What should I read/study?

[Martin Luther]

Hello, I'm a student from Ohio. I've always leaned to the left on everything, and after watching and reading some things on socialism and Marxism, I just said to myself "that's pretty much right".

The world is in the worst political, economic, and social crisis in living memory, so I suppose I'm a part of history in that way by looking beyond liberal democracy.

I don't have a sub ideology, yet. I don't know if I even want one, but I hope to learn about the various strands of the revolutionary left.

[Q]

Moved from /intro to /learning.

As for your question: It depends on What you're interested in. I have a reading list here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=7728).

[Martin Luther]

Thanks for that.

So from what little I've read from Marxist authors and lurked over in this forum, these seem to me to be the biggest questions that define where one stands in the left:

1. Can socialism be achieved peacefully through already existing democratic processes? (i.e. reformism)
yes - social democrats

2. If not, is it possible for the working class to control a state as the ruling class?

no - anarchists, some left communists

a. If so, was this realized at any point in the Soviet Union (or China, etc.)?

no - some left communists and others

b. If so, when did it cease to be?

Soon after October - some left communists
After Stalin's rise to power - Trotskyists (though it stayed a workers state of sorts)
After destalinization - Maoists, Orthodox Stalinists
When the USSR fell - general Marxist-Leninists

I don't know enough to answer 2. Would I be correct in saying 'no' to both places you in the anarchist or left communist categories?

[ReindeerThistle]

If I may be so bold, Martin Luther, Lenin in State and Revolution answers the #2 question about workers running the state in theory. It is, imho, a very succinct explanation of the development of socialism, working off of the only previous worker's government: the Paris Commune of 1871.

However, for the best practical application of a worker-run socialist republic, I give you Cuba. I recommend reading Lee Lockwood's "Castro's Cuba, Cuba's Fidel" for a critical portrait of the Cuban revolution, as well as Jonathan Kozol's "Children of the Revolution" for a critical look at its education system.

The judging of the merits of any revolution, as far as I'm concerned, must be based on the revolutionary advances of that nation, compared to its PRE-revolutionary conditions.

[The Idler]

Thanks for that.

So from what little I've read from Marxist authors and lurked over in this forum, these seem to me to be the biggest questions that define where one stands in the left:

1. Can socialism be achieved peacefully through already existing democratic processes? (i.e. reformism)
yes - social democrats

2. If not, is it possible for the working class to control a state as the ruling class?

no - anarchists, some left communists

a. If so, was this realized at any point in the Soviet Union (or China, etc.)?

no - some left communists and others

b. If so, when did it cease to be?

Soon after October - some left communists
After Stalin's rise to power - Trotskyists (though it stayed a workers state of sorts)
After destalinization - Maoists, Orthodox Stalinists
When the USSR fell - general Marxist-Leninists

I don't know enough to answer 2. Would I be correct in saying 'no' to both places you in the anarchist or left communist categories?
If you answer no to the working-class controlling the state as the ruling-class you could be anarchist but you could also be Impossibilist such as the World Socialist Movement (including the Socialist Party of Great Britain). Also the definition of reformism would be different.

Also what area do you specifically want to read /study or get out of reading /studying?

[Martin Luther]

How would the definition of reformism be different?

Wikipedia on impossibilism:



Impossibilism is a theory on the emergence of socialism and a Marxist perspective that stresses the limited value of political, economic and social reforms within a capitalist economy. It argues that the pursuit of such reforms is counterproductive because they strengthen support for the existing system, thereby helping to ensure the continuation of capitalism. Impossibilism holds that the pursuit of such reforms should not be a major concern for socialists because they are irrelevant, if not counter-productive, to the goal of realizing socialism.[1]
Impossibilism insists that socialists should solely (or at the least, primarily) focus on structural changes (sometimes termed "revolutionary changes") to society as opposed to advancing social reforms. Impossibilists argue that spontaneous revolutionary action is the only viable method of instituting the structural changes necessary for the construction of socialism. Impossibilism is thus held in contrast to reformist socialist parties that aim to rally support for socialism through the implementation of popular social reforms (such as a welfare state) or those who believe that socialism can emerge through gradual economic reforms implemented by an elected social democratic political party.
Impossibilism is the opposite of "possibilism" and "immediatism". Possibilism and immediatism are based on a gradualist path to socialism and a desire on the part of socialists to help ameliorate the social ills "immediately" through practical programs implemented by existing institutions such as labor unions and electoral politics, thereby de-emphasizing the ultimate objective of building a socialist economy. As a result, socialists who embraced possibilism and immediatism sounded and acted little different from non-socialist reformers.[2]
Impossibilist movements are also associated with Anti-Leninism: opposition to both Vanguardism and democratic centralism.

But based on that, Leninists are impossibilists too because they see no use of the standing state to the working class movement for socialism. Everybody but social democrats and reformists would be impossibilists. If impossibilists would answer no to 2, then there needs to be a better definition

[The Idler]

Reformism. Reforms are legislative and other enactments deemed necessary for governments in running the various forms of capitalism. The Socialist Party is opposed to reformism – the policy of advocating reforms, either as a way of 'improving' capitalism or as a means to socialism – but we are not necessarily opposed to individual reforms which may be of benefit to the working class. However we do not advocate any reform, because we hold that to do so would lead to a socialist party changing into a reformist party, attracting the support of non-socialists.
Parliament can be used by a socialist-minded working class, not for reforms or reformism, but for the revolutionary act of dispossessing the capitalist class by establishing common ownership of the means of production.
from
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/z-marxism/r