Reading/Learning Material for a 16 year old

[Connolly16ir.net]

I'm a sixteen year old, irish republican socialist. I want a 32 county Socialist Irish Republic, I see it as a stepping stone towards international communism. How ever I can not decide what tendency I fall into. My political compass results are:

Economic Left/right: -9.8
Social Liberal/Authoritarian: -7.2

I've read the Communist Manifesto plus quite a few essays on communism and I post extensively on other political forums. So I'm not a total noob. I'd like to know the titles and authors of the best books/sites for me to learn more from. I'd also appreciate if you could give me links to other appropriate material; i.e. Videos.

Thanks! :D
:hammersickle: Connolly16 :hammersickle:

[Nikolay]

Everything you want to learn is right here: http://www.marxists.org/ :thumbup:

[Misanthrope]

You can always learn from reading posts here as well! Good luck

[Susurrus]

No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism is a good starter for that, and The Marx-Engels Reader 2nd ed. is a great thing for Marxist introduction.

[Kadir Ateş]

You should consider The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.

[Broletariat]

The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin

Also, did you learn nothing from the Manifesto

"The working men have no country."

[Kadir Ateş]

Broletariat, he's 16. At 16, I was working some shitty job and had zero interest in anything remotely intellectual. This kid gets my respect!

[Marxaveli]

I'm a sixteen year old, irish republican socialist. I want a 32 county Socialist Irish Republic, I see it as a stepping stone towards international communism. How ever I can not decide what tendency I fall into. My political compass results are:

Economic Left/right: -9.8
Social Liberal/Authoritarian: -7.2

I've read the Communist Manifesto plus quite a few essays on communism and I post extensively on other political forums. So I'm not a total noob. I'd like to know the titles and authors of the best books/sites for me to learn more from. I'd also appreciate if you could give me links to other appropriate material; i.e. Videos.

Thanks! :D
:hammersickle: Connolly16 :hammersickle:

A socialist state is not possible. Remember, socialism is a global thing, NOT a state thing. But good to see you are interested and headed in the right direction and view our world for what it really is.

As for tendencies, I wouldnt worry too much about it, we all have the same goal. But judging from your political compass, you look to be one who could fall into one of the many sub-branches of Libertarian Socialism, much like myself. But it's really trivial for the most part.

[Broletariat]

Broletariat, he's 16. At 16, I was working some shitty job and had zero interest in anything remotely intellectual. This kid gets my respect!

Certainly he deserves respect, but I respect him enough to call him out, to criticise him and allow him to grow intellectually because of it.

If I did not respect him I would let the comment pass, assuming him too stupid to see the error of his ways.

[NewLeft]

Some basic materials:

Anarchism and other essays - Goldman
Selected writings - Marx (reading this myself)
Thought not a Marxist, I really enjoyed 'Unorthodox Marxism' by Albert

[Connolly16ir.net]

The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin

Also, did you learn nothing from the Manifesto

"The working men have no country."


I did, read my post, I see the republic as stage that will come in the interim between the current system and internationalist communism.

[Rooster]

You can go here and watch videos and read the (expanded) transcripts about Marxist economics:

http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com

He has a beard so you know he's legit and his videos usually always get a mention in these kind of threads.

[El Louton]

Hey Comrade I'm 15 and have the same problem. I asked this question and got quite a good number of replies. Here's a link to my thread, I hope it helps!

http://www.revleft.com/vb/reading-list-t160940/index.html?t=160940

[Die Rote Fahne]

Ross Luxemburg - The National Question.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Anything by the major leftist philosophers: Marx, Friedrich Engles, V.I Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Mikhail Baukin, Rosa Luxenburg, etc.

My favorite is still The State and Revolution (V.I Lenin) and anything by Howard Zinn.

[thriller]

I'm going to have to rep Eugene Debs here. Unionism and Socialism: A Plea for Both and Revolutionary Unionism are both good, and very inspiring. I always felt Debs was one of the most eloquent of the socialists writers of his time (early 1900's).

Unionism and Socialism: http://books.google.com/books/about/Unionism_and_socialism.html?id=42BMAAAAIAAJ it's free
Revolutionary Unionism: http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1905/revunion.htm

[Zealot]

since everyone else is leaving a shameless tendency plug...

The Foundations Of Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm)

Can also check out the user brendanmcooney on youtube.

State And Revolution is always good also Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism if you want to know why capitalism always leads to imperialism.

[The Idler]

Left Archive: The Irish Question: A Socialist Analysis – A ... (http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/left-archive-the-irish-question-a-socialist-analysis-a-wereldsocialisme-pamphlet-spgb-1976/)

[Broletariat]

I did, read my post, I see the republic as stage that will come in the interim between the current system and internationalist communism.


Yours is a national liberation struggle, on this you should see Luxembourg

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm

[Connolly16ir.net]

A socialist state is not possible. Remember, socialism is a global thing, NOT a state thing. But good to see you are interested and headed in the right direction and view our world for what it really is.

As for tendencies, I wouldnt worry too much about it, we all have the same goal. But judging from your political compass, you look to be one who could fall into one of the many sub-branches of Libertarian Socialism, much like myself. But it's really trivial for the most part.

What would you call Cuba, Venezuela and the old Soviet Union then? They were socialist states. I'm aware that there can't be a communist state, I thought socialism was the stage prior to communism or anarchy?

[NormalG]

15? 16? just marveling in the beauty...

[Desperado]

What would you call Cuba, Venezuela and the old Soviet Union then? They were socialist states. I'm aware that there can't be a communist state, I thought socialism was the stage prior to communism or anarchy?


When you decide on this you'll have decided on your tendency. But it's a very complicated and tedious point and far from clear-cut in the left, least of all from Marx's own works.

[Broletariat]

What would you call Cuba, Venezuela and the old Soviet Union then? They were socialist states. I'm aware that there can't be a communist state, I thought socialism was the stage prior to communism or anarchy?


I would call them Capitalist as Marx defined Capitalism in Das Kapital.

Marx and Engels use Socialism and Communism interchangeably, there is no distinct transition stage that is both differing as a mode of production from communism and capitalism.

[Aurora]

What would you call Cuba, Venezuela and the old Soviet Union then? They were socialist states. I'm aware that there can't be a communist state, I thought socialism was the stage prior to communism or anarchy?
Marx and Engels don't make a distinction between socialism and communism, the reason it wasn't called The Socialist Manifesto is because those who called themselves socialists at the time were utopians. So really they are interchangeable terms.

The transition between capitalism and socialism where the workers take power to crush the capitalists and develop society towards socialism is usually called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat or the Workers State, Connolly called it the Workers Republic or Industrial Republic.

Marx and Engels talk about there being a lower or first phase of socialism which is still not developed enough to provide for all according to their need, which is still imprinted with the old capitalist society, but by developing industry and with it the individual this will develop into a higher phase of socialism.

Lenin sometimes referred to the lower phase as socialism and the higher as communism "And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism)" This is ok too, but a needless change from the terminology of Marx imho.

The confusion regarding the workers state and socialism comes from when Stalin triumphed in Russia, you can see the change here:


1. Russia is declared to be a republic of the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies. All the central and local power belongs to these soviets.
Here Russia is declared a workers republic.


ARTICLE 1. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of workers and peasants.
Stalin triumphs and suddenly Socialism: classless and hence stateless, becomes Socialism: with a working class and a peasant class and with a soviet state. All in line with Stalin's 'Socialism in One Country'

[Marxaveli]

What would you call Cuba, Venezuela and the old Soviet Union then? They were socialist states. I'm aware that there can't be a communist state, I thought socialism was the stage prior to communism or anarchy?

From a Marxist-Leninist perspective, they were socialist states.

However, I am not a Marxist-Leninist, and I believe this particular branch and all of its offspring undermine the very principles of what Socialism wants to accomplish. They are certainly not what Marx had in mind, I can tell you that much for sure. Socialism, for Marx, is essentially a milder or earlier form of Communism. Basically it is the term we use when Communism is still in its revolutionary stage and the ruling class elements of society are being eliminated but are still present to some degree. When Socialism becomes so deeply embedded in society that everyone has control to the means of production and there are virtually no elements of Bourgeois to be found, you have full-blown Communism. But this must take place globally, or it cannot work.

You will find though that there is a dichotomy within Marxism, however. Those who advocate a strong vanguard party or centralized state authority are Marxist-Leninists, those who feel the Proletariat itself should implement the revolution and should have complete individual autonomy with little or no central figure are Libertarian Socialists (closely related to Anarchists or Syndicalists, but there are differences). I belong to the latter camp, and those who have this line of thinking strongly feel that Socialism has to come from the bottom up only. We see democracy as being the key component of Socialism and without it, we dont even consider it worthy of being called Socialism.

[Connolly16ir.net]

From a Marxist-Leninist perspective, they were socialist states.

However, I am not a Marxist-Leninist, and I believe this particular branch and all of its offspring undermine the very principles of what Socialism wants to accomplish. They are certainly not what Marx had in mind, I can tell you that much for sure. Socialism, for Marx, is essentially a milder or earlier form of Communism. Basically it is the term we use when Communism is still in its revolutionary stage and the ruling class elements of society are being eliminated but are still present to some degree. When Socialism becomes so deeply embedded in society that everyone has control to the means of production and there are virtually no elements of Bourgeois to be found, you have full-blown Communism. But this must take place globally, or it cannot work.

You will find though that there is a dichotomy within Marxism, however. Those who advocate a strong vanguard party or centralized state authority are Marxist-Leninists, those who feel the Proletariat itself should implement the revolution and should have complete individual autonomy with little or no central figure are Libertarian Socialists (closely related to Anarchists or Syndicalists, but there are differences). I belong to the latter camp, and those who have this line of thinking strongly feel that Socialism has to come from the bottom up only. We see democracy as being the key component of Socialism and without it, we dont even consider it worthy of being called Socialism.
And that is precisely what the worker's republic is, the interim stage between the present capitalist state and Communism. I believe that full communism can't be realised until other countries are also ready to progress to stateless communism.

As for authoritarianism, I am personally against it, all power should be in the hands of the proletariat and the soviets which are made up of the proletariat. At the same time though I do not reject Marxism-Leninism, I do however, based on what I know, reject Stalin and all that came after him!

[Connolly16ir.net]

I would call them Capitalist as Marx defined Capitalism in Das Kapital.

Marx and Engels use Socialism and Communism interchangeably, there is no distinct transition stage that is both differing as a mode of production from communism and capitalism.

I see, I would have said they were degenerate worker's states that gave into market reforms because you can hardly compare them with other free market countries like the US and Britain.

[Broletariat]

I see, I would have said they were degenerate worker's states that gave into market reforms because you can hardly compare them with other free market countries like the US and Britain.

They were quite different from the Capitalism in US and Britain, and that is because they developed in a different historical context than Capitalism in US and Britain. Capitalism can take many different faces.

[Lanky Wanker]

Broletariat, he's 16. At 16, I was working some shitty job and had zero interest in anything remotely intellectual. This kid gets my respect!

I'm also 16, do I get your respect too? :cool: