Well I started reading Stalin's works...

[LOLseph Stalin]

Whether i'll use it to argue against Stalinists or actually become a Stalinist myself I don't know(hopefully the first), but his writing seems alot easier to understand. :laugh: Thoughts?

[Charles Xavier]

Stalinism doesn't exist. There are no disciples of Stalin. You will have a hard time being a Stalin.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Stalinism doesn't exist. There are no disciples of Stalin. You will have a hard time being a Stalin.

You have to at least give me credit for at least trying to understand that man's ideas.

[Bilan]

You will find yourself in the Tory (or Liberal, or Republican) party when you're finished.

[LOLseph Stalin]

You will find yourself in the Tory (or Liberal, or Republican) party when you're finished.

Oh god... I sure hope not. :ohmy:

[Patchd]

Lol, you mean the countless Trotskyist Shachtmanites that went neo-con?! :lol:

[Os Cangaceiros]

The only thing I've read of Stalin's is his "critique" of anarchism. ("Anarchism or Socialism"?)

It's very silly. I wouldn't recommend reading it. :closedeyes:

[ZeroNowhere]

The only thing I've read of Stalin's is his "critique" of anarchism. ("Anarchism or Socialism"?)

It's very silly. I wouldn't recommend reading it. :closedeyes:
Eh, he's only following Lenin in that regard.

[Invariance]

A good rule of thumb in life is to read books which people tell you not to.

And most of the time they haven't read them either.

[ZeroNowhere]

A good rule of thumb in life is to read books which people tell you not to.
Everybody, don't read Twilight.

Alright, that's my sadistic tendencies satisfied for the day.

[Os Cangaceiros]

A good rule of thumb in life is to read books which people tell you not to.

Unless they happen to be written by a mustached old hack named Joseph Stalin. In which case there are literally millions of more productive ways to spend your time.

[Invariance]

Everybody, don't read Twilight.

I should have put a warning clause that following this advice may lead you to reading a copious amount of corny books. :-)


Unless they happen to be written by a mustached old hack named Joseph Stalin. In which case there are literally millions of more productive ways to spend your time. I was told there were a million more productive ways of spending my time than reading that genocidal, racist Satanist known as Karl Marx (yes, I was told this - apparently Marx's like of Goethe and the fact that he grew a beard meant he was a Satanist). Didn't follow the advice, and found out that Marx wasn't genocidal, wasn't racist and unfortunately wasn't a Satanist. Generally I see Stalin as a historical figure, and am interested in his role in Soviet history, rather than his theoretical views, which don't really interest me. And even then, I'm not really concerned with the inflated role most history books give him, but more materialist accounts of the economic system of the USSR. So I would quite agree that there would be more productive ways of spending your time.

[Tower of Bebel]

Stalin is easy, yes. But that's not an arguement really (just look at Marx' writings).

[Bright Banana Beard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtF1ZNqSX3w

[Panda Tse Tung]

Stalin is easy, yes. But that's not an arguement really (just look at Marx' writings).
It being easy helps a lot. I haven't even finished the first chapter of Das Kapital cause it's so fucking complicated.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It being easy helps a lot. I haven't even finished the first chapter of Das Kapital cause it's so fucking complicated.

That is a very difficult book to read. I own it and two books analyzing it, heh.

(On a side note, my edition of Das Kapital was published in 1930, and has a cool introduction by Max Eastman.)

[Cumannach]

It being easy helps a lot. I haven't even finished the first chapter of Das Kapital cause it's so fucking complicated.

Try some of the later chapters first. I think that was actually Marx's advice.

[Angry Young Man]

A good rule of thumb in life is to read books which people tell you not to.

And most of the time they haven't read them either.

So if I said don't read Much Ado about Nothing because it's terrible, would you go read it?

[LOLseph Stalin]

A good rule of thumb in life is to read books which people tell you not to.

And most of the time they haven't read them either.

I may just take that advice unless it applies to something lame like Twilight...


Stalin is easy, yes. But that's not an arguement really (just look at Marx' writings).

He's way easier. I should be focusing on stuff like Trotsky, but I just can't bring myself to read it without having problems interpreting it.

[ZeroNowhere]

It being easy helps a lot. I haven't even finished the first chapter of Das Kapital cause it's so fucking complicated.
Eh, his first chapter is explained in the rest of the book, IIRC (you're referring to the first volume, I assume).
Also, I.I. Rubin's essays on Marx's theories (http://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/value/index.htm) are helpful.


I may just take that advice unless it applies to something lame like Twilight...
Don't read every book Ayn Rand ever wrote.

[scarletghoul]

of all communists Ive read, Mao is the easiest and clearest at explaining things. Havent read any stalin though

[marxengels2012]

Having read Stalin, I'm convinced he was no Socialist or Communist. His writings are complete with even the laugh lines inserted when he mocked the workers and party members. I have to agree that Comrade Mao is the easiest and clearest to read, but don't overlook the Founders, Marx and Engels---their works are still foundational to all scientific socialism. Also Gramsci, the Italian Marxist. Stalin was a crude opportunist and no socialist!

[LOLseph Stalin]

Having read Stalin, I'm convinced he was no Socialist or Communist. His writings are complete with even the laugh lines inserted when he mocked the workers and party members. I have to agree that Comrade Mao is the easiest and clearest to read, but don't overlook the Founders, Marx and Engels---their works are still foundational to all scientific socialism. Also Gramsci, the Italian Marxist. Stalin was a crude opportunist and no socialist!

Well at least i'll have arguments when i'm finished.

[Madvillainy]

Eh, he's only following Lenin in that regard.

At least Lenins writings were bearable. Stalins critique of Anarchism is one of the most stupid and boring pieces of writing I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

[scarletghoul]

Comrade InsertNameHere, I reccomend you read some of Mao's writings after you finish/get bored of Stalin's. Mao is much more significant in the marxist literature than Stalin.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Comrade InsertNameHere, I reccomend you read some of Mao's writings after you finish/get bored of Stalin's. Mao is much more significant in the marxist literature than Stalin.


I have read bits of Mao's Red Book if that counts. :p

[Charles Xavier]

I usually recommend that comrades start at the beginning chronologically and work your way up. Its the best way to gain an analysis. To understand the changes occurring between their writings. Start with Marx and Engels, then go to Lenin.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I usually recommend that comrades start at the beginning chronologically and work your way up. Its the best way to gain an analysis. To understand the changes occurring between their writings. Start with Marx and Engels, then go to Lenin.

I'll likely just skip Marx though as I have read the Manifesto, and i'm nowhere near confident enough to venture into Kapital.

[Bright Banana Beard]

And finally, read Enver Hoxha's Imperialism and the Revolution & The Marxist-Leninist Movement and the World Crisis of Capitalism, you can also drop by Hoxhaist group and see the thread created by Kassad to see the difference between Maoist and Hoxhaist.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/index.htm
(You could read the rest of the work, but it mainly aim on other tendency.)

[hugsandmarxism]

I'll likely just skip Marx though as I have read the Manifesto, and i'm nowhere near confident enough to venture into Kapital.

I wouldn't recommend that. Try reading Kapital bit by bit. For instance, I reccomend reading through the Fetishism of Commodities (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S4) section of chapter one by itself. My professor included this section in his anthology Power: A Critical Reader. Infact, it was the first Marx I'd read, and nudged me onto the path from liberal to marxist.

[scarletghoul]

Imma try reading some Kapital soon

[Communist Theory]

Wow I think Trotsky would have had you purged when he learned of this.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I wouldn't recommend that. Try reading Kapital bit by bit. For instance, I reccomend reading through the Fetishism of Commodities (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S4) section of chapter one by itself. My professor included this section in his anthology Power: A Critical Reader. Infact, it was the first Marx I'd read, and nudged me onto the path from liberal to marxist.

I hope it's not too difficult. I've heard horror stories about Kapital...


Wow I think Trotsky would have had you purged when he learned of this.

Haha, probably. I must just be a dirty traitor in his eyes. All I want to do is learn!:scared:

[The Author]

Stalin's writing style is concise and to the point, since his audience was mainly the working class with little to no understanding of Marxism. While Marx and Lenin will go into several details due to their intellectual background, Engels doing the same to a lesser degree. As far as Stalin's "Anarchism or Socialism," it's an historical piece, it's not meant to be looked at as the critique of modern-day anarchism (though numerous flaws Stalin noted in his critique are still apparent even today). Trotsky is skilled at writing polemics, but there are times when the reader gets the impression that he goes on a tangent. As for Mao, he is short and concise, but his mistaken understanding of dialectical materialism and experimenting with metaphysical ideas such as considering the superstructure before the base show that he was not as sufficiently rooted in Marxist ideas as Stalin was.

It's good to read literature, even of tendencies you dislike. Helps to broaden your understanding of the left as a whole and makes your criticisms sound more reasonable if you know what it is you're criticizing.

[bailey_187]

I'll likely just skip Marx though as I have read the Manifesto, and i'm nowhere near confident enough to venture into Kapital.

You may want to try this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Marx-Economics-Karl/dp/0156574799/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240608125&sr=8-2

Its a collection of excerpts of Marx's writing on economics (most being from Capital) with a summary explaining what it means from the editor

Obviously its not a substitute for Capital, but its a good way to read Capital and be able to understand it

[LOLseph Stalin]

It's good to read literature, even of tendencies you dislike. Helps to broaden your understanding of the left as a whole and makes your criticisms sound more reasonable if you know what it is you're criticizing.

Yes, that was pretty much my idea behind it. At least if I want to criticize something I disagree with I should at least have a basic understanding of it. I've been noticing too that most of my knowledge of Stalin is from obviously biased right wing sources.


You may want to try this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Marx-Economics...0608125&sr=8-2 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.amazon.com/Marx-Economics-Karl/dp/0156574799/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240608125&sr=8-2)

Thanks! I'm saved...at least for now...

[Charles Xavier]

You dont have to read the major works, theres a lot of great smaller essays.

You got a spare dime get this book: It clips out specific arguments of marx engels and lenin on anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism. Theres other books this type where marx engels and/or lenin are clipped out on specific subjects. I got for example Lenin on National Liberation. Its like a compacted version of all his essays into the specific argument on national liberation.

http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Anarcho-Syndicalism-Engels-Frederick-Lenin/dp/B000LEJGK0

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Everybody, don't read Twilight.

Alright, that's my sadistic tendencies satisfied for the day.

That was fantastic.

(Your response, not Twilight)

[dez]

Stalin's writing style is concise and to the point, since his audience was mainly the working class with little to no understanding of Marxism. While Marx and Lenin will go into several details due to their intellectual background, Engels doing the same to a lesser degree. As far as Stalin's "Anarchism or Socialism," it's an historical piece, it's not meant to be looked at as the critique of modern-day anarchism (though numerous flaws Stalin noted in his critique are still apparent even today). Trotsky is skilled at writing polemics, but there are times when the reader gets the impression that he goes on a tangent. As for Mao, he is short and concise, but his mistaken understanding of dialectical materialism and experimenting with metaphysical ideas such as considering the superstructure before the base show that he was not as sufficiently rooted in Marxist ideas as Stalin was.

It's good to read literature, even of tendencies you dislike. Helps to broaden your understanding of the left as a whole and makes your criticisms sound more reasonable if you know what it is you're criticizing.

I fully agree with this, hence I quote it.
You, sir, stole my words.


Also, may I suggest the OP to start with articles from engels and lenin (they are often really the easiest!)..

[Sean]

It being easy helps a lot. I haven't even finished the first chapter of Das Kapital cause it's so fucking complicated.
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/daskapital/section1.html