Enlighten me, please

[Ritzy Cat]

Hello. I'm fairly new to these forums. About a year ago during the presidential race for Obama vs. Romney, it got me very interested in politics. I had done a project on the Russian Revolution during that same time, so I had gone into more in-depth insight into communism, socialism, and anything of the sort. I have a group of friends that I talk to, each of which have varying tendencies of communism. Authoritative socialism, anarcho-communism, etc.

I spent a night looking around to see where I thought my ideas felt. For the longest time I have identified as a libertarian socialist.

However I feel like I do not completely understand communism and socialism as a whole. Is there anything I can read, or look up, that would give me a general overview on the goals and philosophy of communism and socialism? As far as I'm aware, communism is a classless and stateless society that puts everyone in social equality through the means of production. Outside of that, I am not very enlightened on this.

I want to know more about it, because I am for sure I am something of this sort, because I disagree with anything else.

Thank you

[Hivemind]

Welcome!

I would personally recommend reading some anarchist stuff before communist stuff mainly because a lot of the time the latter is from the point of view of the branches of communism that are what people would consider "authoritarian" (which is a bullshit term but in this case I would call those people who say that we need a single party transitional state or a strong party "dictatorship" and blah blah that kind of stuff some form of "authoritarian", though not in the same way as Engels refered to it) and seeing as you currently think you're a libertarian socialist, it might be best if you avoid people like Stalin and Trotsky and that bunch at first, because it might put you off of continuing to read other stuff.

So I'd recommend reading stuff like...The Conquest of Bread or Mutual Aid, though they can be pretty dry. Could try ABC of anarchism by Berkman, but it's pretty laced with idealism. There's a few other good ones out there. Those works, however dated they may be, still have merit and will introduce you to "libertarian socialist" ideas.

After that, I'd say backtrack to Marx and read some of the important economic stuff like Wage Labour and Capital, Value Price and Profit, the Communist Manifesto if you take parts of it with a grain of salt (as Marx later recanted some of the things written in the book as dated).

And then after that I guess you could see where you stand, as ideology changes pretty often until you settle into what you think you are. From there you can choose accordingly.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

And I'd recommend the exact opposite, being an "authoritarian" who sees class struggle as an exersize of authority and authority as a legitimate means towards a political end. Engel's "On Authority" makes this quite clear:


Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?


This is a good list for a decent introduction
The Principles of Communism by Engels
The Communist Manifesto
Theses on Feuerbach
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy by Engels
State and Revolution by Lenin

That should be a good introduction. Also it's essential that you understand dialectical materialism and there are plenty of good introductory works on that, my personal favorite being Mao's On Contradiction since it lacks a fair bit of the Hegelian nonsense that characterized Marx's dialectic.

[G4b3n]

If you identify as a libertarian socialist, I would suggest Noam Chomsky's "Government in the Future". He essentially explains and contrasts the main currents of the left and explain's why libertarian socialism is the most appropriate method of societal organization.

I would also suggest reading as much Marx as possible, though the rhetoric may be a bit complex if you are not already extremely familiar with both leftist politics and capitalism as a mode of production. If you crack open Capital, and it doesn't make any sense, don't worry, just do a great deal of preparing by skimming through articles that break down his key concepts and his method of thinking. Marx really doesn't come out an explain dialectical materialism all too clearly, so much reading is necessary before hand.

After this is done, I would suggest reading into libertarian Marxism, which I would argue is he most relevant and useful current within the left at this point in time. It does not argue that authority be abolished in one foul swoop, but it also does not argue that we set up an authoritarian regime using the same statist terror that the bourgeoisie indulges in.

[Brotto Rühle]

Marx is the best place to start. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, available for free online.

[Hivemind]

And I'd recommend the exact opposite, being an "authoritarian" who sees class struggle as an exersize of authority and authority as a legitimate means towards a political end. Engel's "On Authority" makes this quite clear:

Anarchism is deeply entrenched in class struggle and everything Engels said is legitimate. What I meant by authoritarian was the tendency to put the party and politics as separate from the class struggle, or above it, which is what a great deal of communists do. They try to pass it off as a sort of "nah we're totally not separate from the proletariat" while they consider themselves the vanguard of the working class, yet they're busy with intellectual masturbation, armchair criticism, lack of action, fragmentation within their ideology (how many communist parties are there?), etc. With regards to the authoritarianism, it's obvious that any act of revolution is authoritarian as it is one class exercising authority over another. I don't really have another word for "authoritarianism" such as marxist-leninism or something similar, partially cause I'm hungover, so excuse that choice of words in my first post :D

To be fair, both anarchism and communism have the same goal, and the same general struggle (the class struggle), but the means are different. And seeing as the OP said he was a libertarian socialist, it would make sense for him to not start off with Stalin, for example. Know what I'm saying?

PS: pretty good list.

[The Jay]

Hello, welcome to the forum! I think that if you're looking for an introduction to libertarian socialism you should look into a whole lot of things but I'll keep it at the very most basic thing I can. Try reading The German Ideology by Marx. It will give you a background for Historical Materialism, something necessary to understanding a lot of high level conversations here.

[Art Vandelay]

If your interested in anarchism/libertarian socialism, Alexander Berkman's 'the ABC's of Communist-Anarchism' is a good place to start. The way he wrote it, makes it relatively easy to translate the material into real life discussions with people, which can be helpful especially as someone new to radical politics.

[The Douche]

Marx is the best place to start. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, available for free online.

This is actually a really good suggestion. You have a basic grasp on the idea, OP, this text is pretty approachable and the points Marx is making are clear. It will also clue you in to a particular point of Marx's (alienation) that many so-called communists would prefer to gloss over.

[Ritzy Cat]

Thank you for all the responses. I'll start off with the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, as that seems to be highly recommended.


To be fair, both anarchism and communism have the same goal, and the same general struggle (the class struggle), but the means are different. And seeing as the OP said he was a libertarian socialist, it would make sense for him to not start off with Stalin, for example. Know what I'm saying?

I wasn't aware this was the truth. I had always misunderstood why some of my commie buds jokingly used "anarchist" as a derogatory term but its sort of coming together now :grin:

In the coming years I want to be more politically involved so I figured it would be best to learn more about these philosophies, as I truly believe it is the answer to the problems all capitalist societies face.

[Fred]

Well, to be sure, the EPMS of 1844 are important works, but really not a place to start. In addition to the Manifesto, perhaps Wages, Price and Profit or Capital (Vol I).

But I will go in the complete opposite direction and recommend Max Shachtman's The Fight for Socialism It is basic, I know, but clear and well written. Old Max had some talents, you know. Even if he was a renegade and wound up a cold-war social democrat.

The State and Revolution is a great work, and a good introduction to Lenin. With that and even more so with some of his other important writings, it really helps to have some historical context in which to place his thoughts.

Therefore, you might consider reading some history, too. Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution is a towering work, maybe too large for you to have a go at right now, but completely worth the time and effort entailed. E.H. Carr's works on the Russian Revolution and the early Soviet period are excellent, but highly detailed in a way that makes them a poor introduction to that period. For something more local (at least to me) you might try James Cannon's First Ten Years of American Communism There's so much good stuff to read. Good luck with this project. Enjoy:grin:

[The Idler]

Daniel Guerin and Paul Mattick.

[Hivemind]

I wasn't aware this was the truth. I had always misunderstood why some of my commie buds jokingly used "anarchist" as a derogatory term but its sort of coming together now :grin:

Well, both communists and anarchists have as their end-goal a classless, stateless society based on workers' control over the means of production (among other things), but a good portion of the former advocate a gradual transition from capitalism to what is called the dictatorship of the proletariat, then to socialism, and then to communism (and some would say that socialism and communism were originally synonymous and that there was a distinction made between them well after they were established as terms/ideas, and others would say that there are varying numbers of steps involved), while the latter (especially anarcho-communists, who would have guessed? :laugh:) advocate an "immediate" transition between capitalism to communism. By immediate they usually mean that revolution would end up smashing the capitalistic system to bits, workers would organize themselves into unions or councils or nuclei, and the reorganization of society would begin right then and there, with the revolution (and of course, whatever influences its onset and survival), and not with gradual, pre-determined steps.

So yeah, same ends, different means.

[Zergling]

If you go on Youtube and search Kapitalism101 there are a ton of good and easy to understand videos behind Marxism. I'm not too sure of your age but when I got into communism as a teenager I found Capital too hard to read. Only now am I reading it now after years of studying it so I recommend that for later on.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Personally, I'd put off "the classics" in the short term, and read a bit of contemporary writing. Nothing against Karl (Marx) or Emma (Goldman), but probably you're better off starting from some contemporary perspectives, then going back to the OGs once you've got some "Why?"s that you want answered.

The Coming Insurrection (http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/), coming out of French post-Situationist currents was very popular a few years ago and warrants a look insofar as it is short, and heavily indebted to Autonomy - the last big Marxist/anarchist theoretical "leap" of the 20th century.
Out of similar currents (but with different conclusions!), and book-length, is Silvia Federici's historical examination of the emergence of capitalism out of feudalism, Caliban and The Witch (http://libcom.org/library/caliban-witch-silvia-federici). This especially if you like history, peasant revolts, and feminism.
Federici was associated with the Midnight Notes Collective, who wrote Promissory Notes (http://www.midnightnotes.org/Promissory%20Notes.pdf) - an excellent primer on the "great recession".

But, ah, the classics.
If you can find a copy of Anarchy!: An antholgy of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth you'll get a pretty decent rounding out of "classical anarchism" from a variety of thinkers. It's also a pretty inspiring portrait of American working class radicalism in the early 20th century.

As for less exciting/inciting material, Marx's Value, Price and Profit (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm) is an alright (if not perfect) introduction to how capitalism works, and less of a slog than reading the first volume of Capital.
Speaking of which, apparently there's a film version of Capital, which might be easier to stomach than a year of reading nothing but Marx. I haven't seen it, mind you. Though, for that matter, I haven't finished Vol. 3, and don't intend to, so who the fuck is this guy, right?
Marx's The Civil War in France (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm) is pretty good too, giving a decent history of the Paris Commune - probably one of a limited number of historical events that anarchists and Marxists can have a circle jerk over - as well as a sense of Marx's notions of socialism, proletarian dictatorship, etc.

Uh, yeah, that's probably enough for now, right?

[The Douche]

Personally, I'd put off "the classics" in the short term, and read a bit of contemporary writing. Nothing against Karl (Marx) or Emma (Goldman), but probably you're better off starting from some contemporary perspectives, then going back to the OGs once you've got some "Why?"s that you want answered.

The Coming Insurrection (http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/), coming out of French post-Situationist currents was very popular a few years ago and warrants a look insofar as it is short, and heavily indebted to Autonomy - the last big Marxist/anarchist theoretical "leap" of the 20th century.
Out of similar currents (but with different conclusions!), and book-length, is Silvia Federici's historical examination of the emergence of capitalism out of feudalism, Caliban and The Witch (http://libcom.org/library/caliban-witch-silvia-federici). This especially if you like history, peasant revolts, and feminism.
Federici was associated with the Midnight Notes Collective, who wrote Promissory Notes (http://www.midnightnotes.org/Promissory%20Notes.pdf) - an excellent primer on the "great recession".

But, ah, the classics.
If you can find a copy of Anarchy!: An antholgy of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth you'll get a pretty decent rounding out of "classical anarchism" from a variety of thinkers. It's also a pretty inspiring portrait of American working class radicalism in the early 20th century.

As for less exciting/inciting material, Marx's Value, Price and Profit (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm) is an alright (if not perfect) introduction to how capitalism works, and less of a slog than reading the first volume of Capital.
Speaking of which, apparently there's a film version of Capital, which might be easier to stomach than a year of reading nothing but Marx. I haven't seen it, mind you. Though, for that matter, I haven't finished Vol. 3, and don't intend to, so who the fuck is this guy, right?
Marx's The Civil War in France (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm) is pretty good too, giving a decent history of the Paris Commune - probably one of a limited number of historical events that anarchists and Marxists can have a circle jerk over - as well as a sense of Marx's notions of socialism, proletarian dictatorship, etc.

Uh, yeah, that's probably enough for now, right?

I dunno if telling somebody who has never read any political texts outside of introductions and Wikipedia level stuff (this is the impression I am getting from OP), to read TCI, is wise.

I know a kid who read TCI as one of his first bits of radical literature, he got absolutely nothing from it. I honestly think it would be demoralizing.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I dunno if telling somebody who has never read any political texts outside of introductions and Wikipedia level stuff (this is the impression I am getting from OP), to read TCI, is wise.

I know a kid who read TCI as one of his first bits of radical literature, he got absolutely nothing from it. I honestly think it would be demoralizing.

It depends I guess. Hipsters love it.

[The Douche]

It depends I guess. Hipsters love it.

I think anybody who is a little rebellious/angsty/radical would appreciate it for its aesthetic qualities, but that doesn't mean they're getting anything from it.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Welcome comrade!

If you have the money, I would personally recommend The Communist Manifesto Illustrated, a still ongoing comic book series from Red Quill Books that translates Marx and Engel's pamphlet into a visually arresting comic strip version. It helps to make visual the texts of the actual manifesto and is a great companion to the original text and how it relates to the modern world.