Reading order for a newbie? [Archive]

View Full Version : Reading order for a newbie?

Questionable

7th February 2012, 22:09

Lolumad273

8th February 2012, 13:21

Now and After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism, by Alexander Berkman. I'm reading this now, and it's a very good read. It's in plain English.

Wubbaz

8th February 2012, 13:46

As for the reading guides, you should give "A Companion To Marx's Capital by David Harvey. I have it and I think it helped my understand some ideas better.. Just take note that (as the author points out regularly throughout the book) this book just represents Harvey's interpretation of Capital, and you should only use it as a supplement to reading Capital. It is very important that you are sceptical towards reading guides, as they are only interpretations.

Also, I'd recommend "ABC of Communism" by Bukharin and Preobrazhensky, really easy to understand language and does a good job at summing up what capital, wage labour or the characteristics of capitalism are, for example. It also contains some stuff about the Soviet Union from a quite early perspective, as the book itself was written in 1920. Both the authors were later purged by Stalin.

citizen of industry

8th February 2012, 14:10

The "order" comes from what you want to read, based on what you already read and what has influenced you in practice. Everyone has a different "order," just go with the flow. Read what you want, what other people recommend, sometimes your politics will force you into reading stuff because your opinions match up with stuff you hadn't read. Stuff you decided not to read become necessary reads later, etc. I'll throw in my two cents- Don't skip Rosa's The Mass Strike, Reform or Revolution, Marxism or Leninism, and Accumulation of Capital. From Marx/Engels I'd say you missed Origins of Family, Private Property and the State, The Conditions of the Working Class in England, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and Grundrisse. But don't take my word for it, read what you want! Don't think you have to read the collected works of Marx and Engels before touching other theorists. I like to back and forth, because the other theorists are like a "break" from Marx with their 20th century language and politics you can relate to a little more.

Drowzy_Shooter

8th February 2012, 14:19

I first read the Manifesto of the Communist Party, then proceeded to move on to the current book I'm reading, The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin. After this I plan to move to the ABC's of Anarchism (I forget the exact name). Then again, my tendency is the reason I've chosen my reading order.

citizen of industry

8th February 2012, 14:33

And I'd advise against reading too many "cliff notes" or "communism/anarchism for dummies" type works. Just read the originals. If you encounter some passages that are just completely incomprehensible even though it is in your own native tongue, then those passages aren't so useful, are they?

8th February 2012, 16:09

runequester

8th February 2012, 17:41

I'll second the recommendation for "the ABC of communism". Excellent read, though to my knowledge the version online is incomplete. You should be able to get it for a few bucks from somewhere online.

Capital is pretty heavy going, and there's a lot of philosophy that can be a bit tough to digest. Read a bit, think about it a bit, then carry on.

Lev Bronsteinovich

8th February 2012, 17:57

I would say that Trotskys's "History of the Russian Revolution" is wonderful and well worth while. Also "The State And Revolution" is very important. I agree that you should not just be reading Marx before reading latter day revolutionaries. Have fun!

runequester

8th February 2012, 18:00

I would say that Trotskys's "History of the Russian Revolution" is wonderful and well worth while. Of course, our Stalinist comrades will be up in arms about this.

I know I've probably been classified as a Stalinist here already but..

I never understood why people will be so afraid of a book or a name. Read, learn, decide for yourself.
Its 2012, not 1920.

daft punk

8th February 2012, 19:52

So I've been reading a lot of Marx and Lenin, but I'm not really sure how to progress. My original plan was Marx-Lenin-Trotsky/Stalin-Others, but I don't want to miss any important works and get confused. So far I've read:

The Communist Manifesto
The Principles of Communism
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Imperialism: The Highest Stage
Das Kapital (In-progess)
State and Revolution
Wage Labor and Capital
The German Ideology

I'm trying to get a good ground in Marx before I move onto anyone else. What order do people suggest I continue in in order to maximize my understanding of communism?

Also, are there any good "reading guides" to go along with these books? I get the bulk of it, but some of the concepts (Especially in Capital) simply go straight over my head. Is there some type of sparknotes-ish website for Marxist literature where I can get a simplified explanation for passages I might not understand?

Thanks for any answers.

Ambitious plan! Problem wit that lot is it wont tell you about the 20th century. Well, ok, the Lenin stuff will a bit.

I would say the most useful stuff is Trotsky and the least useful is Stalin. In fact Stalin is worse than useless.

Read these

V. I. Lenin

Eleventh Congress Of The R.C.P.(B.)[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm#fw01)

March 27-April 2, 1922

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm
This is an important speech by Lenin to congress in which he says
he wants to halt the retreat (I think that means start slowly reversing the NEP in some ways), fight bureaucratism and red tape, and educate the younger communists on how to run the country, as the bourgeois specialists they inherited from the Tsar can and are running rings around them.
Leon Trotsky

In Defence Of October

A speech delivered in Copenhagen, Denmark in November 1932

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/11/oct.htm

note that in the latter, Trotsky was banned from talking about the Stalinist regime by the Danish government. This is a brilliant short talk on the Russian revolution, why it happened. It's very good background reading for revolutions in backward countries.

Just go to the Trotsky archive at MIA and read all the stuff marked important. When you want some light reading, read My Life.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/
Leon Trotsky

My Life

(1930)

Rooster

8th February 2012, 19:58

You could read Engel's Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/)

And read Marx's 1844 Manuscripts. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm)

blake 3:17

8th February 2012, 20:06

I wouldn't normally suggest it for a newbie but Ernest Mandel's The Place of Marxism in History puts a lot of this stuff in historical context, while affirming Marxist & revolutionary socialist politics. It's online here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/19xx/marx-hist/index.htm

I would say that Trotskys's "History of the Russian Revolution" is wonderful and well worth while. Enlightening and quite entertaining!

Omsk

8th February 2012, 20:16

I would say the most useful stuff is Trotsky and the least useful is Stalin. In fact Stalin is worse than useless.

Fantastic.Bravo.

@Comrade who started the thread: If you want,i can send you a PM with a number of links regarding Stalins works.I dont want to post it here,since Trotskyists would explode in their "criticism".

daft punk

8th February 2012, 20:21

Fantastic.Bravo.

@Comrade who started the thread: If you want,i can send you a PM with a number of links regardi
ng Stalins works.I dont want to post it here,since Trotskyists would explode in their "criticism".

pissed myself laughing.

Yeah, Stalin is good to read too. here is a killer

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1945/08/18.htm

edit, wrong one , opps, this one

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1945/08/31.htm

short, essential reading.

The only thing about Stalin is he published his stuff, and then when the next edition came out, bits kept getting accidentally left out.

Omsk

8th February 2012, 20:23

GoddessCleoLover

8th February 2012, 20:40

IMO the best survey reading for a beginner is Bukharin and Preobrazhensky's The ABC of Communism. I also believe that David Harvey is an excellent guide to Marx's Capital. The third step would then be to begin to acquaint oneself with Antonio Gramsci and his modernization of the basic notions set forth bythe aforementioned works of Marx and Bukharin & Preobrazhenky.

Omsk

8th February 2012, 20:42

pissed myself laughing.

Yeah, Stalin is good to read too. here is a killer

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...1945/08/18.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1945/08/18.htm)

short, essential reading.

The only thing about Stalin is he published his stuff, and then when the next edition came out, bits kept getting accidentally left out.

That what you linked is not and cant be classified as a "work".

Lets take a look at some of comrade Trotskys glorious contributions and words!

"I cannot be called a Bolshevik... We must not be demanded to recognise Bolshevism." (Leon Trotsky, Mezhrayontsi conference, May 1917, quoted in Lenin, Miscellany IV, Russ. ed., 1925, p. 303.)

"A socialist Europe will proclaim the full independence of the colonies,
establish friendly economic relations with them and, step by step,
without the slightest violence, by means of example and collaboration,
introduce them into a world socialist federation. . . . The economy
of the unified Europe will function as one whole."

"The World Situation and Perspectives," St. Louis Post Dispatch, 1940
Writings of Leon Trotsky (NY: Merit Publishers, 1969), p. 25.

"The revolutionary center of gravity has shifted
definitely to the West, where the immediate
possibilities of building parties are immeasurably
greater."

--Leon Trotsky, "The Class Nature of the Soviet State," 1933

And what does Lenin have to say about that?

"I should also like to emphasize here the importance
of the movement in the colonies. In this respect
we witness in all the old parties of the Second and Two-
and-a-Half Internationals the survivals of old sentimental
conceptions--there is much sympathy for the oppressed
peoples of the colonies and semi-colonies. The movement in the colonies
is still regarded as an insignificant national and completely
peaceful movement. However, that is not the case. For great
changes have taken place in this respect since the beginning
of the twentieth century, namely, millions and hundreds of millions
--actually the overwhelming majority of the world's population--
are now coming out as an independent and active revolutionary
factor. And it should be perfectly clear that in the coming decisive
battles of the world revolution, this movement of the majority of the
world's population, originally aimed at national liberation, will
turn against capitalism and imperialism and will, perhaps, play
a much more revolutionary role than we have been led to expect."

--Lenin, "Tactics of the Russian Communist Party, Report to the Third Congress
of the Communist International" (July 5 1921)

"In the last analysis, the outcome of the struggle will
be determined by the fact that Russia, India, China, etc.,
account for the overwhelming majority of the population
of the globe."

Here is another gem!

"Hitler's soldiers are German workers and peasants. . . . The armies of occupation must live side by side with the conquered peoples; they must observe the impoverishment and despair of the toiling masses; they must observe the latter's attempts at resistance and protest, at first muffled and then more and more open and bold. . . . The German soldiers, that is, the workers and peasants, will in the majority of cases have far more sympathy for the vanquished peoples than for their own ruling caste. The necessity to act at every step in the capacity of 'pacifiers' and oppressors will swiftly disintegrate the armies of occupation, infecting them with a revolutionary spirit." --1940
Leon Trotsky
"On the Future of Hitler's Armies"
Writings of Leon Trotsky (1939-40)
(NY: Merit Publishers, 1969), p. 113.

Good job Trotsky too bad your prediction was complete bogus.

More beutiful wisdom,he talks how Stalin and the leadership had to be killed/destroyed.
{And glorious slandering of the USSR}

“After the experiences of the last few years, it would be childish to suppose that the Stalinist bureaucracy can be removed by means of a party or soviet congress. In reality, the last congress of the Bolshevik Party took place at the beginning of 1923, the Twelfth Party Congress. All subsequent congresses were bureaucratic parades. Today, even such congresses have been discarded. No normal 'constitutional' ways remain to remove the ruling clique. The bureaucracy can be compelled to yield power into the hands of the proletarian vanguard only by force”
(Trotsky, The Class Nature of the Soviet State, 1933.)

''Fascism is winning victory after victory and its best ally, the one that is clearing its path throughout the world, is Stalinism.''
-Trotsky, Caïn Dugachvili va jusqu'au bout (April 1938). L'appareil, p. 238.

And what did he think of Great comrade Lenin? Well,in 1913 in his letter to Chkeidze he said:

“The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay.“

daft punk

8th February 2012, 20:46

That what you linked is not and cant be classified as a "work".
No, but it is an important piece. Tell me, why you think he calls Chiang Mr President. Why the treaty? Why is he crawling up the ass of someone who repeatedly massacred communists?

Rooster

8th February 2012, 20:59

Funny how you only like quote mining when you're the one doing it

That what you linked is not and cant be classified as a "work".

Oh? So we can ignore all letters by people and things that weren't intended to be published? In that case, we can chuck out a couple of whole volumes of Marx and Lenin. Shuck, Ismail can stop citing Hoxha's diaries.

Omsk

8th February 2012, 21:09

No, but it is an important piece. Tell me, why you think he calls Chiang Mr President. Why the treaty? Why is he crawling up the ass of someone who repeatedly massacred communists?

It has no importance whatsoever.Its diplomacy.
Why the treaty?Because of the Japanese.

And what happened in the end,Stalin,as always,acted with speed,and fully supported the communists in their struggle,and also criticized them when they deserved criticism.

Oh? So we can ignore all letters by people and things that weren't intended to be published? In that case, we can chuck out a couple of whole volumes of Marx and Lenin. Shuck, Ismail can stop citing Hoxha's diaries.

Of course not,read before you type.

I was talking about Stalins theoretical works,and Daft Punk called it all rubbish,and than posted a letter.

How is a letter a "work"?

Hoxha's diaries have much much more wieght than a 5-6 line letter.

GoddessCleoLover

8th February 2012, 21:24

Suffice to say that there were serious shortcomings on the part of both Stalin and Trotsky, as evidenced by these polemics, which have been raging for almost one hundred years. As a result many of us have sought new sources of theoretical inspiration such as Gramsci and theorists who have taken yo his ideas on behalf of theoretical modernization. OTOH one must recognize the real lasting harm done to the revolutionary workers' movement by the iniquities that occurred in the USSR due to the dictatorship of the Communist Party and Stalin's personal dictatorship.

daft punk

8th February 2012, 22:07

Lets take a look at some of comrade Trotskys glorious contributions and words!

yee haw! Why is it though that Stalinists always have loads of quotes without links? Just a massive pile of out-of -context quotes sitting on their desktop.

"I cannot be called a Bolshevik... We must not be demanded to recognise Bolshevism." (Leon Trotsky, Mezhrayontsi conference, May 1917, quoted in Lenin, Miscellany IV, Russ. ed., 1925, p. 303.)

Well this is a classic, apparently from some notes Lenin made in May 1917, the month Trotsky arrived in Russia.

The Bolshevik Raskolnikov (died 1939 falling out of a window) wrote

"Leon Davidovich [Trotsky] was not at that time formally a member of our party, but as a matter of fact he worked within it continually from the day of his arrival from America. At any rate, immediately after his first speech in the Soviet, we all looked upon him as one of our party leaders." (Proletarskaya Revolutsia, 1923, page 71)
http://www.marxist.com/lenin-trotsky-stalinism-johnstone/all-pages.htm

Trotsky did prevaricate in joining, god knows why as there was no difference between him and Lenin. He was closer in views to Lenin than most of the Bolshevik CC who initially opposed the call for revolution Lenin made in April.

Trotsky was in a small group called the Mezhrayontsi. When Lenin was tightening up on people joining, he waived the probationary period for Mezhrayontsi members. Trotsky reloved his differences, joined and was straight in the top 4 of the Central Committee election.

I dunno why he stood slightly outside at the time, he had just got back to Russia. Trotsky had always opposed the Provisional Government, but the Bolsheviks supported it. In April Lenin returned and called for it's overthrow, same as Trotsky. It was the rest of the Central Committee who had a hard time coming to terms with this. Trotsky also worried about the Bollsheviks being too centralised and sectarian, and he wanted to try to reunite the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks if possible.

Later he gave that idea up.

"A socialist Europe will proclaim the full independence of the colonies,
establish friendly economic relations with them and, step by step,
without the slightest violence, by means of example and collaboration,
introduce them into a world socialist federation. . . . The economy
of the unified Europe will function as one whole."
what is the purpose of this quote? This was from an interview in 1940. At the end of WW2 Europe was ripe for revolution. Unfortunately Stalin was working hard to sabotage it, failed in establishing capitalist states, and thus gave Truman an excuse to start the cold war.

"The revolutionary center of gravity has shifted
definitely to the West, where the immediate
possibilities of building parties are immeasurably
greater."

--Leon Trotsky, "The Class Nature of the Soviet State," 1933

This was October 1933 when the Nazis had just taken power thanks the the German Communists refusal to form a United Front with social democrat workers to block them. They refused to even acknowledge their mistakes or discuss them. They had even had a brief alliance with the Nazis. For Trotsky it was the last straw. He broke with the Comintern, called for the people of Russia to replace the Stalinist regime. He called for a new International. This then could help the people of Russia. He wasnt looking west to Germany obviously, maybe to France and other places.

And what does Lenin have to say about that?

Not a lot as he died 10 years earlier

"I should also like to emphasize here the importance
of the movement in the colonies. In this respect
we witness in all the old parties of the Second and Two-
and-a-Half Internationals the survivals of old sentimental
conceptions--there is much sympathy for the oppressed
peoples of the colonies and semi-colonies. The movement in the colonies
is still regarded as an insignificant national and completely
peaceful movement. However, that is not the case. For great
changes have taken place in this respect since the beginning
of the twentieth century, namely, millions and hundreds of millions
--actually the overwhelming majority of the world's population--
are now coming out as an independent and active revolutionary
factor. And it should be perfectly clear that in the coming decisive
battles of the world revolution, this movement of the majority of the
world's population, originally aimed at national liberation, will
turn against capitalism and imperialism and will, perhaps, play
a much more revolutionary role than we have been led to expect."

--Lenin, "Tactics of the Russian Communist Party, Report to the Third Congress
of the Communist International" (July 5 1921)

slightly different analysis, 19 years earlier, no WW2, Russia was still trying to be socialist, bit of a different scenario.

"In the last analysis, the outcome of the struggle will
be determined by the fact that Russia, India, China, etc.,
account for the overwhelming majority of the population
of the globe."

Here is another gem!
see above

"Hitler's soldiers are German workers and peasants. . . . The armies of occupation must live side by side with the conquered peoples; they must observe the impoverishment and despair of the toiling masses; they must observe the latter's attempts at resistance and protest, at first muffled and then more and more open and bold. . . . The German soldiers, that is, the workers and peasants, will in the majority of cases have far more sympathy for the vanquished peoples than for their own ruling caste. The necessity to act at every step in the capacity of 'pacifiers' and oppressors will swiftly disintegrate the armies of occupation, infecting them with a revolutionary spirit." --1940
Leon Trotsky
"On the Future of Hitler's Armies"
Writings of Leon Trotsky (1939-40)
(NY: Merit Publishers, 1969), p. 113.

Good job Trotsky too bad your prediction was complete bogus.
Cannot find this on the net, so I don't know it it's genuine.

Here's a definitely genuine one from 1931:

"Germany is now passing through one of those great historic hours upon which the fate of the German people, the fate of Europe, and in significant measure the fate of all humanity, will depend for decades"

"Worker-Communists, you are hundreds of thousands, millions; you cannot leave for anyplace; there are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1931/311208.htm

More beutiful wisdom,he talks how Stalin and the leadership had to be killed/destroyed.
{And glorious slandering of the USSR}

“After the experiences of the last few years, it would be childish to suppose that the Stalinist bureaucracy can be removed by means of a party or soviet congress. In reality, the last congress of the Bolshevik Party took place at the beginning of 1923, the Twelfth Party Congress. All subsequent congresses were bureaucratic parades. Today, even such congresses have been discarded. No normal 'constitutional' ways remain to remove the ruling clique. The bureaucracy can be compelled to yield power into the hands of the proletarian vanguard only by force”
(Trotsky, The Class Nature of the Soviet State, 1933.)

I wish you would look this stuff up. He immediately says after that:

"All the hacks will immediately howl in chorus: The “Trotskyites,” like Kautsky, are preaching an armed insurrection against the dictatorship of the proletariat. But let us pass on. The question of seizing power will arise as a practical question for the new party only when it will have consolidated around itself the majority of the working class. In the course of such a radical change in the relation of forces, the bureaucracy would become more and more isolated, more and more split. As we know, the social roots of the bureaucracy lie in the proletariat, if not in its active support, then, at any rate, in its “toleration.” When the proletariat springs into action, the Stalinist apparatus will remain suspended in midair. Should it still attempt to resist, it will then be necessary to apply against it not the measures of civil war but rather the measures of a police character. In any case, what will be involved is not an armed insurrection against the dictatorship of the proletariat but the removal of a malignant growth upon it."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1933/10/sovstate.htm

''Fascism is winning victory after victory and its best ally, the one that is clearing its path throughout the world, is Stalinism.''
-Trotsky, Caïn Dugachvili va jusqu'au bout (April 1938). L'appareil, p. 238.

So what's wrong with that? The Stalinist's mistakes/ deliberate acts led to the fascists taking power in in Germany and Spain for a kick off. Read up on both. It is quite easy to find out. Everything you need to know about Germany is here
Leon Trotsky on

THE RISE OF HITLER
AND DESTRUCTION OF THE GERMAN LEFT

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/index.htm

And what did he think of Great comrade Lenin? Well,in 1913 in his letter to Chkeidze he said:

“The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay.“

yeah yeah, we all know they argued before Trotsky joined Lenin's party. They both slagged each other off. It was because they were the top two, and it took a while for their ideas to mesh together, which finally happened during 1917.

Then Trotsky led the October revolution.

blake 3:17

8th February 2012, 22:14

All this back and forth sectarian BS is useless for someone interested in socialist politics. There's plenty of room on this site for this stuff.

Rooster

8th February 2012, 22:19

yee haw! Why is it though that Stalinists always have loads of quotes without links? Just a massive pile of out-of -context quotes sitting on their desktop.

Ha, they all come from Ismail.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&gmid=46471

GoddessCleoLover

8th February 2012, 22:22

Let us get this thread back on the rails. I have found David Harvey's lectures on Marx's Capital, available on the internet, to be immensely helpful. Anyone else recommend these for a newbie?

Questionable

8th February 2012, 22:25

Omsk

8th February 2012, 22:33

yee haw! Why is it though that Stalinists always have loads of quotes without links? Just a massive pile of out-of -context quotes sitting on their desktop.

Why do you need a link if there is the name of the book the quote is from just under the text.

Later he gave that idea up.

Nice excuse.

This was October 1933 when the Nazis had just taken power thanks the the German Communists refusal to form a United Front with social democrat workers to block them. They refused to even acknowledge their mistakes or discuss them. They had even had a brief alliance with the Nazis. For Trotsky it was the last straw. He broke with the Comintern, called for the people of Russia to replace the Stalinist regime. He called for a new International. This then could help the people of Russia. He wasnt looking west to Germany obviously, maybe to France and other places.

He looked at Nazi Germany and Japan.

In the winter of 1921-1922, the leading Trotskyite, Krestinsky, had become the Soviet ambassador to Germany. In the course of his duties in Berlin, Krestinsky visited general Seeckt, Commander of the Reichswehr. Seeckt knew from his intelligence reports that Krestinsky was a Trotskyite. The German general gave Krestinsky to understand the Reichswehr was sympathetic with the aims of the Russian Opposition led by War Commissar Trotsky.
Sayers and Kahn. The Great Conspiracy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1946, p. 197

The fight against the "Left" Opposition was important in the general struggle against factors that wanted to destroy the USSR.

Had the plot not been exposed and crushed, the Soviet Union in the early 1940s would have suffered the fate of Spain, Czechoslovakia, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, and Greece. The Nazi technique which prepared 16 other countries for occupation, subjugation, and partial extermination between 1938 and 1941 was precisely the technique set forth in the confessions of the accused in the Moscow trials. Had the conspiracy not been ruthlessly suppressed, Hitler and Hirohito would have won their war not only against Soviet Union but against Britain and America as well.
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 268

And yes,Trotsky did want to destroy not only Stalin,but all involved with him:

No one can know the precise time at which Trotsky made up his mind that Stalin's leadership of the party must be destroyed by violence.
Footnote: but in the Bulletin of the Opposition, October 1933, Trotsky wrote: "the Stalin bureaucracy... Can be compelled to hand over power to the proletarian vanguard only by FORCE" He later told the New York American (Hearst), January 26, 1937: "Stalin has put himself above all criticism and the state. It is impossible to displace him except by assassination."
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 264

Assassinations were common:

At any rate, people not only discussed the question of terror. They also concretely prepared for it. At any rate, many attempts were made to carry out terrorist acts of assassination. In particular, the Azov-Black Sea counter-revolutionary terrorist group headed by Beloborodov assigned a group under the direction of a certain Dukat from the Trotskyists, who tried to hunt down Comrade Stalin in Sochi. Beloborodov gave instructions to Dukat so that the latter would take advantage of Comrade Stalin's stay in Sochi on his vacation, so that he could find a propitious moment to carry out his assassination. When Dukat failed in his attempt, Beloborodov vilified him in every way possible for failing to organize this business.
In Western Siberia, there were direct attempts to organize an assassination attempt against Comrade Molotov, in the Urals against Comrade Kaganovich....
Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 305

{coming from various sources}

And dont try to worm out,Trotsky was for the violent uprising.

Trotsky argued that after all the experiences of recent years it would be childish to think that it was possible to depose Stalin at a Congress of the Party or of the Soviets. "No normal constitutional ways are left for the removal of the ruling clique. Only force can compel the bureaucracy to hand over power into the hands of the proletarian vanguard."...
The Soviet Union, Trotsky reasserted, remained a workers' state.
Deutscher, Isaac. The Prophet Outcast. London, New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1963, p. 203

Not a lot as he died 10 years earlier

Oh really!?I didnt know that!

You know what i meant,what Lenin had to say about that subject before him.

Cannot find this on the net, so I don't know it it's genuine.

Try harder.

So what's wrong with that? The Stalinist's mistakes/ deliberate acts led to the fascists taking power in in Germany and Spain for a kick off. Read up on both. It is quite easy to find out. Everything you need to know about Germany is here

Stalin was against the Nazis from the start,and he led the CCCP to a direct anti-Nazi path.And the accusations that he deliberately (and alone) led the fascists to power in Germany is laughable and hardly Marxist.

In face of the growing war threat, the Soviet government repeatedly called for united action by all countries menaced by fascist aggression.
Sayers and Kahn. The Great Conspiracy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1946, p. 270

The verdict of the record is unmistakable and obvious: responsibility for the breakdown of collective security rests on the Western democracies, not on the Soviet Union.
The melancholy details of the record need no restatement, except as they bear upon the situation in which the USSR found itself by 1939. Eight times during the preceding eight years the aggressors posed to the Western democracies a test of their willingness to organize and enforce peace. Eight times the Soviet Union called for collective action against aggression. Eight times the Western power evaded their responsibilities and blessed the aggressors.
The first test was posed by the Japanese seizure of Manchuria in September 1931. The second test was posed by Hitler's repudiation of the disarmament clauses of Versailles in March 1935. The third test was posed by the fascist invasion of Ethiopia in October 1935. The fourth test was posed by Hitler's remilitarization of the Rhineland in March 1936. The fifth test was posed by the fascist attack of the Spanish Republic. The sixth test was posed by the resumption of the Japanese attack on China in July 1937. The seventh test was posed by the nazi seizure of Austria in March 1938. The eighth test was posed by the unleasheding, through propaganda, diplomacy, and terrorism, of the nazi campaign against Prague in the summer 1938.
Chamberlain flew three times to Germany on the principal that "if you don't concede the first time, fly, fly, again.
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 275-80

By March 1938 there was a ample reason for Soviet leaders to fear war. Japanese aggression in the Soviet Far East and in China, the Spanish fascists' victories over the army of the Spanish Republic and the International Brigades, Germany's increasingly menacing policies and its occupation of Austria, and the anemic reaction of Western powers to these events and their reticence in supporting Soviet collective security efforts provided sufficient cause for concern in Moscow.
Chase, William J., Enemies Within the Gates? translated by Vadim A. Staklo, New Haven: Yale University Press, c2001, p. 294.

Not to mention the SPD had a great impact on the general strategy in Germany.

When Hindenburg's first term as president expired, the Communists proposed to the Social Democrats to put up a nonparty anti-militarist such as the writer Heinrich Mann, warning that Hindenburg could not be relied on to keep Hitler out of power. However, the SPD, like the other parties of the Weimar coalition, preferred Hindenburg. When the Communists put up their own candidate, as they had done in 1924, they were again accused of helping reaction: in 1924 because they refused to vote for Hindenburg's opponent, and in 1932 because they refused to vote for Hindenburg. Hindenburg won the election over Hitler--and made him chancellor a few months later.
Blumenfeld, Hans. Life Begins at 65. Montreal, Canada: Harvest House, c1987, p. 146

True to form, the Social Democrat leaders refused the Communist party's proposal to form an 11th-hour coalition against Nazism. As in many other countries past and present, so in Germany [in the early 1930s], the Social Democrats would sooner ally themselves with the reactionary Right than make common cause with the Reds.
Parenti, Michael. Blackshirts and Reds, San Francisco: City Light Books, 1997, p. 5

yeah yeah

Good response,when he viciously attacks Lenin,its "yeah yeah well you know how they acted".

Then Trotsky led the October revolution

Nope.You might want to "read up" on that.

Ha, they all come from Ismail.

No they dont.

runequester

8th February 2012, 22:40

GoddessCleoLover

8th February 2012, 22:46

I agree that actual facts on the ground are dispositive, and it has been almost one hundred years since the Stalin-Trotsky split. Twenty first century social change requires an adaptation of revolutionary praxis to contemporary conditions rather than dwelling upon the sectarian debates of the distant past.

Ostrinski

8th February 2012, 23:23

I second History of the Russian Revolution by Trotsky.

Grab a copy of The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert Tucker. It has a good bit of their smaller writings in it.

Read The Accumulation of Capital by Rosa Luxemburg, but only once you've digested Das Kapital.

All three volumes of Gramsci's prison writings are indispensable. A little pricy, and a bit of a tough read, but Gramsci was brilliant and added much stuff that you may find useful in your analysis.

Mutual Aid and Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin are essential reading for anarchism. You might also read Fields, Facotires, and Workshops.

If you want to read Stalin, go for it if you think it is necessary to expand your knowledge on theory, but I think it will be of limited use to you.

As for collections, Pathfinder has a good collection of Rosa Luxemburg's writings, including Reform or Revolution and The Mass Strike, called Rosa Luxemburg Speaks. Dover Publications also has a good collection of Lenin's four most important works, The
Development of Capitalism In Russia, What Is to Be Done?, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and State and Revolution. You'd do well by grabbing this.

History. If you're interested in Trotsky, Isaac Deutscher has a comprehensive three volume biography of him (The Prophet Armed, The Prophet Unarmed, and The Prophet Outcast). If you're interested in the Black Panther Party, Paul Alkebulan wrote a good anthology of them called Survival Pending Revolution: History of the Black Panther Party. If you want to learn more about Spanish anarchism during the civil war, and about Durruti in particular, grab Abel Paz's Durruti In the Spanish Revolution. If you want to learn more about American labor history, pick up David Montgomery's The Fall of the House of Labor: The Workplace, The State, and American Labor Activism 1865-1925. John Lee Anderson has a good biography of Che Guevara called A Revolutionary Life.

Hope this helps.

8th February 2012, 23:30

What Is to Be Done?

Actually, I'll suggest Lenin Rediscovered - 'What is to be done?' in context (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Lenin-Rediscovered-What-Is-to-Be-Done-In-Context) (also partly online (http://books.google.nl/books/about/Lenin_rediscovered.html?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&redir_esc=y)), which includes a new translation and, just like the title suggests, gives a lot of context around that piece.

Rooster

8th February 2012, 23:34

I'd also like to add that it's possible to read a lot of Marx and Engels without really going into the context as they deal with relatively abstract things, or they deal with more or less universal concepts such as the labour process, abstract labour, alienation, capital, etc. Reading some later Marxists, particularly Lenin and Trotsky (and Marx on things like the Paris Commune and the 1848 revolutions) kinda require that you understand the context of what was happening. For instance, they deal a lot with the Russian revolution so as a compliment to reading their own works, it would be good to read some works of history. Two that I can recommend from the top of my head would be Alec Nove's An Economic History of the USSR that you should be able to get quite cheap and EH Carr's The Bolshevik Revolution in three volumes. Look up the user ComradeOm for a larger list of works and references.

No they dont.

Are you kidding me? Every single quote came from that page I linked. Quote mining, dude.

Omsk

8th February 2012, 23:45

Are you kidding me? Every single quote came from that page I linked. Quote mining, dude.

In the specific post,yes,quotes in my other posts,dont come from there.And that specific post is a response to a post from the user daft-punk,he was quote mining.

Ostrinski

8th February 2012, 23:51

EH Carr's The Bolshevik Revolution in three volumesI haven't read this. I need to check it out.

Rooster

8th February 2012, 23:59

And that specific post is a response to a post from the user daft-punk,he was quote mining.

No, he wasn't. He basically called you out for quote mining. You know, taking quotes out of context over the entire span of a person's career. Although, I'm not sure a Stalinist would understand this concept. It's unfortunate that not everyone can go through life displaying the correct line every time.

Incidentally, everything you quoted in your last post, the exact length of the quotes and everything, seem to come from this article:

http://revolutionaryspiritapl.blogspot.com/2011/06/5th-column.html

Do you read any of the things you cite or do you just quote the quotes of others who quote people?

Rooster

9th February 2012, 00:02

I haven't read this. I need to check it out.

Some of the footnotes are quite amusing. It's well worth the read. You should be able to find it for pretty cheap.

ColonelCossack

9th February 2012, 00:12

Leon Trotsky

My Life

(1930)

I'm sorry, but a book called "My Life" seems a bit... narcissistic... especially in the context of communist theory. For an autobiography, OK, but on a reading list of communist theory... Just my opinion...

I think what you choose to read is largely dependent on your tendency, but there are some universal works, like most of Marx and Engels, and it's also good to get a good image of every tendency- so, read Marx, read Bakunin, read Lenin, read Rosa Luxemborg, read Trotsky, Read Stalin... read whatever, just try and make the most informed decsision you can for yourself.

Ostrinski

9th February 2012, 00:37

I'm sorry, but a book called "My Life" seems a bit... narcissistic... especially in the context of communist theory. For an autobiography, OK, but on a reading list of communist theory... Just my opinion...It's an autobiography.

Omsk

9th February 2012, 08:30

No, he wasn't. He basically called you out for quote mining. You know, taking quotes out of context over the entire span of a person's career. Although, I'm not sure a Stalinist would understand this concept. It's unfortunate that not everyone can go through life displaying the correct line every time.

I dont take quotes out of context,and he did just that,to slander stalin as he always does.

Incidentally, everything you quoted in your last post, the exact length of the quotes and everything, seem to come from this article:

Too bad they dont.

Do you read any of the things you cite or do you just quote the quotes of others who quote people?

Do you read what you link and my other posts?

He basically called you out for quote mining. You know, taking quotes out of context over the entire span of a person's career

Did you read this thread?He posted first,and he did this act of "quote mining".Next time read the thread.

Just to be sure:

At 20:52 He posted his first message:

Ambitious plan! Problem wit that lot is it wont tell you about the 20th century. Well, ok, the Lenin stuff will a bit.

I would say the most useful stuff is Trotsky and the least useful is Stalin. In fact Stalin is worse than useless.

Read these

V. I. Lenin

Eleventh Congress Of The R.C.P.(B.)[1] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm#fw01)

March 27-April 2, 1922

http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...922/mar/27.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm)
This is an important speech by Lenin to congress in which he says
he wants to halt the retreat (I think that means start slowly reversing the NEP in some ways), fight bureaucratism and red tape, and educate the younger communists on how to run the country, as the bourgeois specialists they inherited from the Tsar can and are running rings around them.
Leon Trotsky

In Defence Of October

A speech delivered in Copenhagen, Denmark in November 1932

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/11/oct.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/11/oct.htm)

note that in the latter, Trotsky was banned from talking about the Stalinist regime by the Danish government. This is a brilliant short talk on the Russian revolution, why it happened. It's very good background reading for revolutions in backward countries.

Just go to the Trotsky archive at MIA and read all the stuff marked important. When you want some light reading, read My Life.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/)
Leon Trotsky

My Life

(1930)

At 21:16 the same day i responded: with a line
{@Comrade who started the thread: If you want,i can send you a PM with a number of links regarding Stalins works.I dont want to post it here,since Trotskyists would explode in their "criticism".

At 21:21 His second respons came up:

pissed myself laughing.

Yeah, Stalin is good to read too. here is a killer

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...1945/08/18.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1945/08/18.htm)

edit, wrong one , opps, this one

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...1945/08/31.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1945/08/31.htm)

short, essential reading.

The only thing about Stalin is he published his stuff, and then when the next edition came out, bits kept getting accidentally left out.

How is that a response [in your opinion] to quote mining when there was no quote mining before that?

ColonelCossack

9th February 2012, 18:20

It's an autobiography.

I know, but it was on a reading list for someone interested in communist theory. Maybe narcissistic wasn't the right word. It's just an autobviography seems a little out of place on a reading list about theoretical theory.

Of course, I can't make a judgement, because I haven't read a book. If it's an autobiography that contains political theory, OK, but then calling it "My Life" seems a bit dodgy.

daft punk

9th February 2012, 18:36

This whole Stalin/Trotsky thing seems to be a plague that gets carried to every thread, but I'm going to be hypocritical and ask one question:

Why are people so concerned? Unless I'm mistaken, Marxism is not dogmatic, and the conditions in each country will result in the socialist state having entirely different actions. If the conditions had been different in Russia, maybe Stalin would have been for a permanent revolution.

If a communist uprising takes place in, say, the USA, won't the challenges resulting from it be totally different? The question between PR and SioC may be totally obvious in the future, or it may not come up at all. Shouldn't we just take the valuable lessons from both Trotsky and Stalin, and remember them for the future instead of arguing over what could have happened?

Then again, I'm still learning, so I may have just made a complete ass out of myself. Regardless, thanks for all the book suggestions! I'll definitely look into some of the titles you all suggested.

It's not an argument over what could have happened, it's over what did happen.

The Trotskyist view is that Stalin led or rather personified a political counter-revolution.

The Stalinist view is that he had no choice, that it was necessary to kill the original Bolsheviks because they had all miraculously turned into traitors.

You just need to read up and make you mind up.

Try this
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1009

vital short piece on a hero who defended the USSR, but who witnessed the purges.

or read bits from Rogovan's books on Google. (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dDiFNXLNPDEC&pg=PA515&lpg=PA515&dq=rogovin+purges&source=bl&ots=5Q7wzSRsiB&sig=Nh0PrytKSo0RsSW3dyT-QFT0SWU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LhI0T6vKGObC0QWi5uSdAg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=rogovin%20purges&f=false)

The fact is that these days nobody believes the charges against the Trotskyists were true, except a few Stalinists.

The reason it's important to get straight is

1. Historical accuracy
2. Learning the lessons from the past
3. Demonstrate to the public that Leninism will not automatically lead to a dictatorship like Stalin's regime. His regime was a negation of Bolshevism, not it's continuation.

The world is never gonna go communist if people think it means a dictatorship.

Why do you need a link if there is the name of the book the quote is from just under the text.
So I can check it. How do you know the context if all you ever see is your little quotes? I have seen Stalinists give me a quote from years later than when they are talking about etc.

He looked at Nazi Germany and Japan.

In October 1933 the German workers leaders were all dead or in concentration camps, hardly the best place to envisage revolution. And Japan is East not West.

In the winter of 1921-1922, the leading Trotskyite, Krestinsky, had become the Soviet ambassador to Germany. In the course of his duties in Berlin, Krestinsky visited general Seeckt, Commander of the Reichswehr. Seeckt knew from his intelligence reports that Krestinsky was a Trotskyite. The German general gave Krestinsky to understand the Reichswehr was sympathetic with the aims of the Russian Opposition led by War Commissar Trotsky.
Sayers and Kahn. The Great Conspiracy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1946, p. 197
The Left Opposition did not exist in 1921/2 this is absurd!

The fight against the "Left" Opposition was important in the general struggle against factors that wanted to destroy the USSR.

Had the plot not been exposed and crushed, the Soviet Union in the early 1940s would have suffered the fate of Spain, Czechoslovakia, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, and Greece. The Nazi technique which prepared 16 other countries for occupation, subjugation, and partial extermination between 1938 and 1941 was precisely the technique set forth in the confessions of the accused in the Moscow trials. Had the conspiracy not been ruthlessly suppressed, Hitler and Hirohito would have won their war not only against Soviet Union but against Britain and America as well.
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 268
Ludicrous.

And yes,Trotsky did want to destroy not only Stalin,but all involved with him:

No one can know the precise time at which Trotsky made up his mind that Stalin's leadership of the party must be destroyed by violence.
Footnote: but in the Bulletin of the Opposition, October 1933, Trotsky wrote: "the Stalin bureaucracy... Can be compelled to hand over power to the proletarian vanguard only by FORCE" He later told the New York American (Hearst), January 26, 1937: "Stalin has put himself above all criticism and the state. It is impossible to displace him except by assassination."
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 264

This is why you need to look these quotes up properly. Trotsky says:

In reality, the last congress of the Bolshevik Party took place at the beginning of 1923, the Twelfth Party Congress. All subsequent congresses were bureaucratic parades. Today, even such congresses have been discarded. No normal “constitutional” ways remain to remove the ruling clique. The bureaucracy can be compelled to yield power into the hands of the proletarian vanguard only by force. All the hacks will immediately howl in chorus: The “Trotskyites,” like Kautsky, are preaching an armed insurrection against the dictatorship of the proletariat. But let us pass on. The question of seizing power will arise as a practical question for the new party only when it will have consolidated around itself the majority of the working class. In the course of such a radical change in the relation of forces, the bureaucracy would become more and more isolated, more and more split. As we know, the social roots of the bureaucracy lie in the proletariat, if not in its active support, then, at any rate, in its “toleration.” When the proletariat springs into action, the Stalinist apparatus will remain suspended in midair. Should it still attempt to resist, it will then be necessary to apply against it not the measures of civil war but rather the measures of a police character. In any case, what will be involved is not an armed insurrection against the dictatorship of the proletariat but the removal of a malignant growth upon it.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1933/10/sovstate.htm

Assassinations were common:
Yes, Stalin killed millions

At any rate, people not only discussed the question of terror. They also concretely prepared for it. At any rate, many attempts were made to carry out terrorist acts of assassination. In particular, the Azov-Black Sea counter-revolutionary terrorist group headed by Beloborodov assigned a group under the direction of a certain Dukat from the Trotskyists, who tried to hunt down Comrade Stalin in Sochi. Beloborodov gave instructions to Dukat so that the latter would take advantage of Comrade Stalin's stay in Sochi on his vacation, so that he could find a propitious moment to carry out his assassination. When Dukat failed in his attempt, Beloborodov vilified him in every way possible for failing to organize this business.
In Western Siberia, there were direct attempts to organize an assassination attempt against Comrade Molotov, in the Urals against Comrade Kaganovich....
Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 305

I have no idea if this particular story is true, it is probably not. Trotsky did not consider terrorism a useful tool and wrote many articles opposing it. In fact he viewed it as counterproductive to socialism, belittling the role of the masses.

{coming from various sources}

And dont try to worm out,Trotsky was for the violent uprising.

Trotsky argued that after all the experiences of recent years it would be childish to think that it was possible to depose Stalin at a Congress of the Party or of the Soviets. "No normal constitutional ways are left for the removal of the ruling clique. Only force can compel the bureaucracy to hand over power into the hands of the proletarian vanguard."...
The Soviet Union, Trotsky reasserted, remained a workers' state.
Deutscher, Isaac. The Prophet Outcast. London, New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1963, p. 203
See above, read what Trotsky wrote.

Stalin was against the Nazis from the start,and he led the CCCP to a direct anti-Nazi path.And the accusations that he deliberately (and alone) led the fascists to power in Germany is laughable and hardly Marxist.

I never said deliberately did I?

Trotsky, 1931:
"Germany is now passing through one of those great historic hours upon which the fate of the German people, the fate of Europe, and in significant measure the fate of all humanity, will depend for decades."

"We Must Force the Social Democracy into a Bloc Against the Fascists"

"Worker-Communists, you are hundreds of thousands, millions; you cannot leave for anyplace; there are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1931/311208.htm

True to form, the Social Democrat leaders refused the Communist party's proposal to form an 11th-hour coalition against Nazism. As in many other countries past and present, so in Germany , the Social Democrats would sooner ally themselves with the reactionary Right than make common cause with the Reds.
Parenti, Michael. Blackshirts and Reds, San Francisco: City Light Books, 1997, p. 5
11th hour, too late, not only had the KDP dismissed them as 'social fascists', they had even had a temporary alliance with the Nazis in the Red Referendum! Trotsky had been writing about this for years.

Daft Punk "Then Trotsky led the October revolution "

Nope.You might want to "read up" on that.

No they dont.

Stalin's telegram to Lenin, October 1917:

"All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the president of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military-Revolutionary Committee was organized. The principal assistants of Comrade Trotsky were Comrades Antonov and Podvoisky."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1918/11/06.htm

not that we need Stalin's quote, but it is a good 'un. Somehow got ommitted from later editions of his book, strange that.

I'm sorry, but a book called "My Life" seems a bit... narcissistic... especially in the context of [I]communist theory. For an autobiography, OK, but on a reading list of communist theory... Just my opinion...

I think what you choose to read is largely dependent on your tendency, but there are some universal works, like most of Marx and Engels, and it's also good to get a good image of every tendency- so, read Marx, read Bakunin, read Lenin, read Rosa Luxemborg, read Trotsky, Read Stalin... read whatever, just try and make the most informed decsision you can for yourself.

My Life is good cos it's easy to read and gives a different angle on stuff, a good overview, some background explanations and so on, perfect for a beginner and no at all narcissistic.

Leftsolidarity

9th February 2012, 19:38

Engel's Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

Omsk

9th February 2012, 19:53

In October 1933 the German workers leaders were all dead or in concentration camps, hardly the best place to envisage revolution. And Japan is East not West.

He looked at German Nazis.

The Left Opposition did not exist in 1921/2 this is absurd!

Trotskyite subversive elements did exist.

Ludicrous

Too bad its not.

Yes, Stalin killed millions

Dont create strawmen when you dont have arguments.Counter-revolutionary elements tried to assassinate various party members.

I have no idea if this particular story is true, it is probably not. Trotsky did not consider terrorism a useful tool and wrote many articles opposing it. In fact he viewed it as counterproductive to socialism, belittling the role of the masses.

You probably heard about that for the first time,and you condemn it straight-away.

I never said deliberately did I?

You did,dont bail out.

My Life is good cos it's easy to read and gives a different angle on stuff, a good overview, some background explanations and so on, perfect for a beginner and no at all narcissistic.

Are you serious?Trotsky was egoistic,he lied,and "My Life" is all right only if you are a Trotskyite.

daft punk

9th February 2012, 20:36

What do you mean he looked at the Nazis? He had just given up on the Comintern precisely because their actions had contributed to the Nazis coming to power. Trotsky had written loads of articles warning of the danger of the Nazis coming to power and how the could be stopped.

This really is an incredible assertion.

In this article Trotsky was saying that proletarian revolution was needed around the world to save the USSR.

"In the West the revolutionary movement may revive even without a party, but it can conquer only under the leadership of the party. Throughout the entire epoch of the social revolution, that is, for a series of decades, the international revolutionary party has remained the basic instrument of historical progress. Urbahns, by raising the cry that “old forms” are outlived and that something “new” is needed – precisely what? – exposes only the muddle he is in ... in rather old forms. Trade-union work, under the conditions of “planned” capitalism, and the struggle against fascism and the impending war, will indubitably result in producing new methods and types of fighting organizations. Only, instead of indulging like the Brandlerites in fantasies upon the illegal trade unions, one must study attentively the actual course of the struggle, seizing upon the initiative of the workers themselves, extending and generalizing it. But, first and foremost, a party, i.e., a politically welded core of the proletarian vanguard, is required to accomplish this work. Urbahns’ position is subjective: he became disillusioned in the party, after he had successfully wrecked his own “party” on the rocks."

Does that sound like someone who thinks the Nazis are gonna be helpful?

Its a preposterous idea.

Omsk

9th February 2012, 20:47

I am just saying that by the time he got that desperate,he looked for allies on all sides.

daft punk

9th February 2012, 20:59

The only mentions of fascism in the article are:
"the fascist locusts in Italy or Germany"

"It is clear, in any case, that, with the further decline of the world proletarian movement and the further extension of the fascist domination, it is not possible to maintain the Soviet power for any length of time by means of the internal forces alone. The fundamental condition for the only rock-bottom reform of the Soviet state is the victorious spread of the world revolution."

"the struggle against fascism"

and so on.

he may have hoped the German soldiers in occupied territories would turn on their leaders, but there is nothing on the net to support that.

No, he was talking about building trade unions in the west. Well they were banned in Germany.

Omsk

9th February 2012, 21:04

daft punk

9th February 2012, 21:18

You were the one who brought up that article

OMSK
"The revolutionary center of gravity has shifted
definitely to the West, where the immediate
possibilities of building parties are immeasurably
greater."

--Leon Trotsky, "The Class Nature of the Soviet State," 1933

my reply:

DAFT
This was October 1933 when the Nazis had just taken power thanks the the German Communists refusal to form a United Front with social democrat workers to block them. They refused to even acknowledge their mistakes or discuss them. They had even had a brief alliance with the Nazis. For Trotsky it was the last straw. He broke with the Comintern, called for the people of Russia to replace the Stalinist regime. He called for a new International. This then could help the people of Russia. He wasnt looking west to Germany obviously, maybe to France and other places.

your reply to that:

(quotes the above and replies:)
He looked at Nazi Germany and Japan.

are you getting confused?

Omsk

9th February 2012, 21:20

You were the one who brought up that article

Quote:
OMSK
"The revolutionary center of gravity has shifted
definitely to the West, where the immediate
possibilities of building parties are immeasurably
greater."

--Leon Trotsky, "The Class Nature of the Soviet State," 1933
my reply:
Quote:
DAFT
This was October 1933 when the Nazis had just taken power thanks the the German Communists refusal to form a United Front with social democrat workers to block them. They refused to even acknowledge their mistakes or discuss them. They had even had a brief alliance with the Nazis. For Trotsky it was the last straw. He broke with the Comintern, called for the people of Russia to replace the Stalinist regime. He called for a new International. This then could help the people of Russia. He wasnt looking west to Germany obviously, maybe to France and other places.
your reply to that:
Quote:
(quotes the above and replieshttp://www.revleft.com/vb/reading-order-newbiei-t167572/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif
He looked at Nazi Germany and Japan.
are you getting confused?

You dont seem to understand what i wanted to say.

daft punk

9th February 2012, 21:20

All that conspiracy theory stuff was just made up, it's all been proven. It was a preposterous allegation and there was no evidence.

GoddessCleoLover

9th February 2012, 21:22

Torture will cause some people to admit to anything just to stop the torture.

Omsk

9th February 2012, 21:23

All that conspiracy theory stuff was just made up, it's all been proven. It was a preposterous allegation and there was no evidence.

Are you suggesting they didn't conspire against the USSR?

daft punk

9th February 2012, 22:00

What? Of course there was no conspiracy. Trotsky said build a new mass movement among the working class, not conspire with flipping fascists! The idea is insane. You cant build socialism with conspiracy, it has to have a mass base and be done openly.

yes they were tortured. Kamenev and Zinoviev were conned actually, into making false confessions. They thought it would save their lives, their children's lives, and many other people's. 'Fraid not. And most never even got a trail.

Omsk

10th February 2012, 09:54

What? Of course there was no conspiracy. Trotsky said build a new mass movement among the working class, not conspire with flipping fascists! The idea is insane. You cant build socialism with conspiracy, it has to have a mass base and be done openly.

You are getting boring with the entire: "Trotsky said this Trotsky said that!".
Trotsky could say one thing,and do something completely different.
He never had a "mass base".The LO were never that popular,and he knew that very well,he had no chance,so he tried various methods .

But in the course of the 1920s and particularly in the late 20s and early 30s, when the Trotskyite line had been overwhelmingly defeated inside the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, they ceased to be a political trend. Those who remained in the Soviet Union pretended in public to accept the line of the Party, but secretly began to work against the Party, against the Revolution. They degenerated into secret agents of capitalism, began to work for the various capitalist Intelligence services, plotted the restoration of capitalism in the USSR and the defeat of the Soviet Union in the course of the aggression which was being prepared by the great capitalist powers, organized the sabotage of Soviet industry and agriculture and the assassination of leading Communists. Trotsky himself, in exile, maintained close contact with the secret groups inside the CPSU, and became the center of a world-wide network of anti-Soviet sabotage and espionage, attempting to organize similar secret groupings inside the Communist Parties and militant labor, progressive, and national liberation organizations all over the world.
Klugmann, James. From Trotsky to Tito. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1951, p. 74

Not only they failed in gaining mass support,they even fought each other.

The opposition groups remained small minorities within the party. Their leaders were motivated mainly by resentment of Stalin's powering position,... The opposition leaders were, moreover, filled with malice and hatred towards each other. Zinoviev and Kamenev had vied in the virulence of their attacks on Trotsky. Trotsky had never disguised his contempt for his opponents and had been brutally outspoken in attacking them.
Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979, p. 212
The commonest characteristic of these [anti-Soviet] organizations was their disdain or even hatred of each other.
Alexandrov, Victor. The Tukhachevsky Affair. London: Macdonald, 1963, p. 85

Bronco

10th February 2012, 17:29

If I might recommend some Anarchist stuff then check out Kroptkins "Anarchism" entry in the Enyclopaedia Britannica for a good basic overview of Anarchism and it's history, and also Malatesta's pamphlet "Anarchy" and his "A Talk About Anarchist Communism Between Two Workers", the latter is a good basic introduction to Anarcho-Communism and easily accessible to beginners. Bakunin's "The Capitalist System" is a pretty good critique too. I've seen people recommend Berkman's "ABC of Anarchism" and Kroptkins "The Conquest of Bread" and while these are good I always preferred reading the more concise articles which provide a lot of thought provoking stuff in a few pages not a couple of hundred pages. I'm on an iPod right now so can't link that easily but if you head here you'll find all of what I mentioned and loads more http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/

daft punk

10th February 2012, 20:22

You are getting boring with the entire: "Trotsky said this Trotsky said that!".
Trotsky could say one thing,and do something completely different.
Example?

He never had a "mass base".The LO were never that popular,and he knew that very well,he had no chance,so he tried various methods .

But in the course of the 1920s and particularly in the late 20s and early 30s, when the Trotskyite line had been overwhelmingly defeated inside the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, they ceased to be a political trend.

Well, in the civil war he was a household name. But the revolution was beginning to degenerate, Lenin could see it, Trotsky could see it. Stalin managed to get Zinoviev and Kamemev on his side for a crucial year. He had also spent years building up cliques of contact and cronies, helped by his 'non-job' of General Secretary (it was a non-job but got him lots of cronies).

Now then, in the period around 1927 Stalin began to establish his dictatorship. The Left Opposition meeting would be raided by gangs of Stalinist hooligans blowing whistles and so on. This was reported in a French Communist newspaper. People who supported Trotsky lost their job, or got denied medical treatment, were threatened bullied, blackmailed, driven to suicide.

Meanwhile the revolution was degenerating, and with it Trotsky's base. And Stalin's base was growing, the counter-revolutionaries, the kulaks, the bureaucrats, the NEP men. Stalin's right hand man, Bukharin, told the kulaks "enrich yoursleves".

And they did. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

Those who remained in the Soviet Union pretended in public to accept the line of the Party, but secretly began to work against the Party, against the Revolution. They degenerated into secret agents of capitalism, began to work for the various capitalist Intelligence services, plotted the restoration of capitalism in the USSR and the defeat of the Soviet Union in the course of the aggression which was being prepared by the great capitalist powers, organized the sabotage of Soviet industry and agriculture and the assassination of leading Communists. Trotsky himself, in exile, maintained close contact with the secret groups inside the CPSU, and became the center of a world-wide network of anti-Soviet sabotage and espionage, attempting to organize similar secret groupings inside the Communist Parties and militant labor, progressive, and national liberation organizations all over the world.
Klugmann, James. From Trotsky to Tito. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1951, p. 74

Fiction. Find something concrete or retract.

The opposition groups remained small minorities within the party. Their leaders were motivated mainly by resentment of Stalin's powering position,... The opposition leaders were, moreover, filled with malice and hatred towards each other. Zinoviev and Kamenev had vied in the virulence of their attacks on Trotsky. Trotsky had never disguised his contempt for his opponents and had been brutally outspoken in attacking them.
Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979, p. 212
The commonest characteristic of these [anti-Soviet] organizations was their disdain or even hatred of each other.
Alexandrov, Victor. The Tukhachevsky Affair. London: Macdonald, 1963, p. 85
Well they got no respect from Trotsky because they deserved none. They swapped sides about 3 times. 3 times they capitulated to Stalin.

But for most of that time they feared he would kill them, even before 1927 I think.

Omsk

10th February 2012, 21:17

Example?

It was an example,you quote Trotsky,and you uphold it like some kind of a undisputable fact,while in truth,he could have said one thing,and though of something completely different.

the NEP men.

Stalin never supported the NEP men,in fact,he was against them.

In justice to Stalin it must be recognized that his appeal was directed against the kulaks, not as individuals but as "a class whose interests were inimical to those of the proletariat." To break the political and economic power of the "agrarian capitalist" was all that was required. That a movement of much greater magnitude developed was not his fault.
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 82

'non-job' of General Secretary

The position of the Gen.Sec was very important,and you know that.

People who supported Trotsky lost their job, or got denied medical treatment, were threatened bullied, blackmailed, driven to suicide.

Over-exaggeration,;

But during the 1920s the Stalinist leadership had often permitted the publication of statements and articles by various oppositionists within the party, at least until the moment of their defeat and expulsion. Trotsky's works were published until the mid-1920s, and Bukharin continued to publish, howbeit within controlled parameters, until his arrest in 1937; he was in fact editor of the government newspaper Izvestia until that time. [Stalin had personally nominated Bukharin to the Izvestia position in 1934]
Getty & Naumov. The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 103

Actually Trotsky wanted to try another test of strength with the Politburo. It seemed to him that the mood in the party had shifted in his favor. Dozens of oppositionists who came to see him at the offices of the Chief Concessions Committee assured him that this was so. Thus Trotsky decided on a renewal of factional political activity, which was conducted on a large scale and attracted more supporters than in the fall of 1926. The opposition groups in the various Soviet cities had their own local leaderships and their own faction discipline, and dues were collected from members. Opposition materials were published secretly on government printing presses, and a small illegal print shop was set up in Moscow for the same purpose. Trotsky knew about, and fully approved of, the use of such prerevolutionary conspiratorial methods. Assessing these events several years later, Trotsky wrote:
"In a very short time it was apparent that as a faction we had undoubtedly gained strength--that is to say, we had grown more united intellectually, and stronger in numbers...."
In this passage Trotsky obviously exaggerates the extent of Opposition influence among rank-and-file party members. He overstates even more the extent to which Stalin had been discredited by the Chinese events. Moreover, most of the illegal meetings and Opposition materials were no secret to Stalin and his immediate circle. He followed the activities of the opposition leaders very closely.
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 171

Well they got no respect from Trotsky because they deserved none.

Didnt you say [in other threads] that the "best Bolsheviks were killed" - implying that all of the Bolsheviks on the picture you posted were "great" .Or is for you,only Trotsky a "great" Bolshevik?

Or is,from your point of view,anyone who was against Stalin a "great Bolshevik,best communist,true communist"

Leftsolidarity

10th February 2012, 21:33

Yo, can we get back to books?

daft punk

10th February 2012, 21:48

Stalin never supported the NEP men,in fact,he was against them.
Stalin allowed them the get richer. He didnt tax them heavily like Lenin and Trotsky advised. Of course in public he said Bukharin was wron to be so pro-wealthy, but Bukharin was his right hand man until everything was hastily reversed in 1928.

The position of the Gen.Sec was very important,and you know that.

General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language): Генеральный секретарь ЦК КПСС) was the title given to the leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union). With some exceptions, the office was synonymous with leader of the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leaders_of_the_Soviet_Union). Throughout its history the office had four other names; Technical Secretary (1917–1918), Chairman of the Secretariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretariat_of_the_CPSU_Central_Committee) (1918–1919), Responsible Secretary (1919–1922) and First Secretary (1953–1966). Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin) elevated the office to overall command of the Communist Party and by definition the whole Soviet Union.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Secretary_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_So viet_Union#cite_note-JFH-0)

[/URL]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Secretary_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_So viet_Union#cite_note-JFH-0"]In its first two incarnations the office performed mostly secretarial work. The post of Responsible Secretary was then established in 1919 to perform administrative work. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Secretary_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_So viet_Union#cite_note-JFH-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Secretary_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_So viet_Union#cite_note-Res-1) In 1922 the office of General Secretary followed as a purely administrative and disciplinary position, whose role was to do no more than determine party membership composition. Stalin, its first incumbent, used the principles of democratic centralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism) to transform his office into that of party leader, and later leader of the Soviet Union.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Secretary_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_So viet_Union#cite_note-JFH-0) In 1934, the 17th Party Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_Congress_of_the_All-Union_Communist_Party_%28Bolsheviks%29) did not elect a General Secretary and Stalin was an ordinary secretary until his death in 1953, although he remained the de facto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto) leader without diminishing his own authority.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Secretary_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_So viet_Union#cite_note-Izvestia_CC_CPSU-2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Secretary_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_So viet_Union

"People who supported Trotsky lost their job, or got denied medical treatment, were threatened bullied, blackmailed, driven to suicide. "
Over-exaggeration,;

But during the 1920s the Stalinist leadership had often permitted the publication of statements and articles by various oppositionists within the party, at least until the moment of their defeat and expulsion. Trotsky's works were published until the mid-1920s, and Bukharin continued to publish, howbeit within controlled parameters, until his arrest in 1937; he was in fact editor of the government newspaper Izvestia until that time. [Stalin had personally nominated Bukharin to the Izvestia position in 1934]
Getty & Naumov. The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 103

read this
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch42.htm

"The leading group of the opposition faced this finale with its eyes wide open. We realized only too clearly that we could make our ideas the common property of the new generation not by diplomacy and evasions but only by an open struggle which shirked none of the practical consequences. We went to meet the inevitable debacle, confident, however, that we were paving the way for the triumph of our ideas in a more distant future. The pressure of material force has always played, and still plays, a great rôle in humanity’s history; sometimes it is a progressive rôle, more often a reactionary one; its character depends on what class applies the force, and to what end. But it is a far cry from this to the belief that force can solve all problems and overcome all obstacles. It is possible by force of arms to check the development of progressive historical tendencies; it is not possible to block the road of the advance of progressive ideas for ever. That is why, when the struggle is one for great principles, the revolutionary can only follow one rule: Fais ce que dois, advienne que pourra.
The nearer drew the time for the fifteenth congress, set for the end of 1927, the more the party felt that it had reached a crossroads in history. Alarm was rife in the ranks. In spite of a monstrous terror, the desire to hear the opposition awoke in the party."

Read the full chapter, hear it from the point of view of the person at the centre of it all.

Actually Trotsky wanted to try another test of strength with the Politburo. It seemed to him that the mood in the party had shifted in his favor. Dozens of oppositionists who came to see him at the offices of the Chief Concessions Committee assured him that this was so. Thus Trotsky decided on a renewal of factional political activity, which was conducted on a large scale and attracted more supporters than in the fall of 1926. The opposition groups in the various Soviet cities had their own local leaderships and their own faction discipline, and dues were collected from members. Opposition materials were published secretly on government printing presses, and a small illegal print shop was set up in Moscow for the same purpose. Trotsky knew about, and fully approved of, the use of such prerevolutionary conspiratorial methods. Assessing these events several years later, Trotsky wrote:
"In a very short time it was apparent that as a faction we had undoubtedly gained strength--that is to say, we had grown more united intellectually, and stronger in numbers...."
In this passage Trotsky obviously exaggerates the extent of Opposition influence among rank-and-file party members. He overstates even more the extent to which Stalin had been discredited by the Chinese events. Moreover, most of the illegal meetings and Opposition materials were no secret to Stalin and his immediate circle. He followed the activities of the opposition leaders very closely.
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 171
What is that supposed to prove? That Trotsky exaggerated his support? China was a big problem for the Opposition, even though Trotsky had been right and Stalin wrong, the revolution was defeated and that made it a bad period for the Left Opposition, as to put it simply, the masses were on a downer.

Didnt you say [in other threads] that the "best Bolsheviks were killed" - implying that all of the Bolsheviks on the picture you posted were "great" .Or is for you,only Trotsky a "great" Bolshevik?

Or is,from your point of view,anyone who was against Stalin a "great Bolshevik,best communist,true communist"

well, Kamenev and Zinoviev had a lot of flaws, but they were original Bolsheviks, socialist revolutionaries. Their worst mistake was to keep swapping sides and capitulating to Stalin.

Here is Trotsky again writing about 1925

"Meanwhile, party affairs had reached a new crisis. In the first period of the struggle, a trio had been formed to oppose me, but it was far from being a unit. In theoretical and political respects, both Zinoviev and Kamenev were probably superior to Stalin. But they both lacked that little thing called character. Their international outlook, wider than Stalin’s, which they acquired under Lenin in foreign exile, did not make their position any stronger; on the contrary, it weakened it. The political tendency was toward a self-contained national development, and the old formula of Russian patriotism, “We’ll bury the enemy under a shower of our caps,” was now assiduously being translated into the new socialist language. Zinoviev’s and Kamenev’s attempt to uphold the international viewpoint, if only to a limited degree, turned them into “Trotskyists” of the second order in the eyes of the bureaucracy. This led them to wage their campaign against me with even more fury, so that they might win greater confidence from the apparatus. But these efforts were also vain. The apparatus was rapidly discovering that Stalin was flesh of its flesh. Zinoviev and Kamenev soon found themselves in hostile opposition to Stalin; when they tried to transfer the dispute from the trio to the Central Committee, they discovered that Stalin had a solid majority there.

Kamenev was considered the official leader of Moscow. But after the routing with Kamenev’s participation of the Moscow party organization in 1923, when the party came out in its majority to support the opposition, the rank-and-file of the Moscow communists maintained a grim silence. With the first attempts to resist Stalin, Kamenev found himself suspended in air. The situation in Leningrad [1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch42.htm#n1) was different. The Leningrad communists were protected from the opposition of 1923 by the heavy lid of Zinoviev’s apparatus. But now their turn came. The Leningrad workers were aroused by the political trend in favor of the rich peasants – the so-called kulaks – and a policy aimed at one-country socialism. The class protest of the workers coincided with the high-official opposition of Zinoviev. Thus a new opposition came into existence, and one of its members in the first stages was Nadyezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya. To every one’s utter surprise, their own most of all, Zinoviev and Kamenev found themselves obliged to repeat word for word the criticisms by the opposition, and soon they were listed as being in the camp of the “Trotskyists.” It is little wonder that in our circle, closer relations with Zinoviev and Kamenev seemed, to say the least, paradoxical. There were among the oppositionists many who opposed such a bloc. There were even some, though only a few, who thought it possible to form a bloc with Stalin against Zinoviev and Kamenev. One of my closest friends, Mrachkovsky, an old revolutionary and one of the finest commanders in the civil war, expressed himself as opposed to a bloc with anyone and gave a classic explanation of his stand: “Stalin will deceive, and Zinoviev will sneak away.” But such questions are finally decided not by psychological but by political considerations. Zinoviev and Kamenev openly avowed that the “Trotskyists” had been right in the struggle against them ever since 1923. They accepted the basic principles of our platform. In such circumstances, it was impossible not to form a bloc with them, especially since thousands of revolutionary Leningrad workers were behind them.
I had not met Kamenev outside the official meetings for three years, that is, since the night on the eve of his trip to Georgia, when he promised to uphold the stand taken by Lenin and me, but, having learned of Lenin’s grave condition, went over to Stalin. At our very first meeting, Kamenev declared: “It is enough for you and Zinoviev to appear on the same platform, and the party will find its true Central Committee.” I could not help laughing at such bureaucratic optimism. Kamenev obviously underestimated the disintegrating effect on the party of the three years’ activity of the trio. I pointed it out to him, without the slightest concession to his feelings. The revolutionary ebb-tide that had begun at the end of 1923, that is, after the defeat of the revolutionary movement in Germany, had assumed international proportions. In Russia, the reaction against October was proceeding at full speed. The party apparatus more and more was lining itself up with the right wing. Under such conditions, it would have been childish to think that all we need do was join hands and victory would drop at our feet like a ripe fruit. “We must aim far ahead,” I repeated dozens of times to Kamenev and Zinoviev. “We must prepare for a long and serious struggle.” On the spur of the moment, my new allies accepted this formula bravely. But they didn’t last long; they were fading daily and hourly. Mrachkovsky proved right in his appraisal of their personalities. Zinoviev did sneak away after all, but he was far from being followed by all of his supporters. At any rate, his double about-face inflicted an incurable wound on the legend of “Trotskyism.”"

Leftsolidarity

10th February 2012, 21:49

Apparently not....

Rooster

10th February 2012, 21:57

Apparently not....

Personally? I think a selected works of Marx is fine. The three volume selected works of Marx and Engels is a good one to get if you can find it. It contains all of the basic works, in selected form, that have been mentioned before hand. A good book to get is Ernst Fischer's Marx in his own Words. Fischer tries to show a development of Marx's ideas through his whole career, using excerpts from his works. His Lenin in his own Words isn't as good though. There is also a student edition of The German Ideology which is worth getting. Like I said though, it's worth having some context with books that deal with historical issues. Sheila Fitzpatrick writes a lot of good stuff. The one she has about the Russian revolution should be easily available but her other stuff such as Everyday Stalinism might be hard to come by. Also, another author people might want to look into is Hal Draper, particulary his Two Souls of Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/). He's a little hard on anarchists though.

Omsk

11th February 2012, 09:46

Well,i wrote a reply to a user in the last page,but i wont post it,since we should continue with the original topic of the thread.

TrotskistMarx

12th February 2012, 19:00

I will give you the following list of book writters of Marxist Philosophy, so that you can read them in the main Philosophy of Marxism website marxists.org or if you want, you can buy them from amazon.com and remember that without MARXISM KNOWLEDGE we won't be able to overthrow the capitalist system and replace it with a DICTATORSHIP OF THE USA WORKING CLASS AND PEASANTS IN AMERICA (THE SOCIALIST STAGE BETWEEN THE COLLAPSE OF CAPITALISM AND THE BEGINING OF THE ANARCHIST-COMMUNIST STATE-LESS STAGE): I INCLUDED SOME PHILOSOPHERS IN THIS LIST OF BOOK-WRITTERS:

Karl Marx, Fredrich Engels, Lenin, Nietzsche, Kant, Descartes, Hegel, Goethe, Schopenhauer, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Thucydides, Montesquieu, La Rochefoucauld, Spinoza, Voltaire, Rosseau, Montaine, Blaise Pascal, Herder, Wittingstein, Theodore, Adorno, Habermas, Marcuse, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Trotsky, Allan Maass, Gramsci, Karl Kautsky, Daniel Deleon, Clara Zetkin, James Connolly, Rosa Luxemburg, Alexandra Kollontai, Georg Lukács, Karl Korsch, José Carlos Mariátegui, CLR James, Ted Grant, Sam Marcy, Fred Goldstein, Chris Hedges, Michael Parenti, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, George Padmore, Hal Draper, Paul Mattick, Paul Lafargue, Paul Craig Roberts, James Petras, Joe Bageant, Chalmers Johnson,

And the biographies of: Hugo Chavez, Che Guevara, Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Buenaventura Durruti, Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Fidel Castro, etc.

,

So I've been reading a lot of Marx and Lenin, but I'm not really sure how to progress. My original plan was Marx-Lenin-Trotsky/Stalin-Others, but I don't want to miss any important works and get confused. So far I've read:

The Communist Manifesto
The Principles of Communism
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Imperialism: The Highest Stage
Das Kapital (In-progess)
State and Revolution
Wage Labor and Capital
The German Ideology

I'm trying to get a good ground in Marx before I move onto anyone else. What order do people suggest I continue in in order to maximize my understanding of communism?

Also, are there any good "reading guides" to go along with these books? I get the bulk of it, but some of the concepts (Especially in Capital) simply go straight over my head. Is there some type of sparknotes-ish website for Marxist literature where I can get a simplified explanation for passages I might not understand?

Thanks for any answers.