If any of my fellow comrades would help me out...

[GiantBear91]

Would it be possible if I could get someone with a good knowlege of Marxism to help me with my studies of the subject/practices? Like sort of a teaching session of some sort... I geuss.
Im in need of help, and the best way to learn is from someone who is a Marxist themself.

Thank you all,
Bear

[New Tet]

Would it be possible if I could get someone with a good knowlege of Marxism to help me with my studies of the subject/practices? Like sort of a teaching session of some sort... I geuss.
Im in need of help, and the best way to learn is from someone who is a Marxist themself.

Thank you all,
Bear

As far as I can tell (which isn't really too, too far) a good place to start is http://www.slp.org

[GiantBear91]

Thank you comrade.

[Radical]

Equality, Unity, Love for Humanity!

[mel]

Equality, Unity, Love for Humanity!

Empty words! The original poster was looking for a teacher, not propaganda.

[mykittyhasaboner]

As far as I can tell (which isn't really too, too far) a good place to start is http://www.slp.org

The above post goes for this too, you don't give someone who want's to learn about Marxism, a political parties website. That can lead to all kind of messed up preconceptions because political parties explain their interpretation of historical events and politics, rather than a sober analysis describing class struggle, Marxism, etc.

____


To the OP, the best way to learn all about Marxism is to read the works of Marxists (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxists.org). A good introduction is What is Marxism? (http://marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm). This is the most helpful website you are likely to find, because it contains all the most famous and detailed works, pictures, and other information relating to communism, Marxism, etc etc.

[New Tet]

The above post goes for this too, you don't give someone who want's to learn about Marxism, a political parties website. That can lead to all kind of messed up preconceptions because political parties explain their interpretation of historical events and politics, rather than a sober analysis describing class struggle, Marxism, etc.

You could argue that only if you knew the SLP's web site to be a repository of unsustainable assertions. But I suspect that you know very little, if anything about the SLP so maybe you're just reacting to your own confused feelings and "messed up misconsceptions".


To the OP, the best way to learn all about Marxism is to read the works of Marxists (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxists.org).

I agree with this statement. Almost fully, but not quite. In my experience, it is more enjoyable and instuctive to read Marx and Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/index.htm) than any number of Marxist interpreters, including Chomsky (http://www.chomsky.info/), whom I greatly respect. But for early Marxists, and when it comes to a mostly anglo-American audience, I would vote Daniel De Leon (http://www.slp.org/De_Leon.htm#anchor345364) as posibly the best exponent of Marxist thought in the English languance.


A good introduction is What is Marxism? (http://marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm). This is the most helpful website you are likely to find, because it contains all the most famous and detailed works, pictures, and other information relating to communism, Marxism, etc.
Yeah, but why treat our movement's scientific rationale as some sort of religion? Especially when approaching interested novices? The fundamental question all of us who wish to learn about the whole ball-o-wax [must ask] is "What Is Socialism?" (http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm) From there all else flows...

[mel]

I'd agree that a person's first exposure to a political position shouldn't be from a political party, because every party believes that it has the "correct" interpretation of communist ideology and will push a particular slant. First exposures should be to the primary sources when possible, or at least sources not affiliated with a specific party.

I'm not familiar with the SLP in particular, but chances are it is guilty of having a different interpretation of some aspect of theory than other parties. This isn't a bad thing, but it's important for first exposures to be to generally accepted theories from unbiased sources.

[mykittyhasaboner]

You could argue that only if you knew the SLP's web site to be a repository of unsustainable assertions. But I suspect that you know very little, if anything about the SLP so maybe you're just reacting to your own confused feelings and "messed up misconsceptions".
I don't need to know anything about the SLP, because the bottom line is, that someone wishing to learn about socialism and marxism should read some basics first, rather than a political parties interpenetration of socialism or marxism.


Yeah, but why treat our movement's scientific rationale as some sort of religion? Especially when approaching interested novices? The fundamental question all of us who wish to learn about the whole ball-o-wax [must ask] is "What Is Socialism?" (http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm) From there all else flows...
Um, how was I in anyway "treating our movement's scientific rationale as some sort of religion?"

[mel]

Um, how was I in anyway "treating our movement's scientific rationale as some sort of religion?"

I can't speak for the poster, but I interpreted this as taking issue with your introductory link being "What is Marxism?" as opposed to "What is Socialism?" as "Marxism" is the movement's scientific rationale and your linking it as if it were a necessary component of the movement as a whole was "religious", but I could be wrong.

I also happen to disagree that starting with "What is Marxism?" is necessarily bad, as Marx did a lot more than explain scientifically why socialism was important and how it might work, and because Marx actually answers those questions in his writings, starting there couldn't possibly be bad.

[anticap]

To the OP, the best way to learn all about Marxism is to read the works of Marxists. A good introduction is What is Marxism?. This is the most helpful website you are likely to find, because it contains all the most famous and detailed works, pictures, and other information relating to communism, Marxism, etc etc.

I'll second that comment. The MIA is the best repository of Marxism online, and the students section is very helpful.

(BTW, I had to strip the links due to post count, but the first one is malformed.)

[mykittyhasaboner]

I can't speak for the poster, but I interpreted this as taking issue with your introductory link being "What is Marxism?" as opposed to "What is Socialism?" as "Marxism" is the movement's scientific rationale and your linking it as if it were a necessary component of the movement as a whole was "religious", but I could be wrong.

I see. Well then the poster is wrong, because the OP asked for an explanation of Marxism. Also, if "treating it like a religion" is what I'm doing, then fine. Id rather give someone who's learning an (relatively speaking) unbiased source of information regarding Marxism, rather than a political parties web page which inhibits the readers ability to form their own opinions on certain issues. For example, the link New Tet gave does a decent job at quickly outlining socialism, but it openly gives a one-sided interpretation of the former Soviet Union, and China (which is actually contradictory in itself, let me demonstrate:


Besides electing all necessary shop officers, the workers will also elect representatives to a local and national council of their industry or service—and to a central congress representing all the industries and services. This all-industrial congress will plan and coordinate production in all areas of the economy.All well and good, but even though this is how the governments of the Soviet Union and (formerly) China were operated:


Remember: If it does not fit this description, it is not socialism—no matter who says different. Those who claim that socialism existed and failed in places like Russia and China simply do not know the facts.
Socialism has never existed. It did not exist in the old U.S.S.R., and it does not exist in China. Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives—the industries, services and natural resources—are collectively owned by all the people, and in which the democratic organization of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time.


I also happen to disagree that starting with "What is Marxism?" is necessarily bad, as Marx did a lot more than explain scientifically why socialism was important and how it might work, and because Marx actually answers those questions in his writings, starting there couldn't possibly be bad.Exactly.


____


Oh and to the OP, if you have any more questions or concerns, feel free to post it here so I or others can try and help you as best we can.

[New Tet]

I don't need to know anything about the SLP, because the bottom line is, that someone wishing to learn about socialism and marxism should read some basics first, rather than a political parties interpenetration of socialism or marxism.

Marxism is a political and economic philosophy; socialism its ultimate goal. Marxism in the abstract is useless unless accompanied by a political and economic program. A political party of socialism is duty-bound to create a program from its critique of the philosophy that shapes its world view, in this case Marxism.

And yes, anyone who calls himself a Marxist and decides to remain ignorant of the SLP and of De Leonism is, at best, a sectarian in the making. I, who am no a member of the SLP, promote the SLP not because I think it is the best organization, but because it is by far the best source of edifying socialist education in the English language.

And BTW, the SLP does not "interpret" Marxism; it critiques it as required and offers a clear and unequivocal assessment of capitalism FROM THE WORKING CLASS PERSPECTIVE. In other words the SLP's literature aims at elevating the working class-consciousness of the average proletarian.


Um, how was I in anyway "treating our movement's scientific rationale as some sort of religion?"Because you are offering a source that is possibly (as yet) beyond the grasp of someone who might be seeking more fundmental, more basic information that will not mislead him. And because implied in your first intervention is the misleading insinuation that just because a source is ostensibly unattached to party or tendency they are somehow incapable of distortion and infallible.

[New Tet]

I can't speak for the poster, but I interpreted this as taking issue with your introductory link being "What is Marxism?" as opposed to "What is Socialism?" as "Marxism" is the movement's scientific rationale and your linking it as if it were a necessary component of the movement as a whole was "religious", but I could be wrong.

I also happen to disagree that starting with "What is Marxism?" is necessarily bad, as Marx did a lot more than explain scientifically why socialism was important and how it might work, and because Marx actually answers those questions in his writings, starting there couldn't possibly be bad.

If only it were the case. But what Marx did the least of in his voluminous writings was to "explain scientifically why socialism was important and how it might work". In fact, what he did the most of in his writing was explain how capitalism works. It was the task of others, including Engels, to give shape to their ideas of what the world could look like if capitalism were abolished and its material progress preserved.

[New Tet]

I see. Well then the poster is wrong, because the OP asked for an explanation of Marxism. Also, if "treating it like a religion" is what I'm doing, then fine. Id rather give someone who's learning an (relatively speaking) unbiased source of information regarding Marxism,

Any Marxist worth his salt knows that the refrain of "unbiased" is a bourgeois myth. It is Idealism and as such diametrically opposed to the materialist conception of history, one of the cornerstones of Marxism.

It is absurd to presume that someone who teaches Marxism ought to be unbiased about it when Marxism itself is the most openly biased philosophy yet discovered. Of course, Marxism (the real stuff) is a biased philosophy that relies entirely on an objective, scientific analysis of reality.


rather than a political parties web page which inhibits the readers ability to form their own opinions on certain issues. For example, the link New Tet gave does a decent job at quickly outlining socialism, but it openly gives a one-sided interpretation of the former Soviet Union, and China (which is actually contradictory in itself, let me demonstrate:

How one forms "their own opinion" about anything without being exposed to a multiple of opinions is beyond me. But that seems to be the case with you. Especially in regard to whether or not the USSR or China were ever socialist. Read the literature, especially "The Nature of Soviet Society" (http://www.slp.org/pdf/others/sov_soc.pdf).

All well and good, but even though this is how the governments of the Soviet Union and (formerly) China were operated:

No they were not. Workers were never in control of the Soviet state, in the USSR or China: "After The Revolution, Who Rules?" (http://www.slp.org/pdf/others/after_rev.pdf)

[mel]

Any Marxist worth his salt knows that the refrain of "unbiased" is a bourgeois myth.

Just saying, "Marx" is a less biased source on the subject of "Marx" than a political party, because the political party adds its own interpretation of Marx in addition to the writings of Marx.

Of course Marxism is "biased", but this is not the type of bias that mykittyhasaboner was talking about. A political party will interpret Marx's writings and there are a variety of different interpretations of Marx's writings. If somebody asks what Marx believed why would you point them to the writings of a political party instead of to the writings of Marx except if you want them to obtain an understanding of Marx based on the (relatively more) biased account of what Marx believed that said political party espouses?

[New Tet]

Just saying, "Marx" is a less biased source on the subject of "Marx" than a political party, because the political party adds its own interpretation of Marx in addition to the writings of Marx.

Of course Marxism is "biased", but this is not the type of bias that mykittyhasaboner was talking about. A political party will interpret Marx's writings and there are a variety of different interpretations of Marx's writings. If somebody asks what Marx believed why would you point them to the writings of a political party instead of to the writings of Marx except if you want them to obtain an understanding of Marx based on the (relatively more) biased account of what Marx believed that said political party espouses?

But BigBear did not ask about about "what Marx believed", either. He asked for some guidance on sources and a maybe a study guide on the "subject/practices".

I would argue that Marxism is much more than just "what Marx believed". Wouldn't you agree?

[mel]

But BigBear did not ask about about "what Marx believed", either. He asked for some guidance on sources and a maybe a study guide on the "subject/practices".

To be completely fair, BigBear asked for a mentor that would explain the concepts, and everyone else has been posting links to sources because they think those sources are helpful.


I would argue that Marxism is much more than just "what Marx believed". Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, but how can you tell somebody who wants to know about Marxism to go to anybody but Marx first? Different interpretations should come after the basics. If you attempt to teach somebody the basics by sending them to a website which espouses a common, but by NO means universally held belief, that the USSR and China were never examples of Socialism at any point in their history, it serves to bias that person against Marxist-Leninist and Maoist strains of the Marxist line, which deserve valid consideration, and the best way to see if they are in line with what Marx advocated is to study Marx.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Marxism is a political and economic philosophy; socialism its ultimate goal. Marxism in the abstract is useless unless accompanied by a political and economic program. A political party of socialism is duty-bound to create a program from its critique of the philosophy that shapes its world view, in this case Marxism.

And yes, anyone who calls himself a Marxist and decides to remain ignorant of the SLP and of De Leonism is, at best, a sectarian in the making. I, who am no a member of the SLP, promote the SLP not because I think it is the best organization, but because it is by far the best source of edifying socialist education in the English language.

And BTW, the SLP does not "interpret" Marxism; it critiques it as required and offers a clear and unequivocal assessment of capitalism FROM THE WORKING CLASS PERSPECTIVE. In other words the SLP's literature aims at elevating the working class-consciousness of the average proletarian.
This is irrelevant, I don't care what the SLP is or does.


Because you are offering a source that is possibly (as yet) beyond the grasp of someone who might be seeking more fundmental, more basic information that will not mislead him. And because implied in your first intervention is the misleading insinuation that just because a source is ostensibly unattached to party or tendency they are somehow incapable of distortion and infallible.
What is Marxism, is pretty basic, there are other things on that website too. Nothing is "misleading" here, but you, giving a political parties analysis, to someone who wants to learn the basics of Marxism, class struggle, and socialism.


Any Marxist worth his salt knows that the refrain of "unbiased" is a bourgeois myth. It is Idealism and as such diametrically opposed to the materialist conception of history, one of the cornerstones of Marxism.

If you looked closely, I wrote "relatively speaking"; meaning that in relation to a political party's info and analysis, I gave a non-affiliated source. If you weren't too busy boasting your pompous arrogance, you might have thought about that. Maybe you should just chill out.


It is absurd to presume that someone who teaches Marxism ought to be unbiased about it when Marxism itself is the most openly biased philosophy yet discovered. Of course, Marxism (the real stuff) is a biased philosophy that relies entirely on an objective, scientific analysis of reality.
Your discussing something that's pretty much irrelevant. Think about it this way, what if revleft was endorsed by a single political party? What everyone here be on it? No.



How one forms "their own opinion" about anything without being exposed to a multiple of opinions is beyond me.
One forms their own opinion by learning the basics first, instead of something that already dismisses two socialist countries and claims socialism has never been tried. That's not how someone forms their own opinion, that's how someone ends up mimicking the opinion of others.



But that seems to be the case with you.
No, not really, your just putting words in my mouth. But im not surprised.


Especially in regard to whether or not the USSR or China were ever socialist. Read the literature, especially "The Nature of Soviet Society" (http://www.slp.org/pdf/others/sov_soc.pdf).
No they were not. Workers were never in control of the Soviet state, in the USSR or China: "After The Revolution, Who Rules?" (http://www.slp.org/pdf/others/after_rev.pdf)
Thanks, I'll ignore all of this. I dont' really care about your opinion.

[New Tet]

Thanks, I'll ignore all of this. I dont' really care about your opinion.

You've done a pretty good job of pretending otherwise.

[mykittyhasaboner]

You've done a pretty good job of pretending otherwise.
Thanks.

[Manifesto]

This could help. http://www.marxists.org/

[New Tet]

This is irrelevant, I don't care what the SLP is or does.[\QUOTE]

That's your right. But a true Marxist ought to care what others who claim to be Marxists are saying about the subject. In a Marxist, natural curiosity is a given, I think.

[QUOTE]What is Marxism, is pretty basic, there are other things on that website too. Nothing is "misleading" here, but you, giving a political parties analysis, to someone who wants to learn the basics of Marxism, class struggle, and socialism.

Here you sidestep the salient point: Just because someone is unaffiliated does not mean they are infallible and incapable of distortion. Furthermore, you indulge in the bourgeois myth of impartiality. In the class struggle, no one is unbiased or impartial.




If you looked closely, I wrote "relatively speaking"; meaning that in relation to a political party's info and analysis, I gave a non-affiliated source. If you weren't too busy boasting your pompous arrogance, you might have thought about that. Maybe you should just chill out.

Let me put it bluntly: "non-affiliated" Marxsm is bullshit. There's no such thing.

[ComradeOm]

Would it be possible if I could get someone with a good knowlege of Marxism to help me with my studies of the subject/practices? Like sort of a teaching session of some sort... I geuss.
Im in need of help, and the best way to learn is from someone who is a Marxist themself.

Thank you all,
BearWell if you have questions then go ahead and ask. But, as you can see, on the internet this always carries certain risks. If you want a good introduction to Marxism then probably the best course of action is to buy a reader or textbook that covers the basics and study it yourself. Then you'll be in a position to come back with specific questions

Personally I'd recommend the Dynamics of Social Change (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dynamics-social-change-Marxist-writings/dp/0717802426/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246103429&sr=8-1) which explains the various aspects of Marxism in Marx's own words. I found it extremely useful when I was at your stage

[robbo203]

Would it be possible if I could get someone with a good knowlege of Marxism to help me with my studies of the subject/practices? Like sort of a teaching session of some sort... I geuss.
Im in need of help, and the best way to learn is from someone who is a Marxist themself.

Thank you all,
Bear


Bear. There is quite a useful A-Z of Marxism here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/AZ.html You might like to browse through it

[New Tet]

Bear. There is quite a useful A-Z of Marxism here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/AZ.html You might like to browse through it

Watch out, "mickeymousehasaboner" will reproach you for posting a link to an non-non-affiliated site.

[GiantBear91]

Again, Comrades, Thank you all! The links posted will help me with my studies a lot. Ill have to read them at my other PC because the one I am on right now has a horrible internet connection.

But again, thank you,
Bear.