/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6987937]

Should i just read the communist manifesto and das kapital if i want to learn about Marxism? Or is there a better starting point for someone who has a decent background in economics but a poor foundation in philosophy and political theory?

[Anonymous No.6988082]

Bumparooney

[Anonymous No.6988102]

>>6987937
>Should I start with the cornerstones of Marxist theory?

Probably.

[Anonymous No.6988191]

I would recommend
Value Price Profit
Wage Labour and Capital
The German Ideology
Socialism Utopian and Scientific.

For your background, you should read August Bebel's Society of the Future.

Enver Hoxha's work is a firsthand study of socialist economic development, a la Stalin.

[Anonymous No.6988226]

>Or is there a better starting point for someone who has a decent background in economics but a poor foundation in philosophy and political theory?

I'd recommend looking a little into Hegel then.

>>6988191
are good suggestions

[Anonymous No.6988268]

>>6987937
>Should i just read the communist manifesto and das kapital if i want to learn about Marxism?
Yes to the _Manifesto_. For _Capital_, see below.

>Or is there a better starting point for someone who has a decent background in economics but a poor foundation in philosophy and political theory?

_Capital_ is a classical work of political economy, which isn't really the same thing. Basically, Marx sets out to criticize the political economy of his day—as the title implies—by using and developing the analytical tools provided by that science.

A few things to keep in mind:

1) Marx did not invent most of the concepts he uses and only put the name to surplus-value. The (labour) theory of value was not invented by him either.
2) _Capital_ is an authentic scientific work of political economy, but remember that it *is* a 19th century work. Compare it to other works of the same period and on the same subject—you will be impressed.
3) While _Capital_ is probably Marx's most important work, it does very little to elaborate Marxism as an 'ism'. Its aim was to critique the ideological defense of bourgeois society by official political economy. As far as that goes, it succeeded, although is may have contributed significantly to later anti-empirical approaches to economics and the near total abolition of political economy as a science. Thanks, politics.

If you want to know what Marx thought of his own contributions and what constitutes a pretty good definition of 'Marxism', >pic related.

[Anonymous No.6988489]

>>6988191
>>6988226
>>6988268
Thanks

[Anonymous No.6988670]

>>6987937
The following is a selection of writings to obtain a rudimentary theoretical understanding of Marxism to a complete beginner. Only the last three are of any length. Read in order from top to bottom.

''The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism'' by Lenin
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm

''Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism'' by Lenin
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/index.htm

''Theses on Feuerbach'' by Marx
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

''Principles of Communism'' by Engels
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

''The Communist Manifesto'' by Marx & Engels
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

''Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy'' by Marx
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm

''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'' by Engels
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/

''Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'' by Engels
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/

''State and Revolution'' by Lenin
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

''Three Component Parts'' and ''Exposition of Marxism'' are articles written by Lenin that will give you a rough introduction to Marxist philosophy. ''Principles'' is an early draft of the ''Manifesto''. I recommend reading it first. The MIA pdf for the ''Communist Manifesto'' I linked contains the various prefaces in the various translations; in one, Engels outright concedes that the demands in the ''Manifesto'' were outdated a mere mere decades after it was first published, and that it was very much a period piece. Lenin's Granat Brothers' Encyclopedia entry contains the key chapters from the ''Preface to the Contribution'', but there's no harm in reading it. You don't have to read the whole ''Contribution'', just the ''Preface,'' but no-one is stopping you from reading the whole thing. ''Utopian and Scientific'' is taken from paragraphs within the ''anti-Duhring'' and ''Ludwig Feuerbach'' is inspired by ''The German Ideology''. In ''State and Revolution'' Lenin details the Marxist conception of the state and iss required reading (alongside the ''Manifesto'') for every self-proclaimed socialist.

[Anonymous No.6988691]

>>6988670
what's up you fuckin POINDEXTER

kidding, thanks for all the good information

[Anonymous No.6988698]

anyone who uses the word milquetoast is milquetoast

[Anonymous No.6988699]

check out pic related OP.

[Anonymous No.6989154]

>>6988670
This is awesome. Thanks for the links.

>>6988699
Is this a legit criticism of Marx, or is it mostly rhetoric?

If not a troll, thanks for the rec m8.

[Anonymous No.6989177]

>>6989154
pure rhetoric. Sowell's Marx is basically Murray Bookchin, and he posits ethical claims to historical materialism as a method.