapped in the dialectic.
They don't realize that the amoral psychopaths that head capitalism and the amoral psychopaths that head communism are the exact same people; it's just that in socialism / communism they have more power.

Help, there are people in this thread who talk about "authoritarian socialism" as though there were any other kind, lol.

[Anonymous No.4688078]

>>4688072
Only to draw a distinction between them and anarchists

[Anonymous No.4688079]

>>4688072
Oh, and if you want to know what my beliefs are: Catholic.
When Communists started taking over Europe the politicians in the US and in Europe knew what was happening to civilization: either it was going to be Christian or Communist.
It's all about values ultimately, it's all about religion. Economics and politics are secondary.The secularism, materialism, Darwinism, etc. pushed in state schools is essentially communist propaganda in that it's intent is to reduce people to irreligion, narcissism, consumerism etc.

You should hear what the Bolsheviks did to the Christians when they took over Russia. They started by murdering the innocent Christian children of the Romanov family. They persecuted the priests and Christians generally with murder. They took children away from Christian families to be brainwashed by the State. In prisons, they would torture Christians to get them to blaspheme before killing them.

And then I hear kids in my country talk about what a great thinker Marx was.

[Anonymous No.4688083]

>>4688062
Have you got any sources on the banks and capitalists supporting communists?, because outside of the jewish argument I havent seen any arguments on that.

[Anonymous No.4688086]

>>4688079
Here is a quote from Churchill:

>SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.

>And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.

He talks about the Jews because it was acknowledged that the leaders and the propagandists of the Bolsheviks and the Communists in general were largely Jewish.

[Anonymous No.4688091]

>>4688079
How did the communists take over the politicians in the US and Europe, why were they so hostile to the communist parties and the soviet union? Isnt irreligion, narcissism, consumerism a main part of keeping the inequities of capitalism going?

Why didnt the communists in Cuba wipe out the Church there as they did in Russia? Have you considered that what happened in Russia and Spain might have had more to do with the role the church there played in legitimizing state brutality than it being a result of an atheist conspiracy?

[Anonymous No.4688093]

>>4688062
>promoting homosexuality and the rest is Communist propaganda

What decade is it in your head?

[Anonymous No.4688099]

>>4688093
What is so suprising about a Catholic on 4chan who believes both capitalism and communism are part of a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christianity and Western civilization?

[Anonymous No.4688102]

>>4688093
They did the same thing in Bolshevik Russia. Promote open sexuality and meaningless art in order to lower the morals of the people and make them more controllable.

Don't you see that a society saturated with pornography and where you have apps on your phone that allow you to meet others for quick sex is just the kind of society that communists want? These things wreck the family, and the family as an institution is opposed to communism, as in a communist society you don't have children, your children are property of the State.

[Anonymous No.4688116]

>>4688102
Then why did they label it as bourgeois decadence and persecute homosexuals? Even Nixon on those tapes was talking about how he agreed with their stance on it. The closest you have to support is the fact that it was briefly decriminalized in the USSR by lennin.

[Anonymous No.4688121]

>>4688099
>What is so suprising about a Catholic on 4chan who believes both capitalism and communism are part of a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christianity and Western civilization?

Absolutely nothing, really. It's the irony of it that's surprising, as this is a website most notorious for it's anime porn, CP spammers and other general forms of debauchery.

[Anonymous No.4688123]

>>4688099
This is the Catholic model of society:

A hierarchy of families where some are subordinate to others but each as his own wife and family, and everyone shares the bond of religion. People are taught to live good and virtuous lives thinking on the goodness of God.

Here's the communist model:

Nobody has any right to anything. Nobody owns anything. If you have a daughter, it belongs to the State. If you have a son, it belongs to the State. Your children are educated by the State, and you cannot teach them anything contrary to what the State wants to teach them. All forms of love and bondage are discouraged, everybody is individualized / atomized to make them powerless and easier to manage. Bleak art and philosophy is everywhere in order to squash all hopeful idealism and keep people subject to the State. Sexuality is open; it's not one man gets one wife, it's a woman chooses who she sleeps with (meaning only the most attractive and charismatic will really engage in proper sex) and her children are taken away by the State.

[Anonymous No.4688127]

>>4688123
Erm, no. Communism = stateless society.

Hit the books, grandpa.

[Anonymous No.4688134]

>>4688127
Communism isn't stateless; that is propaganda for the plebs, the useful idiots (I.e. you).

[Anonymous No.4688136]

>>4688123
>>4688123
Have you based all your thoughts on communism on 1984 and some of the early communes in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China?

Personal property can and has existed in socialist and the foreseen communist societies. A communal society like you talk of existing under the Catholic model (which despite the churches power historically has never existed) is very possible under communism.

By looking at the material and cultural circumstances throughout history we can see why some states did not progress down this path but instead took a more authoritarian route.

[Anonymous No.4688141]

>>4688134
What if you're an anarchist m8

[Anonymous No.4688142]

>>4688123
>meaning only the most attractive and charismatic will really engage in proper sex

I imagine that this right here is the crux of your issue with what you perceive to be "communism."

Go see a psychoanalyst, bro. They'd have a field day with you.

[Anonymous No.4688146]

>>4688134
>A catholic calling someone else a useful idiot

If your church actually made a serious stand in regards to social justice instead of supporting, capitalists, kings, dictators, fascists and whoever else happens to give them a cut on the wealth and power of the state communists would have gotten nowhere in society.

[Anonymous No.4688150]

>>4688134
Communism is stateless. What you're describing is the dictatorship of the proletariat, which eventually leads to stateless, classless communism.

Like I said, go hit the books.

[Anonymous No.4688153]

>>4687371

nothing to "cleanse you of evil," but there's an interesting interview with jeremy sheamur over at 3am that might interest you.

>http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/on-popper-and-hakek/

If you want someone on the left who takes the libertarian challenge seriously and is able to both engage with and address libertarian question, G.A. Cohen's your guy. Try Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality.

[Anonymous No.4688156]

>>4688136
I said a hierarchical society is Catholic, not communal. There is a Pope and there is a King. The communal aspect is the shared religion. This has existed.

Communist societies can never be communal because they lack a suitable ethos or ideal to bind them together. In early Christianity people gave up their property and lived communally because they wanted to live for God's sake. What is the equivalent in a Communist society. What binds people together and keeps them from turning on each other? What is it that would compel people to give up all human desire to own property?

[Anonymous No.4688159]

>>4688062
>Seeing people praise Marx and his successors makes me sad.

Reading your bullshit makes me sad.

[Anonymous No.4688163]

>>4688142
lol, I knew when I typed that some imbecile would insinuate that I hate Communism because I "can't get laid". Did you miss the part when I said I was Catholic? I have no desire to "get laid". The reason I mentioned that is because most people do not have what it takes to be celibate and so in a Communist society where sex is "open" and only the most competitive males can get sex, the rest would be reduced to things like prostitution, masturbation, etc. This is a far cry from the Christian ideal of one man, one wife.

Psychoanalysis is rude and obnoxious.

[Anonymous No.4688168]

>>4688150
The dictatorship of the proletariat never ends nor was it ever intended to end. The idea that the Communist Party that controlled everything in the country would just dissolve its power was a fiction for the utopian useful idiots.

[Anonymous No.4688171]

>>4688163
You do seem like you have some weird issues. There's nothing especially Catholic about your biotruths, and it's an extremely strange place to take a critique of Marxism. It's also totally unnecessary - you absolutely don't need to talk about this shit to make the case that Marxist societies would be atomized and harmful to authentic relationships. Seriously this is bordering on cuckold shit.

[Anonymous No.4688174]

>>4688159
I honestly don't know how an honest person can support communism or think Marx was anything other than diabolical when he has thus far brung misery and death to nations. I can't believe people are pathetic enough to cling to this notion that "nobody has really tried it properly yet", and not realize that it has been tried properly, and that it was intended to produce misery and death.

[Anonymous No.4688180]

>>4688171
Sex and family is important. I brought it up to contrast the Christian ideal of sexual association and the Communist ideal. It's not a strange place to critique Marxism in because how families are formed is an extremely important part of society.

[Anonymous No.4688181]

>>4688156
>>4688156

Why do you need kings for your society? Why have protestant communities come closer to achieving your ideal society than the decadent and indulgence peddling Catholics?

Arent groups like the Quakers and levelers superior in this regard ?

>Communist societies can never be communal because they lack a suitable ethos or ideal to bind them together.

The idea of communism and love of your fellow brothers and sisters is a suitable and binding idea even if you reject the idea that it comes from self interest. This can be seen in the huge sacrifices anarchists and socialists made in defending themselves against the old regimes.

>What is it that would compel people to give up all human desire to own property?

There is a difference between private and personal property this is something that is even covered in the manifesto. Which works of marx or other leftists have you read?


Side question: What are your thoughts on liberation theology?

[Anonymous No.4688183]

>>4688180
I agree. What I think is unnecessary is the part where you add "and the most attractive and charismatic men will have sex with all the women while everyone else cries at home" at the end of it. I don't think that is necessarily the case. I definitely don't think it follows from any point of doctrine - in fact I would argue it's coming from a family of ideas about evolution and psychology that is unrelated to, and maybe even opposed to, Catholic doctrine. And I definitely think it's not necessary to make the case that Communism is harmful to families and authentic loving relationships. So get that shit outta here.

[Anonymous No.4688185]

>>4688174
Luckily there are few actual marxists left then

[Anonymous No.4688188]

>>4688174
Because some people are capable of realizing the impact that historical and economic conditions can have when it comes to implementing an ideology.

Why didnt the Liberalism in France resemble that in the US? Why Does the timeline of revolutionary france have more in common with the USSR?

[Anonymous No.4688195]

>>4688181

> What are your thoughts on liberation theology?

Trash, nothing but propaganda.

As for the "sacrifices" that communists have made; yes, it is good in making people rebellious and violent, but what I was talking about was peaceful living, not hateful violence. How do the Communists go from bloodthirsty revolutionaries in one moment, to peaceful, humanity loving, self-sacrificing saints the next?
Every revolution the formula has been: 1. violent revolution to overthrow existing regime. 2. a more oppressive regime is founded in order to control the bloodthirsty revolutionaries.
"We just want to murder the king and his family, after that we will live in perfect harmony with our fellow man."

[Anonymous No.4688203]

>>4688195
>"We just want to murder the king and his family, after that we will live in perfect harmony with our fellow man."

[Anonymous No.4688204]

>>4688195
Then how do you explain all those peasant an isolated uprisings that went like:

1. Illegally secure independence from the existing regime and economic conditions.
2.Existing regime violently forces them to reintegrate and restore the status quo.

The only thing exceeding the brutality of these revolutionaries is that of those who would wish to rule and subjugate them. Take a look at what happened in Chile or the historical peasant uprisings in Germany.

[Anonymous No.4688205]

>>4688195
Why is liberation theology trash?

Surely you must acknowledge that it is motivated by a sincere attempt to live the Gospel on some level, even if ultimately flawed, and that someone like Archbishop Romero was a very holy man? Surely you must acknowledge that poverty is a real problem, a problem of social justice, and that liberation theology is an attempt to grapple with this problem? At the very least I think it behooves you to interact with it seriously instead of dismissing it as trash.

[Anonymous No.4688215]

>>4688205
Take a look at some of the questions the poster has been avoiding if you want a clearer picture of their thought.

[Anonymous No.4688249]

>>4687272

_Socialism: Utopian and Scientific_ is an excellent introduction by Engels to his (and Marx's) position on socialism and materialism.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

_Critique of the Gotha Programme_ will give you some idea of the discourse between socialists of the period and more specifically Marx's place in it.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm

_Value, Price and Profit_ will introduce you to many of the most exoteric ideas of Marx's political-economic thought, particularly as they concern the struggle of trades unions to maintain 'a fair day's wage for a fair day's work'.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm

_Wage Labour and Capital_ is a reformulation by Engels of a series of lectures given by Marx concerning some of the more esoteric matters of the latter's political-economic thought.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm

The above works should give you an adequate introduction to many of the most basic ideas of Marx and Engels. From here, you can safely understand _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ in the sense that its authors intended.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

After completing all of the above, you should have a very good idea as to whether or not you wish to continue this course of study. If you *do* wish to continue, begin Volume 1 of Capital.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm

-

Some other works of interest (some of which have already been mentioned) are George Orwell's _Homage to Catalonia_ and _Road to Wigan Pier_. The former is by far the more popular, but I personally find the latter to be of more direct importance to socialism and socialist agitation. Both can be found here:

http://george-orwell.org/

Hopefully my little list will point you in the right direction.

[Anonymous No.4688264]

>>4688174

I don't even cling to that notion, what you wrote is simply wrong. You just do not understand Marx or leftism in general.

[Anonymous No.4688265]

>>4688203
good jerb posting a picture of 1830, that had nothing to do with regicide

[Anonymous No.4688284]

>>4687356
Buy a companion book like David Harvey's, and don't be scared of the first 100 or so pages, shit gets much more interesting after the first three chapters of outlining the concepts he deals with

[steeb No.4688290]

totally unrelated but can someone please tell me the page number for the preface in Aldous Huxley's Collected Essays? specifically where he states that “the essay is a literary device for saying almost everything about almost anything” Please, Please. I'll send a pic of my balls or whatever it is you guys need. please

[Anonymous No.4688843]

Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

[Anonymous No.4688853]

history of materialism by Friedrich A. Lange

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Materialism_and_Critique_of_its_Present_Importance

[Anonymous No.4689044]

Most unrelated BUT, what are good/scholarly starter books for anarchism? I'm talking entry-level here, for when you know nothing about it but 'hurr durr no gods no masters'

[Anonymous No.4689052]

>>4689044
Anarchy, State, and Utopia

[Anonymous No.4689088]

>>4689044

Daniel Guerin - Anarchism: From Theory to Practice. If you are interested in a history of anarchist class struggle: Black Flame.

[Anonymous No.4689237]

>>4688040
Pretty much all of his analysis was done better by Luxemburg.

>Can you explain this further
He was a tyrannically murderer who used ideology (Lenin corrupted the science of Marxism into ideology) as justification; when it comes down to it, all these people are the same. Lenin's writings are highly misleading when it comes to Marxism, and in fact he flies directly in the face of Marx on several points. To try to "understand" leftism through him is as relevant as trying to understand liberalism through Robespierre; they're not relevant to contemporary leftism, they didn't develop any useful ideas, they both developed several perverted ideas, nothing of merit can be built on what either of them said; they're only worthwhile for historical interest.

[Anonymous No.4689256]

>>4689237
>the science of Marxism

ehehehehhehe

[Anonymous No.4689274]

>>4689256
>Marxism is a worldview and method of societal analysis based on attention to class-relations and societal conflict, on a materialist interpretation of historical development, and on a dialectical view of social transformation. Marxist methodology informs economic and sociopolitical enquiry applying to the analysis and critique of the development of capitalism and the role of class struggle in systemic economic change.

[Anonymous No.4689289]

Read anything by Rosa Luxemburg.

[Anonymous No.4689322]

>>4689044
Kropotkin

[Anonymous No.4689361]

>>4689322
Yes.