On May 5th, 1818, Karl Marx, hero of the international proletatiat, was born. His revolution of Socialist theory reverberates throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of Capitalism, development of the theory of Scientific Socialism, and advancements on dialectics to become Dialectical Materialism, have all played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.
He didn't always rock his famous beard, when he was younger he was clean shaven!
Some significant works:
Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Manifesto of the Communist Party (along with Engels)
And, of course, Capital Vol I-III
Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don't know where to start? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!
Again, thank you!
Yes, for Cuba's situation I put most of the blame for the US. I see a lot of anti-Cuba propaganda that is ridiculous. Virtually most UN members have agreed for a long time that the US should drop the cruel embargo, I don't see it as a controversial take that the US is the aggressor here and is to blame in many many other cases. Don't get me wrong on that, I won't deny the imperialist reality.
As far as the concept of a 'socialist revolution' goes, this stage makes sense to me! It is in understanding the actions that leaders take after the revolution is where I become skeptical. It is difficult for me to distinguish between a genuine attempt at socialism and someone using the compelling ideas of socialism as a tool to justify actions that concentrate power to their benefit. An enemy is a useful tool to consolidate power. Imperial systems built on capitalist system can provide this enemy, the question is whether the concept of this enemy is being used as a useful tool or if a serious attempt is being made to defeat it. Is there a winning stage were the leader would say "Fantastic, we did it guys! I will step away now", or is there no end-point planned?
My father's side of the family is originally from Yugoslavia/Slovenia, and they do speak well about Slovenia under Tito. And, when I look into Tito, it does look like his government is regarded in an overwhelmingly positive light. Their system at least on the surface looks to me like an example of a socialist(?) system that can co-exist with a largely capitalist world. My knowledge on the actual details/history of this comes from a few very focused YouTube videos and wiki pages so maybe he is not considered a good example of a socialist leader by socialists. I do see a contrast here in that this is a leader that is painted generally in a positive light, but I am not sure if this is because he was friendly to the west, or my experience is biased because I mostly hear about him from Slovenians and YouTube. The specific example of Slovenia gives me some hope that a kind of intermediate system that co-exists with capitalism can be used to peacefully transition, and from what I understand they did achieve a system that distributed ownership and the power to make decisions among workers more than to the state. Although things did not end so well for Yugoslavia, so maybe a system like this one would be quenched.
I understand your caution, though it's best to contextualize why Socialist States often have long-serving leaders. As Socialism generally exists under siege, often times there is heavy millitarization and political stability is prioritized. The people generally approve, be it through elections or general support, as the Socialist system would fail if it lost the support of the people. Looking more into various Socialist leaders, like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro from a proletarian point of view, can help contextualize. Blowback season 2 is about Cuba, for example, and has helped me understand Cuba more.
What's important to understand is that, for Marxists, public ownership and planning in a world government run democratically is the end-game, not necessarily worker self-management. This gets more into the economic basis of Marxism, but Marxists don't see administration as the same as the "state," a highly millitarized entity, but that the state can only wither when class is abolished globally.
Tito is an interesting case. Yugoslavian Socialism was loved by the people, but also depended heavily on IMF loans that ended up being its undoing. Some Socialists hated Tito for being a revisionist, and for splitting from the USSR, some believe Tito's Socialism was the best example of Socialism in practice.
The standard Marxist-Leninist take is that Tito's Socialism was undone by tying to the West via IMF loans, and thus can't be seen as a true measure, but that it was still an example of how a generally Socialist system can achieve great things, even if its brand of Socialism was distinctly diverted from traditional Marxism at the time.
Again, thank you very much for taking the time to respond in such depth. As I read what you write I think of more questions, but I think it is unfair that I continue asking when you have given me already a lot of explanation and study material. My questions will most likely be addressed in the material.
On my way home now I was thinking about what would be a good way to approach this study. At first I thought of picking Venezuela because it is a bit close but not too close to me. But from what you mention it seems like it might be a difficult one to start with. I have decided I will focus on Cuba first (well, once I am done with the pre-req theoretical background). I even made a small plan to follow, I'll try to visit Havana within the next few years.
No problem, never apologize for being curious! I mainly use this account to try and gain comrades and correct misconceptions about theory when I can, so it isn't wasted time by any stretch! And developing a plan is excellent, I always recommend that if I can, many people meander and spend far more time than necessary as a consequence.
If you've seen my "Read Theory, Darn it!" intro reading list, you'll find that the way I structured it is focused on building up over time. I start with a quick FAQ from Engels, then Blackshirts and Reds to dispel common red scare myths and promote a sympathetic view towards the people in Socialist countries in their real struggles to build real Socialism.
After that, though, it delves into the theory side, in a specific order. I start with Dialectical Materialism, as it's by far the most useful concept to understand first. It's kinda like approaching the world from a scientific point of view, always stressing to view things as they exist in context and in motion, rather than isolated and static. After that comes the Law of Value, and the concept of Scientific Socialism, then we return to Socialist history and Imperialism/Colonialism, Social theory, then putting it all into practice.
I bring this up, because if you really study the Dialectical Materialism section well, you'll already be equipped to do your own political analysis from the Socialist viewpoint, even if you don't fully understand the Law of Value, the theory of the State, etc. Those all help contextualize, but in my opinion that's the single biggest step you can take in knowledge of Marxism, and when you can consider the most critical "pre-req" research relatively solid. Studying Cuba after you get those basics firmly down will help you see what they are trying to do, and measure how they are doing in your own eyes, for whenever you can make it to Havana.
Now, you can always spend way more time reading, but you can also start reading Che Guevara's speeches and writings as well as Fidel Castro's interviews and whatnot to begin to get some context on the thoughts and actions of Cuban revolutionary leaders. I also recommend researching what happened to Slavador Allende in Chile, who tried to play by the rules, so to speak, rather than going the revolutionary path. This is an important point of contrast to put the success of the Cuban Revolution in context.
Feel free to ask any questions you want, no worries!
Thanks! I had the chance to read a bit.
So far... Engels Principles of Communism says some sensible things to do if the government is trusted (for example, the concept of abolishing private property, inheritance taxes, etc...), but it is also makes some point that I find concerning. Specifically, the combination of the answers provided to "Q16: Will it be possible to bring about the abolition of private property by peaceful means?" and "Q24: How do communists differ from socialists?" concern me because Q16 suggests violence as a method and Q24 significantly broadens the scope of who is an enemy of the revolution, while still keeping it ambiguous. A call for violent revolution + ambiguity of who is the enemy is a dangerous recipe because it leaves a lot of room for "interpretation" and "nuance" that will probably lead to disagreement between violent factions.
I think of this mixture of call for violence + an ambiguous enemy in the context of what I see sometimes being posted to social media, including Lemmy. I have seen calls for violence against "owners" that often extends to small business owners and landlords, usually without distinguishing between a commercial entity as a 'landlord' and a grandma renting out a room. Sometimes I think this is just a figure of speech but sometimes I doubt and consider that these might be actual calls to action. So, then, when I see such a broad brush being used to paint the 'enemy' I get the impression that pretty much anyone benefiting in some way from these systems is an enemy if they do not immediately understand and fully embrace the revolution. A revolution, then, seems to ask the revolutionary to be violent against friends and families if living in a developed country. I find it difficult to imagine that a majority within a population would want to go through this process if they fully understand the implication. When a Engles writes about "the majority of the people", does this count every individual in the population, or only those who are friendly to the revolution?
As I continue I am curios of whether I will find find some robust method to distinguish between the 'proletariat' and the 'petty-bourgeois', and to find out whether I will keep my head during the revolution. It would be nice to find some ideas on how to achieve the goals without violence. I have also seen that many more modern philosophies are built on top of Marxism-Leninism (like Degrowth), so in any case I am certain I will get a lot of value out of this topic.
I also found that you are running a book club on Das Kapital, I will try to catch up.
Do you know of a community where I can ask questions about this topic?
It's great to see you reading! One thing I do want to point out, though, Principles of Communism is more of an FAQ than a developed and principled response to each question. It's helpful for getting terms straight, but can also lead to people like yourself reading more into each line than is likely intended. I'll respond to 16 and 24.
Re: 16, the question of reform or revolution, and the theory of the State. Revolution, in the Marxist sense, does not mean killing everyone that would oppose you, even the bourgeoisie. Revolution requires overthrowing the State, and replacing it with one that is comprehensively for the workers. It does not mean forming a small band of warriors to go and kill grandma for renting out a house so she can retire, it means guiding the revolution that will redistribute land while providing safety nets that make it so that grandma doesn't need to be a landlord to survive.
When Communists and Socialists say "violence is necessary," they mean that never in history has a ruling class given up power without force. The fun thing about the ruling class, though, is that it's small. It can only rely on the state to do its bidding and fight, it cannot fight by itself. Jeff Bezos is not going to grab a rifle and fight a glorious war. What's interesting about various Socialist revolutions, like in Russia, frequently the army stands down. The reason for this is that revolution isn't something you can just do, it happens when the overwhelming majority of the population (total, not just the proletariat, though these are often very similar numbers as the proletariat outnumbers every other class in most nations), and the army frequently stands down in mass.
There are violent and lengthy revolutions, such as the Chinese revolution. This one was a long and bloody fight against colonialism, and then against a nationalist dictatorship. The people, however, supported the Communists, which is why they won. Cuba was an example of a mid-length revolution. There was a revolutionary war, but similar to Russia, the army did not fight very hard as they were in it for money, while the campesinos and beardos were in it for a better world.
There are also dogmatic, anti-Marxist "Marxists," like the Shining Path in Peru under Gonzalo. They are little more than a band of murderous thugs that think "class struggle" means killing villagers that don't agree, or randomly assassinating politicians instead of building up a mass movement. These are the people you are referring to as your fear, and they do exist, but are in an incredible minority globally.
I recommend reading Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin's The State and Revolution for why revolution is necessary. Entirely peaceful methods have been tried, like Allende in Chile, and they get overthrown by the bourgeoisie against the people, along with the US.
Re: question 24. Revolution does not happen without a broad, mass, organized movement. If that movement does not exist, there will be no revolution. When Engels says these reactionary types must be opposed, he means so ideologically, so that when a revolution does happen, the revolution will take a correct character. It does not mean killing everyone that disagrees, it means you must thoroughly debunk and discredit incorrect viewpoints, and if they engage violently (as the SPD did against the KPD in Germany, or some of the reactionary "left" groups in Russia during the Russian Civil War), defend yourself if you must.
As for as distinguishing between Proletarian and Petty Bourgeois, it's not necessary at the individual level. Marxism is not a moral judgement, but an analysis of how classes behave in society. It doesn't mean killing the petite bourgeoisie, it means working towards abolishing the foundations of the petite bourgeoisie through collectivization at the degree to which production has developed. Make sense? You'd keep your head, unless you decided to take up arms against a popular revolution and gave the people no other choice. Marxism isn't about collectivizing through killing the owners, but through siezing the state and weilding its power to gradually fold more production into the public sector. You can't kill a farm into a collectivized industrial farm, you have to develop out of small ownership.
When people say "kill the landlords" online, they are usually expressing frustration at the parasitic nature of landlordism, they are not announcing that they intend to kill grandma. I really want to stress this, the Marxist goal is not to achieve classless society by killing owners. Rather, the Marxist position is that you can't achieve classless society that way, as each level of development best coincides with different forms of ownership, and it is highly developed industry that can best be publicly owned and planned.
As for Capital, I actually recommend staying away from it until you get some more of the basics of theory under your belt. You'll notice its absence from my intro reading list, it's an advanced text! It's certainly a critical read, but if you want to get into the economic side, I recommend Wage Labor and Capital and Wages, Price, and Profit. Both combined are very short compared to even a single volume of Capital's 3. However, I won't stop you if you've decided to dive into the deep end! I just think you'll understand it better if you are more familiar with Dialectical Materialism and Scientific Socialism first.
Glad you're reading, feel free to ask more questions! If you want to ask questions, the Marxism comm on Hexbear is a good spot, or Ask Lemmygrad on Grad, or the Socialism and Communism communities on Lemmy.ml.
Yes, it does, very much so. Thanks a lot!
It is good to hear. For what it's worth, I just went through a bit of an exercise for Cuba trying to look for examples of the types of violence that they committed and also looked into some of the other groups that I associate with the concept of a "violent revolution" (ETA in Spain, IRA in Ireland, different groups in Yugoslavia). What I found is:
The groups that I associate with terrorism tactics are nationalistic, not fighting for socialism (at least not as a main goal).
The Cuban revolutionaries used guerrilla tactics that, from what I can find, did not use terrorism as a tool. Their enemies, including CIA-backed groups, did.
So, that's points in favor to Cuba.
Good to know! Before the 2016 US election I would rarely choose the literal interpretation when reading statements like this online. When Trump was elected and I realized that people online were not actually being sarcastic and making jokes, I began to take online statements more seriously and literally. I still think there is a high probability that some people who write about violence online mean it literally. That doesn't necessarily reflect on Marxist-Leninists though, many ideologies/religions can be pushed to extremism, and it is not entirely fair to ask everyone not to use figurative language online.
I am half way through Wage Labor and Capital now. It is very interesting, I think that I will like Marx's Das Kaptial because I do like dense/analytical. I already have several questions but I will first read more and then see if I can get some help in the communities you mentioned.
Good to hear! And yes, I do think you'd enjoy Capital, but I will selfishly re-assert the importance of Dialectical Materialism, especially before Capital, as that's Marx's method and understanding it prior to his masterwork will help you both appreciate and understand it more.
As for National Liberation, Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth is the best Marxist explanation of it. National liberation against colonialism and Imperialism is seen as progressive, and the product of oppression, not the oppressors. Palestine, for example, is supported wholeheartedly against the Settler-Colonialism of Israel, including resisting genocide using force to do so. Oppression creates its own violent reaction, even if in a perfect world neither would exist.
Good luck!
Ok, I will make sure I cover it then, I started this morning. Materialism is familiar to me and dialectics in the context of debate are also familiar, but 'dialectical materialism' is new. It has been about a decade since I put some dedicated effort in studying philosophy, and back then I mostly did morality, theology/metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of science. Economics and politics were not super interesting to me back then, but now they are, so it is a good time to revisit.
From a surface reading it makes sense that the resolution of conflicts that arise due to material conditions is one pathway to change. I am curious to understand how a framework is built from this concept and whether Marxist theory rigidly asserts this as the driver for change or if it is one important tool for building a perspective on class struggles but the framework accepts flexibility and complexity.
I will leave 'National liberation' study for later as there is already enough on the plate. In the context of Palestine, the Palestinians need to do what they can do to survive. They have grown under an active genocidal campaign, they are direct recipients of unimaginable violence. I think it’s straightforward to frame this as a case of self-preservation. What is the alternative argument? That they should erase themselves?
What is arguably dangerous (I am not saying this happens in Marxist philosophy) is when an ideology recognizes, as an example, the 'Imperial Core' as the ultimately responsible entity of oppression and places everyone who benefits in some way, perhaps simply by being born in Europe or US, as part of the enemy. Someone can justify bombing civilians in a Western country using a robust and coherent ideological framework that is further justified by the violent injustices that they have experienced. When I think of an ideological framework that discusses violence, I’m interested in what mechanisms are in place to keep violence in check.
Good to see! Dialectical Materialism is critical for understanding Marxism.
As for Palestine, the alternatives to being pro-Palestinian are believing the Palestinians started it and thus deserve it, or that the Zionists started it, but also condemning Hamas for fighting back. Neither of those are correct, of course.
As far as justifying violence against "enemies," I think Dialectical Materialism will help. One can label the Working Class in the Global North as largely bribed and thus anti-revolutionary, and yet never jump to genocidal conclusions. The point is that the system is the target, analysis of different positions classes hold is to understand why they act in the way they do generally, and how best to overcome it. There is no Materialist reason to slaughter civilians, really.
Already finished Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds a few days ago and and watched Parenti's speech. I am still going through the list, little by little. Great stuff, thanks !
Fantastic, glad you liked it! Any thoughts or questions you might want to offer? Selfishly, feedback for my list is always appreciated, I like tweaking it from time to time, haha.
Blackshirts and Reds was a good entry point for me since I don’t have much historical background. It helped clarify terms like “fascism” that I’d seen used a lot but never truly understood. It also laid out some contrasts between fascist and communist dictatorships, which I found helpful early on.
One thing that really caught my attention was the bit on Kerala and the so-called "Kerala model." That led me to Prabhat Patnaik’s article "The International Context and the Kerala Model" (available on scihub), which explained how IMF-backed liberalization can destabilize local economies by -for example - replacing self-sufficient agriculture with luxury imports.This was quite insighttful.
That said, the book does blur things together to build its narrative, and it doesn’t source every claim. I feel like this sometimes leads to misleading simplifications. For example, it says:
Reading that, you'd think Rubics was just an activist jailed for protesting neoliberalism. But when I looked him up, he was a politician that tried to crush opposition and backed a failed coup. That context matters, and the omission feels like nuance is missing. I found a few other cases like that - claims that technically check out but lack important context. Still, I learned a lot, and it made me want more source-heavy stuff. Something more like a history textbook that compares narratives directly and points at more direct sources (like UN resolutions, court documents, this type of things I like going through).
Another thing that I can add is that I am reading other things in addition to your recommendations. One memorable book that I am enjoying is 'Envisioning Real Utopias' by Erik Olin Wright. From what I have found online there is a mixed reaction to Olin's ideas from socialists/communists. My understanding of his claims so far is that there are mechanisms of social transformation that may be accessed by exploiting vulnerabilities during the social reproduction process. I still need to read through a lot of the book but so far he has suggested that worker cooperatives (like Mondragon Corporation) and the creation of 'cooperative banks' (willing to lend money for transforming companies into worker-owned) create one of the viable mechanisms through which the capitalist system may be eroded. I have found some of the criticism of trying to solve capitalism with more capitalism, which is an easy criticism to make, but I do think Olin makes some good points. As of this evening I would say Olin's description of the problem of social transformation, how he categorizes strategies in terms of desirability, viability, and achievability, and his data-driven approach to assessing policy strategies (such as looking at what has actually happened in universal basic income experiments), is what I am most in alignment with. But still lots to learn.
Sounds like Blackshirts and Reds did its job! As you point out, its biggest strength is also its biggest weakness. In being a short and direct cry of support for revolution in the wake of the dissolution of the USSR, which set Socialism back dramatically at the time (especially because the 90s really did seem like China had abandoned Socialism, when we now know that that wasn't the case and Deng's gamble paid off), it also skimps out on thorough analysis and deep historical account.
I want to add that the purpose of my list is to equip the reader with solid foundational knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, so that the reader may better make up their own conclusions and further explore theory and historical texts (though I do include a section on history later).
As for Envisioning Real Utopias, I hadn't heard of it until you told me, truth be told. My immediate reaction to trying to establish cooperatives to "overcome Capitalism" is that it doesm't work like that. Cooperatives are better in that they avoid the excesses of standard firms, but since they fundamentally rely on exclusive ownership there is a barrier to scaling, and a lack of a collective plan. It merely repeats petite bourgeois class relations, an individualist view of the economy rather than a collectivist, resulting in an economy run by competing interests rather than being run by all in the interests of all. I actually wrote a comment on the communist perspective on cooperatives a few days ago.
I also think that, eventually, you'll want to read Anti-Dühring. Engels counters the cooperative model from a Marxist perspective. It's the much larger book the essay Socialism: Utopian and Scientific comes from, so if you're down for a challenge you can read Anti-Dühring instead of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
Ultimately, it boils down to 2 possibilities, neither of which are good for the cooperative model:
-The state will dismantle any legitimate threat to the Capitalists if Capitalists cannot find a way to profit off of this new development
-Cooperatives alone are not enough to overcome Capitalism, rather, they replicate it in a different form
-Production is already extremely complex and monopolized, the age of small businesses growing to huge powerhouses is dying. Cooperatives will always be at a disadvantage when competing with established businesses
-Cooperatives compete and eventually begin to replicate bourgeois class relations, if the public ownership of the economy is not the dominant factor, ie in control of larhe firms and industries. A few cooperatives would scale and create a new Capitalist relation.
Those are just my perspectives based on your summary. Cooperatives certainly aren't bad at all, and are a part of Socialist economies as a minority of the economy, like Huawei in China or the collective farms in China. However, public ownership is still the key factor, as it goes beyond the profit motive and into allowing humanity to finally direct production for the needs of all, and not for the profits of the few.
You'll have plenty of time to develop your own opinions, cooperatives are certainly better than traditional firms, but you'll find Marxists typically don't agree with "utopia building" and other cooperative forms of ownership, and you'll best see why generally in section 2.
Doing a good job 😀
Anti-Dühring's table of contents looks very interesting, so I will get to it eventually, but it is a lot of material. These are some very resource-intensive opinions to build!
I follow this logic but I am at this time not ready to accept or reject the notion that these possibilities describe the range of possible outcomes from such a strategy. In the Real Utopias project the cooperative model is not seen as the end-point but rather as one mechanism to erode capitalism. The author did not think that the ruptural transformation pathway would have a good chance in creating a society with the properties he deems 'desirable'. There are so many unconstrained variables and unknowns that the output of a fast and chaotic transformation process is undefined in many ways, and so there is no reason to expect that the properties of the society that emerges will fall exclusively within a narrow range of desirable ones. Slow but intentional structural change has (he argues) a better chance of incorporating desirable properties while rejecting undesirable ones.
I'll have plenty of time but also will need plenty of time, socialists like to write big books it seems.
Thanks for the feedback! Yep, Marxism doesn't have to be difficult to generally grasp, but the specifics and details take a long time. Ans yep, Anti-Dühring is quite long indeed, it's probably Engels' most important work.
The thing that confuses me about Real Utopias is whether the author rejects revolution entirely, or wants cooperatives within a post-revolutionary Socialist system. The former has no real chance to actually damage Capitalism, while the latter is already used in countries like China as they gradually build into higher and higher stages of Socialism. Socialists already advocate for building up Dual Power, the Soviets for example were already in place before the October Revolution, but also understand that as this Dual Power grows the resistance from Capitalists grows as well, Revolution still becomes a necessity.
Just my two cents, I haven't read the book myself. Glad to see you're sticking with it!
What I am getting so far is that he considers the revolutionary strategy to have a low probability of succeeding, and he argues that this is supported by historical evidence. The cooperatives are just one part of the strategy that he describes early on, once I am done with the book if I do think it is interesting enough I can try to summarize his thought.
In the textbook and in one of his online lectures he appears to start off aligned with Marx but diverges from Marxist theory. On Chapter 4 ("Thinking about alternatives to Capitalism, page 69) he describes his understanding of Marxist theory and in what ways he thinks differently. So, I suspect you will probably disagree with him strongly! Maybe I will too.
At this point I am not saying I have formed a strong opinion. The reason why Erik Olin Wright's work brings me value is because his framework is aligned with my unpolished starting opinion of anti-capitalism through structural changes. His work helps me formalize my internal logic as I navigate through uncharted (for me) ideas about revolution as a mechanism for transformation.
Gotcha, thanks for elaborating! I'd say historical evidence points to the opposite on his claims of revolution, revolutionary governments have been the only ones to manage to successfully present a meaningful alternative to Capitalism. One thing common to Western leftism is the endless search for "purity" in movements, looking at every revolutionary government from a place of brutal critique without putting themselves in the shoes of the revolutionaries. Jones Manoel's Western Marxism Loves Purity and Martyrdom, But Not Real Revolution best explains why this is a problem so prevalent in the Western left.
The question of revolution comes relatively soon, this is one case where anti-Capitalists of all stripes are relatively aligned. Be they Anarchists or Marxists, the fundamental problem of reform is trying to overcome a system designed to uphold the present status quo by working within it. Illegal struggle will necessarily come up.
Glad to see you continuing your journey! I'm not trying to tell you what to think, by the way, just explain the Marxist perspective (specifically Marxist-Leninist). Your journey is your own.