Practical effects are more informative than theoretical readings. Study the countries that implemented it and how things ran. That gives the most practical and unbiased reality.

Of course, but i feel that knowing the premise and where those countries took their ideals from would be ideal to have a better view

You have to understand both. Understanding why communist parties took the actions they have and do today is critical for understanding the courses different socialist countries have gone through. Theory and practice mutually reinforce each other.

Sure, the Manifesto is a pretty short easy read. But being more politically educated is always good

Thanks, i just got tired of people yelling “communist” at anyone who’s progressive in any way (probably a thing of the place i live in lol)

Yep, there’s definitely a concerted effort to muddy the waters of understanding. Cowbee is this corner of the internet’s resident tutor/mentor, so follow their suggestions if you’re interested in actually learning about and understanding socialism.

The manifesto of the communist party is not a huge theoretical foundational text. E: It’s a pamphlet similar to the programs of political parties nowadys. It’s like 20 pages, not really for deep study.

If you’re interested in marxist theory I would suggest reading modern Marxists like Slavoj Žižek. It’s much more useful than reading actual marxist theory which is pretty dry and whose ideas have been adopted by various disciplines such as economics, history and philosophy already so they might not be as new and interesting as they were in the 19th century.

Maybe something like “Democracy in What State?” from 2011, you can just search for it on AA.

Yep, that would be great! I think a good place to start would be this reading list I put together. You can just check out the first few sections:

1. Introduction [~1.5 hr]

Before beginning your studies, it’s important to learn how to best economize our time, and why we should study Marxism-Leninism in the first place. 1. General Rules for Independent Study - N. Krupskaya (1934) Webpage [~5 min] Written by one of the founding Bolsheviks for students in the early USSR, this is a concise guide on how to best absorb the information to come as efficiently as possible by Nadezhda Krupskaya. 2. Why Socialism? - A. Einstein (1949) Webpage | Audiobook [~10 min / 22 min] Wanting to persuade his contemporaries to pursue a path of intentional development in order to avoid nuclear war and escape the profit motive, Einstein argues the case for moving onto a planned and collectivized economy over the chaos of markets and the profit motive. 3. Why Marxism? - R. Day (2020) Webpage | Audiobook [~15 min / 21 min] Roderic Day makes his case for why now, in the 21st century, Marxism-Leninism remains the strongest tool for working-class liberation, and why we should defend the achievements of actually existing socialism despite their real flaws. 4. “Tankies” - N. Frome (2020) Webpage | Audiobook [~5 min / 11 min] Marxist-Leninists do not believe Stalin, Mao, etc. did no wrong, nor do we believe actually existing socialist states (AES) to be perfect and free from criticism. Proper appraisal of the genuine achievements and genuine shortcomings of socialism in real life requires brushing away capitalist mythologizing. Once the fact is separated from fiction, only then can we hope to build on the successes of our predecessors while avoiding repeating mistakes. 5. US Interventionism, the Third World, and the USSR - M. Parenti (1986) Webpage Transcription of Speech | Original Speech [~1 hr / 1 hr 33 min] Dr. Michael Parenti delivers perhaps his most famous speech, discussing the predatory role of the US Empire and the progressive role played by socialist countries, including the necessary mechanisms of protection they develop against western imperialism. 6. Why do we Have to Study Theory? - Ho Chi Minh (1957) Webpage [~10 min] As a hugely successful revolutionary, Ho Chi Minh explains why it is not enough to have good intentions, we must do our best to study revolutionary theory to guide revolutionary practice. #### Checkpoint - Why do you want to study Marxism-Leninism? - How can it be helpful in your present life? - Why should we establish a socialist society?

2. Fundamentals [~2.5 hr]

To start off your studies, a clear understanding of basic terminology, as well as the historical context that gave rise to Marxism, is necessary. 1. Principles of Communism - F. Engels (1847) Webpage/.epub | Audiobook [~30 min /48 min] A glossary of terms and background information, in an FAQ format. 2. Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch with an Exposition of Marxism - V.I. Lenin (1914) Webpage | Audiobook [~1 hr / 1hr 28 min] Lenin, as a part of his rigorous studies of Marx and his writings for application in the conditions particular to his contemporary conditions, came to know and understand Marx and his ideology at a deeper level. 3. The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism - V.I. Lenin (1913) Webpage | Audiobook [~5 min / 18 min] Outlaying the 3 major components of Marxism, and a short history of how they came to be. 4. Manifesto of the Communist Party - K. Marx & F. Engels (1848) Webpage | Audiobook [~1hr / 1 hr 35 min] Marx & Engels call the international proletariat to action using the in this overview of the aims of the communists. #### Checkpoint - What historical context gave rise to Marxism? - What are the 3 major components of Marxism? - In your country, what does the class makeup of society look like? Which can be aligned with the proletariat? Which cannot?

Alternatively, Prolewiki’s Marxism portal contains a fantastic short list of articles that help explain the absolute basics quickly.

Wow, i will check it out, thanks

No problem! Feel free to leave any comments or questions you may have if you choose the reading list option. The Marxism portal approach should take around an hour for the whole thing (minus the mini reading list it also recommends) so that’s also helpful if you just want to know the basics.

The Communist Manifesto is a very short, somewhat satirical pamphlet meant for Agitation, not Education. Should you read it? Sure, it’ll take you like 10 minutes! But you’re probably familiar with the ideas it introduces: that the working class should band together, rise up and seize control of the farms and factories, the tools and machines, by any means necessary. The Manifesto doesn’t go into much more detail than that, since it was intended as a Mass propaganda tool.

Unfortunately, in order to really understand the nitty-gritty of Marxism you must read Capital, or a later work that heavily references it (such as State and Revolution, an easier read).

Even if you don’t agree with an ideology it’s always best to read it’s basis so you can accurately identify what you don’t agree with.

curious_beetle, I hereby declare you can read whatever interests you

Sure the Manifesto is short and easily understood so why not?

The holy scripture should only be read in the original German /s

If anyone is looking for it, here’s one of many links to that manifesto: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

Of other possible interest, here’s one of many links to Albert Einstein’s Why Socialism? from 1949: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Why_Socialism%3F

I feel it’s like reading many philosophical works.

You’ll read some bits and go “Wow that’s a profound observation!”

And then turn the page and be like “Lol that’s a biiiiig stretch, my dude. You couldn’t have been serious.”

I’m immediately suspicious of anybody who tries to tell you that you shouldn’t read a “dangerous book.”

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”

— Aristotle

What stretches does Marx make, in your view?

*turns the page “You expect me to read more than one page worth of words? That’s a biiiiggg stretch dude.”

Lmao

Yo Cowbee 👋. I was speaking more generally, if I’m being honest referencing a funny meme I remembered that went like

“My cat after a nap | Greek Philosophy”

“Oo biiiiiig stretch” 😂

I’ll fully admit right away you’re more studied on all things communist-theory than I, but if you want my opinion, I think the always-controversial “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” phase was a reach that seemed to say “This is a really difficult problem and idk it’s the best I’ve got right now. Ship it!”

I understand he was being somewhat poetic with his word usage, but even then I think he had to have understood not only how easily that could be misinterpreted, but also how much the mechanics of it relies on perfect variables, like a grand unified revolutionary worker class that are all aligned for the common good.

I mean hey, I’m a Christian Anarchist personally. Will I get to see that society where everyone loves thy neighbor and mutually cooperates in love? Probably not in this mortal lifetime, but I think it’s a great goal to strive for. So I’m no stranger to lofty ideals! Haha.

But as we’ve seen, revolutions are messy, and Marx’s words often got heavily twisted to justify a new ruling party that says “Now WE get to wear the boot!” Who have no interest in a fair society once they get to live in the palace and make the rules.

From a purely poly-sci perspective, I think this is where the USA’s founders were brilliant, in setting up 3 branches of government chosen by and consisting of The People, whose job it was to look over the others and say “HEY, that’s not what we’re doing here. No king stuff. Cut it out.”

…of course, that quickly went to crap when the 2 party system happened. But at its core, I still think it was a good idea. (Minus the “people” being landowners only thing.)

But I don’t entirely blame Marx over it: It seems humanity will always have a percentage of shamelessly sociopathic grifters who crave control, and large groups of distractable followers who just want to be told what to think to avoid responsibility for thinking for themselves.

This is a HARD problem to solve.

When the first gets overwhelming access to sway the second, even the best devised political systems will come under immense strain. (Modern example: Facebook)

So I guess I just saw it as a bit of a stretch that he assumed the Proles would majority unite in each others’ favor to suppress the tyranny of the ruling class, as exciting as it would be. I’m sure even back then, the working class has a bit of an infighting problem.

Sorry I could usually be a LOT better with words, but, as a working class myself without ownership of land nor meaningful means of production. . . I’m kept quite busy. 😂 Thanks for hearing me out in any case!

The biggest problem I have with your analysis here is the idea that communist parties are simply a new boot, so to speak. The idea that any group that successfully gains political power, no matter the class character, will turn evil and start doing evil things regardless of the economic formation is a defeatist lie told to make the working classes fear socialism. Socialist countries have historically been tremendously progressive for the working classes, and they all have working class parties at the helm. This is really just workers getting organized.

As for the US constitution, it was written of, by, and for the historical equivalent of billionaires. The progressive language betrayed the actual intent: create a stable shell by which capital would forever dictate the lives of the people. George Washington, for example, was one of the wealthiest slavers in the entire colonial society. They fought Britain both for taxation, and because Britain was posturing about banning slavery and banning expanding settler-colonialism, which the Iroquois people supported (which is why George Washington sent his army to commit genocide). This wasn’t because Britain was good, but because they had their own class interests opposed to the colonies.

My point here is that the US constitution is a bourgeois constitution through and through. Why not skim through the USSR’s 1936 constitution?

Economical books of Lenin may also be of interest, Henri Ford studied them while he never was a communist. It is a bit harder to read than the manifesto of Marx and Engels, but it doesn’t require to be an economist.

sure. you’re not going to be infected with some sort of horrible mind virus. if you’re interested, read it

There are audio books.

Assigned reading in macroeconomics when I took it in college. Not a particularly left leaning course, nor cohort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_Gotha_Programme also worth reading. note that because these are 19th C documents written in that particular context, it’s also helpful to read about the docs in addition to their text

Back when I was still on reddit (and r/askreddit wasn’t a cesspool of AI ragebait) someone asked if there were books people recommended, everyone should read, and I came up with this list of 6 if you want a good basis for reasoned philosophical thought:

• Plato’s Republic

• Sun Tzu’s The Art of War

• Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations

• Machiavelli’s The Prince (Machiavelli also wrote an “Art of War” and that’s also worth reading)

• Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations

• Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto

The Republic defines what society’s goals should look like

The Art of War defines how to resolve conflict

Meditations teaches one how to remain objective under pressure

The Prince defines that what is OBJECTIVELY TRUE is not always what is MORALLY CORRECT

The Wealth of Nations lays out a case against Feudalism and how a functional economy should operate.

The Communist Manifesto details the natural rights of everyone to equality and shared prosperity.

Marxist Communism is a bit myopic as it really deals with factory work, and the failures of a Capitalist system to deliver on the promise of class mobility. He and Engels envisioned a classless society, and while that is a fine ideal, historically, achieving that though strictly amicable means is a bit pie in the sky, not to mention the arguments against it citing human ambition as a stumbling block aren’t without merit.

Marxism did not deal strictly with factory work, but with proletarianized labor, which persists today as the dominant form of labor. Further, I am really not sure what you mean by saying communism is “pie in the sky” or that human ambition is in opposition to communism. The manifesto is a pamphlet for agitation, it isn’t really the core of Marxism.

What i mean is that those who say Communism fails because of “human nature” aren’t exactly wrong, but fail to see that the vast majority of people are at least attempting to be “good.” (at least in their own mind). That’s why I always delineate that there is a difference between socialism and communism. Communism is like a duck and Socialism is like birds: All ducks are birds, but not all bird are ducks.

More than attempt, the socialist countries run by communist parties, the ones attempting to build towards communism, have been responsible for some of the most rapid improvements in living conditions in history. Socialism and communism aren’t like birds and ducks, but more like a sprout and a tree. Socialism is a transitional process between capitalism and communism, where production and distribution are gradually collectivized into communism.

I’ve always seen the end state as too difficult to stabilize. Mixed systems where Socialist ideals keep capitalist ones in check seem to work best long term because it satisfies natural human ambition without allowing the monied interests to acquire to much social and political power. (the New Deal, Nordic model)

Under most communist systems, especially in democratic societies, ironically, the proletariat still lacks true power as the operators of the means of production (the foreman or the managers) end up also being the leaders of the government. This is no different than oligarchy, just inversed.

In a proper system, there should be a separation of business and state just as there is a separation of church and state; for precisely the same reason.

The Nordic Model isn’t “socialist ideals” keeping “capitalism in check,” it’s welfare capitalism using the spoils of imperialism to placate the working classes. As it is a capitalist system, it has structural contradictions that run into boom and bust, crises of profitability, and problems like the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. This is all not to even speak of imperialism, which is where these social democracies rely on.

The proletariat is in power in socialist countries run by communist parties. You are treating job positions as though they are classes, but that’s not how Marxists see class. Class is a relation to ownership of the means of production, not simply a managerial position being a class.

There is no hard line between church and state, or business and state. Interconnection exists between all things. The idea that businesses are free and independent really means that the state does not interfere in their ability to run, only in protecting them.

The Communist Manifesto details the natural rights of everyone to equality and shared prosperity.

I read it a long time ago, but my memory is that the Manifesto (and its writers in general) discard the idea of ‘natural’ rights, arguing that legal / moral principles arise from the economic conditions of the time.

Marxist Communism is a bit myopic as it really deals with factory work

Marx’s biggest scientific contribution is the development of a ‘materialist’ (here meaning ‘physical’) theory of history. I feel that his specific stages are too eurocentric, but the general principles are universal.

The Manifesto is a call to action, so it is somewhat simplified theoretically and deals specifically with the issues and conditions of the time.

The manifesto isn’t even particularly long or difficult to read. Das Capital by Marx is really where his economic theories are actually presented. It is an extremely difficult read.

It is not an extremely difficult read. But if you don’t want to read it there’s probably some youtuber or podcaster who could present the main points adequately

I’d say the first 3 chapters of Capital are the most difficult to get through, but if you can the rest goes pretty smoothly.

Michael Heinrich wrote a very helpful guide for Capital. Perfect for the first 100 pages.

I prefer David Harvey, who sometimes misses the mark slightly. Heinrich is closely associated with the Neue Marx-Lektüre school of Marxism that deviates pretty heavily from Marx’s actual ideas IMO, and quite far from Marxism-Leninism, which is where I stand.

I find Heinrich to be more stimulating over all. He is really unique in that he and his peers consulted some pretty obscure notes and unpublished corrections/refinements M&E made. They differ from the big editions that were historically published. I am an “agnostic” Marxist – as in I don’t like to moralise about the USSR like a Trot and hate the present discourse around doctrinal purity and traditionalist legacy, who the real communists supposedly are and whether or not anyone today is allowed to call themselves a communist – I don’t at all believe in distancing yourself from an author’s work because other positions they hold don’t conform neatly to one’s previous politicisation.

My point isn’t that I think people should never read anything by Heinrich or anything, nor that I am arguing for purity. I think Heinrich presents a very specific reading of Marx that lends itself to opposing practical action with respect to existing socialist states, and that this insistence on adhering to Marx and minimizing the contributions of Engels downplays Marx’s lifelong agency and cowork with Engels. Harvey is more agnostic, in that sense, and defends the Fowkes translation, based more on the French edition that Marx developed latest than earlier Marx-only editions.

Really, this gets more into esoteric and usually trivial differences. Among modern Marxist economists, I am most a fan of Ian Paul Wright over others.

Hm, interesting. What do you think of Anwar Sheikh?

Unfamiliar, sorry.

fair.

It’s always good to read more! Just like, in general. You should read the communist manifesto and then go on to read other things too, anything you fancy

They derived their political ideology from their economic analysis, so it’s probably a good idea to read the context of world operating under the classical economic theories of those times.

The manifesto is just an ad for communism. You should read The Capital (part 1) if you want to interact with communism seriously.

Rough to just start them off with Kapital, dont you think?

I agree, but if you want to be able to call out if someone speaking out of their ass about communism you should at least know the main points of the capital.

Someone suggested critique of the gotha program and someone else said capital (four volumes!).

Those are good alternatives to the communist manifesto which is basically a handbill for convincing people to go learn more.

Of course they’re both super old and many people have written about their contents since their publication.

Being interested in politics is maybe not the best reason to be reading about communism.

Yeah! Communism is one of the most important movements and ideologies in modern history. It has shaped the lives of everyone on the planet, whether you are one of billions living under socialism or in a state that represses labor movements. It’s one of the most read pieces of literature for a reason, and it’s a good idea to be informed of the demands communists aim for. Although it was a couple hundred years ago the demands are largely the same to this day, just slight modifications such as the 10 point plan of the black panther party

All of Marx’ writings are worth a read even if you’re a dumbass capitalist.

Read principles of communism instead, it is the same content but better formatted

Oh, and watch Luna Oi’s Marxism 101: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeaTLoy1C9rM

Great rec!

Yes

The Communist Manifesto was satirical. Marx himself said he wasn’t a Marxist.

It is like Jonathan’s Swifts’ “A Modest Proposal”.

The entire system depends on building a one world government with the hopes that the dictator of the proletariat, once they gain world domination, will simply step down and destroy government once and for all.

The criticisms made of government were very valid, which led to movements.

Yes, you should read it, no question. Lots of great points.

But it isn’t a functional plan. Like, you would be asking for a cult to drive us to war to create the One Ring… and we don’t have a Frodo.

I mean, with the USSR, it just created a fantastic divide between the haves and have-nots, even worse than capitalism was doing.

The entire system depends on building a one world government with the hopes that the dictator of the proletariat, once they gain world domination, will simply step down and destroy government once and for all.

The fact you have such a shallow understanding of the material as to have this be part of your takeaway of what Marxists advocate for while speaking with such unearned confidence truly boggles the mind. A worse grasp of the material than your average Chinese school child.

Ok, paper tiger, why don’t you elaborate rather than attack?

Ok, paper tiger

projection

No, calling you a paper tiger. You aren’t really doing well at mental gymnastics.

calling you a paper tiger

Yeah, that’s called projecting, bud

Dude, that isn’t projection. Why are you assuming I am calling you an idiot and demanding to prove your assumption is right?

Self-reflect. Paper tiger.

Whatever you say pal

Holy fuck, are you all just kids spitting out AI slop?

Fuck me running. Goddammit, kiddos, PICK UP A FUCKING BOOK AND TOUCH GRASS, you ignorant time-wasting useless shits.

Sure thing boss

Truly don’t understand why we went to Lemmy to get away from pointless internet warrior kids/idiots and bots,

When now we have pointless internet warrior kids accusing people of being bots.

Do you have a fucking punching bag, because I am not it. Why write so much to literally say nothing? Is your life so bleak?

Truly don’t understand why we went to Lemmy to get away from pointless internet warrior kids/idiots and bots,

I don’t know about you but I came to Lemmy because my friend recommended the communist side of it as an interesting place to practice English without the racial abuse of non self hating Chinese that is normalised on Reddit and RedditorLemmy.

When now we have pointless internet warrior kids accusing people of being bots.

Sorry to hear that but I did no such thing I simply found your comment to be far too wrong and completely divorced from the material at hand for how confidently you were saying it.

Do you have a fucking punching bag, because I am not it. Why write so much to literally say nothing? Is your life so bleak?

I think I said the main things that were on my mind when I saw your comment. Honestly I don’t even know where to begin to try explain this to you given that you didn’t seem to be able to grasp such a base concept as the difference between the state and government not toind the complete strawman invention of your mind of the one world government idea or complete lack of understanding of the USSR and it’s many achievements compared to where it actually had issues.

Where are you from?

I am only speaking to what the manifesto was proposing and nothing more.

I cannot speak to the implementations of what it had inspired.

Where are you from?

I invite you to take a guess given the obvious context clues.

I am only speaking to what the manifesto was proposing and nothing more.

You’re speaking to what you imagined it was proposing not at all what it actually proposed not to mind when you take into account the wider writings of both Marx and Engels (as is necessary to truly understand the pamphlet that the manifesto is) both consistently differentiate between the state as an instrument of class rule and what we would call the government as an institution providing a necessary function of administration in advanced societies.

While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself, and restored to the responsible agents of society itself."

— The Civil War in France

State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished’. It dies out.

— Anti Duhring

I am also certain that you can provide nothing to back up the one world government claim (unless you choose to cherry pick and misinterpret harder than an evangelical) as it is simply not a position that Marx Engels or even any later Marxists have ever advocated for.

Guess from context clues? Fucking treat people with dignity. I won’t bother with your wall of text if you are just being a shit. Fuck off, you wasted life.

Really unnecessarily aggressive for not being able to piece together the blatantly obvious fact I’m Chinese. No wonder your understanding of Marx is so poor if you can’t even manage this. Also what wall of text? It’s a sentence, a short paragraph, and 2 quotes if that’s a wall of text in your eyes it again speaks to your reading capability (or more importantly lack there of) and really demystifies how you could arrive at the completely nonsensical “understanding” you did.

Dude, tried to give this a second chance, but you fucks are just regurgitating AI while accusing me of doing the same, with no fucking point.

Spend all the money that you would inherit to pretend to be smart. Fuck all social media.

In reality, I am actually a rather nice guy, and I buy dinners for the homeless. But I am dealing with this brainless slop.

This was supposed to be a network that would protect against bots. And now we have meat puppets. Check out Lake of Fire!!! rofl

Dude, tried to give this a second chance, but you fucks are just regurgitating AI while accusing me of doing the same, with no fucking point.

Entirely untrue but if it makes you feel better about your self you can feel free to believe it. Also no one accused you of using ai? Are you hallucinating? You were accused of being arrogant, unintelligent and there was an implication of you being annasshole (which I feel is quite accurate given the crash out) nothing about ai that’s all you.

Spend all the money that you would inherit to pretend to be smart. Fuck all social media.

This is just a nonsense random non sequitur.

In reality, I am actually a rather nice guy, and I buy dinners for the homeless.

Hard to believe given you’ve been nothing but artogant and an asshole this entire time, but even if true so what? Do you want a standing ovation for doing the bare minimum of allegedly having human decency?

This was supposed to be a network that would protect against bots. And now we have meat puppets

More dehumanising nonsense fantasies so you can shield yourself from the fact that you are as unintelligent as you are arrogant.

Marx Engels?! I was referring to Karl Marx. What is this Marx Engels shit?

Marx Engels or even any later Marxists have ever advocated for.

Marx, Engels, or even any later Marxists have ever advocated for.*

My apologies for not having perfect punctuation but your reading comprehension is truly abysmal.

I don’t give a fuck AI Meat Puppet.

Wow and now onto dehumanising me about… AI? What the fuck does AI have to do with anything?

Wow, this is actually WORSE than reddit. Great job. Goddamned idiots.

Yes you are actually worse than the average Redditor was in my experience all the arrogance and somehow even less capable and intelligent (truly a spectacular feat I am very impressed).

Is that first sentence supposed to be a joke, or?

Reading this original comment more is honestly incredible. If it’s not a joke I’m stealing it as a joke myself. Dude straight up started talking about fucking fantasy books what timeline are we in I’m scared

Harrypotterism/starwarsism unfortunately remains alive and well at the heart of the empire.

Absolutely not a joke. Again, I advocated reading it.

I really don’t want to be mean about this but your thinking is very simple, in a bad way. I advocate for you to read watership Down it’s my favorite book. 🐇

How about Animal Farm?

The book written by an aristocratic rapist snitch about how common people are just too stupid to take care of themselves?

I’d love to point out he said “how about animal farm”… No. 😅 I was recommending a good book.

You’d think, but no. This may be the dumbest, most confidently incorrect Lemmy user yet.

A few quick points:

1. None of it was satirical.

2. Marx claimed that he wasn’t a Marxist as a response to those of his time labeling themselves Marxists. He still developed what became Marxism as an ideology.

3. The dictatorship of the proletariat isn’t one person, but the absolute rule of the entire working class itself over capitalists. It’s saying that workers run the world, not capitalists, ever again, and that when there are no capitalists all workers will simply be people, a classless society.

I upvoted this comment because I couldn’t make a more ridiculous caricature of what liberals believe capitalism is if I tried. “Dictator of the proletariat” is such an absurd distortion of dictatorship of the proletariat. All the other stuff. Like, I can’t even be mad at how silly all the stuff you just said is.

R I P in penis, banned poster. You would have made a good pet.

Learning is always worth it

Whatever you think of Marx, it’s undeniable he has literary value. I’d say read him.

It is meant to be an accessible reading, meant for working class people. Go for it. I personally recommend Rosa Luxemburg’s writings.

Absolutely. It’s short.

Do note that most of how communism worked, on paper and in practice, originated later, though. Marx, a German who mostly lived in England, wrote the Manifesto in 1848 and died in 1883, while the revolution was in Russia in 1917. And there’s stuff in the manifesto that obviously didn’t age well, like the bit about the invention of trains leading to the end of nationalism.

Still, it’s great historical perspective, and obviously inspired how the Soviet Union looked at things pretty heavily.

I’d honestly probably start with Lenin. Or at least not the Manifesto if you want anything more than, well, a Manifesto. If you wanna start with Marx/Engels then I would say Engels “On Authority” might be a good place to start. Or perhaps “The 18th brumaire of Louis Napoleon” by Marx.

I’d say that Das Kapital is more useful. The manifesto was a specific call to arms for a specific time. It’s worth understanding as a historical note, but, it’s not really a theoretical work.

Das Kapital, is a work about a theory of political economy and layed out the actual basis of Marxist theory.

Everything else is sort of down stream of that. At least in regards to understanding what specific objections or concerns people in Marxist thought have.

Yes, an education is worthwhile. Read many philosophies inluding Marx, Hegel, Kant, Locke, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Kropotkin, Stirner, Rudolf Rocker, Graeber etc. Though not my career, I keep studying for fun.

As with The Bible, there is a clergy surrounding philosophical figures. You may join their congregation. I choose not to partake. Read The Bible to understand society, but you don’t need to join the congregation.

Yes. If I may, I would suggest “The origins of family and private property” from Engels. It’s not explicitly political, but I find it serves excellently for dissolving some biases towards historical conditions and how they shape the current affairs.

Yes, origin of the family is great. I read it as a teenager before any other socialist material and it was the first time in my life where I felt my worldview had been radically changed.

I feel like you should read anything that people find so polarizing and taboo. It’s short and its pretty dang hard to disagree with.

Yes, you should. Reading something doesn’t mean having to automatically agree with it, but it will broaden your perspective. Read it critically, engage with the arguments being made, and use them to test your own world view. See if the arguments make sense to you, and whether you have strong counter arguments of your own to the ones being made.

It’s good, it’s def on the list. You’ll be surprised by how moderate-seeming of Reforms it actually calls for, while being a revolutionary program.

Also read "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Wage Labor and Capital, and Critique of the Gotha Program. State and Revolution by Lenin and Reform or Revolution by Luxemburg are other great foundational works.

This is a good theory foundation to begin reading socialist history books: Wretched of the Earth, Black Reconstruction in America, Hammer and Hoe, Black Jacobins, History of the German Revolution, History of the Russian Revolution, etc.,

Also big recommendation for Ten Days that Shook the World by Jack Reed, it’s legit one of the most exciting books you’ll ever come across. It’s better than any action fiction book, and it’s just straight journalism of the actual October Russian revolution.

If you like podcasts, Mike Duncan’s Revolutions podcast is pretty good, his last season on the Russian revolution is a good primer for the years prior to the 1917 revolutions, and the first fiveish episodes are pretty good historical and theoretical primers on various revolutionary movements and theorists. Season 10 episodes 2 and 3 are about Marx and Engels specifically, and I know lots of people who had their eyes opened to M&E by these episodes. I think Duncan ends the series on a sour note wrt Lenin that lacks real complexity and depth, but those early episodes are pretty good as an entry-point to Marx&Engels and socialist theory.

Honestly, I find almost everyone who reads the Manifesto and nothing else does not understand it at all. It relies on a lot of complicated ideas which it doesn’t go into detail on, and the popular English translation also has misleading translation errors. People who read it end up filling in the gaps with preconceptions that they have been primed to interpret it as from liberal society, and thus end up interpreting it in a silly way that is not how it was intended at all.

It is better to start with lengthier, more in-depth works that try to actually build out their worldview, like Critique of the German Ideology, The Poverty of Philosophy, and Anti-Durhing.

For a one-and-done, while it’s no substitute to dedicated study of in-depth works, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific does a much better job than Manifesto at conveying diamat, histmat, and the underlying process of socialist construction in a digestible way quickly. That’s why Marx and Engels themselves noted how effective it was as an agitational pamphlet.

Absolutely.

Fundamentally, only reading about ideas that you already agree with is bad for you. You will learn less about your beliefs than if you had read something that challenges your beliefs.

Let’s say you’re very pro-capitalist, and you want to know everything about capitalism, so you read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Great! You learned some things about the historical basis of your beliefs, and there’s value in that. So then you read Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman. Okay! So you’re tripling down on the same ideas. You probably already know most of those ideas, though, right? There will be some new stuff, but ultimately it’s more of the same stuff you already know.

So you try some more recent authors, and give a shrug to Ayn Rand, and you give Lions and Scavengers a shot. And maybe you pick up a new thing or two. But mostly, it’s the same ideas that you’re already familiar with.

Do you know what none of these books have? An angle of critique (except Smith, sort of). They’re all just listing all of the good things about capitalism, and they’re not telling you the bad things. Do you believe that Capitalism is a perfect system to organize a nation’s economic policy, with no flaws? No? Then you should be interested in someone who elaborates on some of the negative aspects of capitalism, and what can be done to address those flaws, right? Because if there are flaws, you want to know what they are, so they can be fixed, right?

That’s why you should read Das Kapital.