Big Book of Communism?

[Cyberwave]

Is there one, big book or encyclopedia of communism; all of it? I have various sites bookmarked such as Marxist encyclopedia, but I'm looking for a physical book if possible.

[Manifesto]

Honestly I do not think a book could be made that had every Communist work.

[Luisrah]

Honestly I do not think a book could be made that had every Communist work.

Honestly, no one wold agree on which things to put in there, as the Maoists would say they need to include works by Mao, the Trotskyists works by Trotsky etc...

But that would already be dreaming too far, they wouldn't even talk about doing it, because they'd start a tendency war as soon as they got all into the same room. lol :p

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Well, it's far from perfect, but there is at least this (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/index.htm).

EDIT: Oh whoops! Sorry, you said you were looking for a physical book, didn't you? Um...don't think I know of one. Well, maybe if you stock up on print paper...;)

[RadioRaheem84]

There was a book written by an Oxford Professor not too long ago. I forgot the name of the book. From the couple of chapters I read, it seems fair from a liberal standpoint.

[Robocommie]

Haha, it'd be like a Marxist Bible.

"And now, a reading from the first letter of Engels to the Parisians..."

[Ismail]

You might be interested in A Dictionary of Political Economy, which was published in the USSR in 1985 and is in English: http://leninist.biz/en/1985/DOPE397/index.html

There's also Fundamentals of Political Economy; the 1954 Edition (http://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.net/english/polecon/FrmIntIndex1.htm) and the 1980 Edition (http://leninist.biz/en/1980/FPE287/index.html).

There's also an English edition of the Chinese variant of the book written in 1977: http://www.archive.org/details/FundamentalsOfPoliticalEconomy

[Manifesto]

Honestly, no one wold agree on which things to put in there, as the Maoists would say they need to include works by Mao, the Trotskyists works by Trotsky etc...

Was talking more about the fact that it would have to be bigger and heavier than the Devil's Bible (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/devil-s-bible-3619/Overview) itself. If it was say all of Marxists.org the size would be too much too lift. But I don't really see how it would become tendency wars if it was as open as all Communist work unless they started going "Trotsky/Stalin wasn't Communist!!!!".

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm not sure what exactly a 'Big book of communism' would entail.

[Cyberwave]

I'm not sure what exactly a 'Big book of communism' would entail.

Just basically all the derivatives of itself with a lot of detail, key figures, etc. I'd mainly be interested in it to see the "lesser known" derivatives of communism like Titoism for example... Or to have every argument against capitalism evar. xD

And UGH. The Devil's Bible is really interesting. I saw the documentary of it on NatGeo a few weeks ago too. :)

[cb9's_unity]

Any 'big book of communism' would be likely to suffer a major bias from its author/editor. Most books on communism have blatant pro-capitalist bias and care little for the actual ideology of communism. Even books on communists by communists will have some bias from the authors tendency.

There really is no quick way to understand the history of the communist movement. You have to be willing to constantly change your mind and then take everything with a grain of salt. There's an endless supply of opinions and a near endless supply of primary sources.

[scarletghoul]

Some of you seem to be missing Cyberwave's idea; he doesn't mean just a compilation of communist writings, he means a massive encyclopædia-style reference book with articles on communist history, ideas, figures, tendencies etc.

I think it would actually be awesome if such a book existed. Of course there'd be a bit of tendency war going on in the making of it but it would certainly be worhwhile, to counter reactionary books if nothing else.

[cb9's_unity]

He was asking if one existed, no satisfactory one that I know of exists.

However an actual communist encyclopedia would be interesting. If we could get a large collection of tendency's with quite a few it would actually be an interesting project. If a common definition or description of a term couldn't be settled upon there could always just be different entry's by different tendency's. Thats the only way I can think of creating an encyclopedia that doesn't seriously alienate a large portion of the communist movement. It would also show the diversity of the movement.

[Floyce White]

Y'all are confusing socialism (a form of capitalism) with communism (not a form of capitalism). Politicians of upper-class family origin, such as Marx, wrote from their various upper-class perspectives and promoted their own property interests. Their political businesses (factions, tendencies, etc.) were not then and are not now the one united party of the lower class.

When those upper-class figures decided to put time, effort, and money into publishing, they always ignored the actual writings and speeches of worker activists of their day. Rather than making an annual compendium of the actual words of communists--what would have become your "encyclopedia"--those political bosses instead spewed their own ruminations about what they thought the workers "should have said."

So the programs, manifestoes, and positions of various "leaders" are fake "communisms" intended to recruit workers to be the arms and legs of factions of the petty bourgeoisie.

[cb9's_unity]

Y'all are confusing socialism (a form of capitalism) with communism (not a form of capitalism). Politicians of upper-class family origin, such as Marx, wrote from their various upper-class perspectives and promoted their own property interests. Their political businesses (factions, tendencies, etc.) were not then and are not now the one united party of the lower class.

Marx was supporting his own property interests? What property interests? The guy had a bourgeois background but he more or less lived a hand to mouth existence. Engles father owned a factory but him and Marx both argued that workers should be taking over factory's. If anything they were arguing against their class interests.

And for quite a long time socialism and communism could be used quite interchangeably. Your probably buying the bourgeois bullshit that socialism is nothing more that public ownership or government intervention in the economy. Real socialists have always been staunchly anti-capitalist and I like to see where you can get the idea that they weren't. Some social-democrats still say their socialist but anyone with any understanding of socialist history will understand how far away from socialism they are. You've got some learnin to do.

[Tablo]

Y'all are confusing socialism (a form of capitalism) with communism (not a form of capitalism). Politicians of upper-class family origin, such as Marx, wrote from their various upper-class perspectives and promoted their own property interests. Their political businesses (factions, tendencies, etc.) were not then and are not now the one united party of the lower class.

When those upper-class figures decided to put time, effort, and money into publishing, they always ignored the actual writings and speeches of worker activists of their day. Rather than making an annual compendium of the actual words of communists--what would have become your "encyclopedia"--those political bosses instead spewed their own ruminations about what they thought the workers "should have said."

So the programs, manifestoes, and positions of various "leaders" are fake "communisms" intended to recruit workers to be the arms and legs of factions of the petty bourgeoisie.
You are completely wrong. Socialism is democratic control of the workplace and economy by the workers. How does that have ANYTHING to do with Capitalism?

[Floyce White]

Marx was supporting his own property interests? What property interests? The guy had a bourgeois background but he more or less lived a hand to mouth existence.


I could dig through my old posts and cut-and-paste how I answered this before. But the gist of it was that the assertion that a person of bourgeois family origin became proletarianized is just that: a mere assertion. Sheer assertions do not form a probable argument. There's nowhere for you to go with that. Dead end.



Engles father owned a factory but him and Marx both argued that workers should be taking over factory's. If anything they were arguing against their class interests.


Informed and educated authors of political documents do not argue against their own interests. In my Antiproperty essays I showed how it is in the interests of petty bourgeois to say whatever they have to say to get workers to attack those bourgeois' bigger enemies.



And for quite a long time socialism and communism could be used quite interchangeably.


Not since at least World War I. To casually suggest that the two terms mean more or less the same thing is to make a profound political assertion that "socialism is communism." In the first and eleventh Antiproperty essays I specifically attacked that idea.


Your probably buying the bourgeois bullshit... You've got some learnin to do.


Ignoring the fact that I was a day-to-day activist for over 21 years before you were born, ignoring the fact that I spelled out my views on these matters in a series of essays, ignoring the fact that my father and his father before him never owned any factory, any capital of any sort, that might have tainted my perceptions...you should not respond with the ad hominem fallacy that anyone who disagrees with you does so out of ignorance.

[cb9's_unity]

I could dig through my old posts and cut-and-paste how I answered this before. But the gist of it was that the assertion that a person of bourgeois family origin became proletarianized is just that: a mere assertion. Sheer assertions do not form a probable argument. There's nowhere for you to go with that. Dead end.

Informed and educated authors of political documents do not argue against their own interests. In my Antiproperty essays I showed how it is in the interests of petty bourgeois to say whatever they have to say to get workers to attack those bourgeois' bigger enemies.

Are you arguing that because Marx and Engels were of bourgeois background they could not have possibly argued in favor of the working class? Is it physically impossible for them to argue against their original class interests?

You can't change the fact that Engels argued in favor of workers taking over factory's and becoming the dominant class. How is that not arguing against his class interest? The person's ideas is more important than the person who said it. If Marx was born into the working class and wrote the same body of work that wouldn't mean his ideas were any more pro-worker.


Not since at least World War I. To casually suggest that the two terms mean more or less the same thing is to make a profound political assertion that "socialism is communism." In the first and eleventh Antiproperty essays I specifically attacked that idea.

After WWI socialism and communism did began to have different connotations. However that doesn't change the origins of the words and how they were used for decades before that. The social-democrats don't get to own the word socialism just as the comintern doesn't get to own the word communism. In america communism means a one party dictatorship- just because a massive amount of people use that definition doesn't mean the definition of the word has changed.


Ignoring the fact that I was a day-to-day activist for over 21 years before you were born, ignoring the fact that I spelled out my views on these matters in a series of essays, ignoring the fact that my father and his father before him never owned any factory, any capital of any sort, that might have tainted my perceptions...you should not respond with the ad hominem fallacy that anyone who disagrees with you does so out of ignorance.

I apologize for not reading every one of your works and scanning through all of your posts before I dared to reply to you. I have never seen your argument before, i apologize for the assumption.

However just because you apparently have pure working class DNA doesn't make your argument any more valid.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I could dig through my old posts and cut-and-paste how I answered this before. But the gist of it was that the assertion that a person of bourgeois family origin became proletarianized is just that: a mere assertion. Sheer assertions do not form a probable argument. There's nowhere for you to go with that. Dead end.





Informed and educated authors of political documents do not argue against their own interests. In my Antiproperty essays I showed how it is in the interests of petty bourgeois to say whatever they have to say to get workers to attack those bourgeois' bigger enemies.





Not since at least World War I. To casually suggest that the two terms mean more or less the same thing is to make a profound political assertion that "socialism is communism." In the first and eleventh Antiproperty essays I specifically attacked that idea.




Ignoring the fact that I was a day-to-day activist for over 21 years before you were born, ignoring the fact that I spelled out my views on these matters in a series of essays, ignoring the fact that my father and his father before him never owned any factory, any capital of any sort, that might have tainted my perceptions...you should not respond with the ad hominem fallacy that anyone who disagrees with you does so out of ignorance.

when exactly did we say that, within a direct notion, that socialism is communism? Socialism is an economic theory of where we would transition ourselves away from the political/economic theory, capitalism, to communism. The assertion of socialism is the same as communism is slightly wrong, but what is even more wrong is the idea that socialism is capitalism, when the two have different economic rulings from one another. So I don't know how you came up with this.

[piet11111]

if any such book would ever be written it would probably come with wheels :laugh:

[Floyce White]

cb9's_unity: "Are you arguing that because Marx and Engels were of bourgeois background they could not have possibly argued in favor of the working class? Is it physically impossible for them to argue against their original class interests?"

Yes. This is exactly what I am saying.

cb9's_unity: "...just because a massive amount of people use that definition doesn't mean the definition of the word has changed."

Uninformed (vulgar) usage by nonactivists has no effect on the informed (scientific) usage by activists.

cb9's_unity: "I have never seen your argument before, I apologize for the assumption."

No problem. For your convenience use this link:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071005064847/http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html

The Vegan Anarchist: "When exactly did we say that, within a direct notion, that socialism is communism? Socialism is an economic theory of where we would transition ourselves away from the political/economic theory, capitalism, to communism."

You just did. Please use the same link to access my argument against Marx's theory of a "lower order of communism."

[spiltteeth]

From Marx to Gramsci: A Reader in Revolutionary Marxist Politics : Historical Overview and Selection by Paul Le Blanc

[ZeroNowhere]

This, incidentally, is the aforementioned critique of Marx's initial phase of communist society:


Class society is the society of classes of property ownership. Property classes cannot exist without property. The abolition of property in every form is the abolition of class society. Support for a “lower phase” called “socialism” that continues property relations is merely another way to defend class society and its exploitation of the working class.Incidentally:


Without a doubt, all upper-class reasoning defends exploitation.No doubt Marx's demonstration of how capitalism leads to man's social relations standing over himself, crises, and why it can't work in the interests of the working class is defending exploitation.

[The Idler]

Main Currents of Marxism by Leszek Kolakowski has been updated in 2008 but represents a critical albeit fairly comprehensive approach. With 1312 pages I'd say its fair to describe it as a big book.
In fact, most of the big books are critical;
Comrades: Communism: A World History by Robert Service (571 pages)
The Rise and Fall of Communism by Archie Brown (Oxford University professor) (736 pages)
The Red Flag by David Priestland (736 pages)

[Floyce White]

No doubt Marx's demonstration of how capitalism leads to man's social relations standing over himself, crises, and why it can't work in the interests of the working class is defending exploitation.

A list of topics that Marx explored is hardly the same as an in-depth analysis of his reasonings behind the various positions he took on the various subarguments in each topic.

At any rate, I left it to the reader to explore Marx's reasonings for his theory of "lower phase of communism" and so forth.

The basic idea is the polar opposite of the idea that individuals--not families--are the basic units of class society, and that individuals may somehow become "classless" or "bourgeoisified" or "proletarianized" in some sort of hypothetical isolation from their families (which neither Marx nor Engels had).