Reading Marx Like Plowing Rocks

[T.A.Frawley]

I love to read and have been reading quite about about Socialism. I've read some of Marx's writings and have found reading them like plowing through a field of rocks. Is there anyone who goes into as much detail that is easier to read. Forgive me I'm not lazy, by any means I just find it difficult. Also wading through his obvious disdain for religion and spirituality is IMO is unnecessary to go on and on about. I don't find it offensive in the least just a PIA. IMO hatred of religion is not a necessity for communism or socialism to work. Matter of fact I think it could be argued that Jesus was a socialist - not that its important to the conversation.

I'm currently reading Eugene Debs Labor and Freedom and find his written communication style an easy read. So is there anyone else that is a little more down to earth who would be more easily read then Marx or others like him?

[Rafiq]

Also wading through his obvious disdain for religion and spirituality is IMO is unnecessary to go on and on about. I don't find it offensive in the least just a PIA. IMO hatred of religion is not a necessity for communism or socialism to work. Matter of fact I think it could be argued that Jesus was a socialist

How dare Marx not be mindful that the context from which T.A. Frawley read his works, is different from the context from which Marx writes them. How perceptive of you to arrogantly reduce this to hatred of religion. Frawley, whose intellectual comfort he obviously cared so much about, who represents the general audience he had aimed at perfectly.

Perhaps who should attempt to understand Marx in a meaningful way rather than reduce him to your ignorance.

[Stirnerian]

Marx was a brilliant man , and was pretty good at coming up with what we'd call 'zingers' against foes, but his prose was creaky. It's hard to deny that his writings on dialectics can be impenetrable, though that's likely more to do with the fact that dialectics itself can be impenetrable. This isn't a problem with other near-contemporary German language philosophers. Nietzsche is a pleasure to read, and generally a much better writer.

Marxists would do well to work on a sort of New International Version for Marx - Marx in the vernacular.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Marx in the vernacular.

Oh HELL no!

Now that I think of it...John Lennon tried that already, and all we ended up with was a song popular with a bunch of trendy liberals who weirdly sing along, "Imagine there's no countries", etc. without actually supporting a word of it. The 'modern vernacular' seems like it would involve this sort of vague idealist language.

Seriously, sure, it's not the easiest thing in the world to read, but it would be strange to expect it to be, given the subject matter.

Okay, I'm kind of being facetious and a linguistic purist, but really: Capital may be heavy, but in the Manifesto for instance Marx demonstrated some kind of capacity for poetic flare. There's nothing wrong with 'updating' the language, but if you can read an original, that's probably best.

[Stirnerian]

I'm currently working on a project, and I'm a little more than a third of the way through with it, that doesn't offer a new linguistic interpretation of Marx (I'm not literate in German) but that does go through and analyze the vast majority of his works in a language I think most working class people with a minimal command of English can understand.

It's useful for me in particular to do this because not only am I not at all committed to any tendency - I wouldn't even describe myself as a 'Marxist' - I am also from the lumpenproletariat, or the early 21st century American equivalent of it. I'm also not college educated, which means I haven't been influenced by a professor with any ideological axe to grind or the cultural-liberal atmosphere of a campus.

I of course have my own biases; I'm probably focusing overmuch on 'Young Marx'. But I think that's a healthy thing to do when writing for an American audience, particularly when Marx can be cast as a relative anti-Statist in comparison to Hegel and his support for the conservative German bureaucracy.

It's also not blindly favorable to Marx. I'm about to write the section on Die Deutsche Ideologie and give him a good spanking for misinterpreting (misrepresenting, actually, I think) Max Stirner as a prototypical Ayn Rand.

It's a quote-heavy work, though, from Marx, Hegel, Feuerbach, Stirner, et al., and I'm not confident I could get it published. I'd like to try, though.

[John Nada]

I love to read and have been reading quite about about Socialism. I've read some of Marx's writings and have found reading them like plowing through a field of rocks.Look at the bright side. You'll have a clear field to sow and build up muscles.:grin:
Is there anyone who goes into as much detail that is easier to read. Forgive me I'm not lazy, by any means I just find it difficult. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/index.htm I kid! I kid! :blushing: (dodges stones) Honestly I think Trotsky was a better writer than Stalin.

I actually like Marx's style. And Engels's too. It gets easier the more you get into. What are you reading from them? What's the subject?
I'm currently reading Eugene Debs Labor and Freedom and find his written communication style an easy read. So is there anyone else that is a little more down to earth who would be more easily read then Marx or others like him?He was a good American Socialists and great orator. Few have came as close to him at breaking through the two-parties(he actually would've met the threshold for public funding now) via an election. It's not surprising he'd be more assessable.

Many of the major theorists/historical figures might not have originally written in your first language(English?). They might have written in a time when a literate person would spend time reading for fun instead of watching TV, so a lot of heavy reading. There might be some stuff that would be obvious in their context, but not in your modern-day country. Or they'd assume you've actually read Marx and Engels. However a lot of stuff turns out to be surprisingly relevant.

Try this. Set a goal, say read 20 pages or for a half an hour a day.
Oh HELL no!

Now that I think of it...John Lennon tried that already, and all we ended up with was a song popular with a bunch of trendy liberals who weirdly sing along, "Imagine there's no countries", etc. without actually supporting a word of it. The 'modern vernacular' seems like it would involve this sort of vague idealist language.Don't you just hate it when people think it's a Christian song, or even a patriotic song?

[Slavic]

Marx was a brilliant man , and was pretty good at coming up with what we'd call 'zingers' against foes, but his prose was creaky. It's hard to deny that his writings on dialectics can be impenetrable, though that's likely more to do with the fact that dialectics itself can be impenetrable. This isn't a problem with other near-contemporary German language philosophers. Nietzsche is a pleasure to read, and generally a much better writer.

Marxists would do well to work on a sort of New International Version for Marx - Marx in the vernacular.

I to enjoy Marx's comedic jests at his philosophical opponents. It is dry, but I always feel like he is thinking, "Value is embedded with the labor of man, not like those dumb ass vulgar economists think. Their so dumb."

[GiantMonkeyMan]

How dare Marx not be mindful that the context from which T.A. Frawley read his works, is different from the context from which Marx writes them. How perceptive of you to arrogantly reduce this to hatred of religion. Frawley, whose intellectual comfort he obviously cared so much about, who represents the general audience he had aimed at perfectly.

Perhaps who should attempt to understand Marx in a meaningful way rather than reduce him to your ignorance.
Rafiq, in the 'Learning' section do you think you could stop be an asshat for one second for a new member who wants to learn more about communism but is not used to, or understands, the context of Marx's writing? Maybe a better approach, instead of adopting an unpleasant and arrogant demeanour, would have been to approach this in a more friendly and educational manner? Just saying.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

My advice would be to plow on, if you're interested in the theoretical basis of Marxism. I actually think Marx's general style is good - but his economic works are a bit on the dry side. Most scientific texts are (Marx does crack a joke in Capital from time to time, but it's easy to miss them as many of them are tucked into footnotes).

If you're interested in a sort of popular overview of socialism, I would actually recommend Shachtman's "The Fight for Socialism" (https://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1946/ffs/index.htm), although the only thing every single socialist tendency on this plan can agree on is that Shachtman was a renegade. He was a good writer, though - too bad he never managed to learn anything from his own works.

(For us socialism is the abolition of private property, wage labour, the class society and the state. Obviously Jesus was not this kind of socialist.)

[Ele'ill]

you should take a break from it and read something easier like tiqqun

[T.A.Frawley]

I actually appreciate everyone's replies and IMO Rafiq's critique was valid.

I think I'll take a further brake from Marx for a little bit. I'm simply trying to define my own politics and economics. Then I would like a join others who are taking practical actions in the U.S. to bring about the drastically needed changes.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Mmmm not a lot of helpful info in here..what exactly have you been reading by him? He has a particular writing style that takes a little bit to acclimate to, but it will click eventually. If you are new to socialist ideas, or just philosophy in general I imagine the vocabulary is likely the most challenging part rather than style. You should anticipate googling a fair amount of new terminology, I remember how overwhelming some of it was when I first started getting into politics, everything feels like a reference to a reference to a reference, which of course is exactly the case. I think I would start off with some of his shorter writings, the manifesto is always the obvious choice but you might try these two instead:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/intro.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch01.htm#c0

Not Marx but I always suggest this text for people new to this kind of subject: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-the-reproduction-of-daily-life

I came across it in my mid 20s and I remember thinking how nice it would have been if I had found it at 15 instead.

As for his critique of religion, I actually feel that Marx takes a fairly balanced approach to it. What exactly bothered you when you read it? A hostility towards religion may not be necessary for revolution, but we should not abide sacred cows either. Everything is up for criticism and that's just the way it is. If religion is found wanting, that's a fault for religion and the religious to deal with, not us.

[Subversive]

IMO Rafiq's critique was valid.
Rafiq's "critique" wasn't a critique. As usual Rafiq is just spouting off angry nonsense, unable to control his emotions.
A critique requires analysis, details, and evaluation. None of these describe Rafiq's posts. :P


Then I would like a join others who are taking practical actions in the U.S. to bring about the drastically needed changes.
These people currently do not exist. If you are taking "practical actions in the US to bring about the drastically needed changes" then you are arrested, and more. The US intentionally makes it a living hell for these people, their laws explicitly prevent this. They will entirely ruin your life, if not imprison you indefinitely as a "traitor" or "terrorist". So if you're talking about some movement doing things that might seem like they are practical actions, they aren't. That's the whole point, to look like they are doing something when in reality they aren't. Otherwise there is no one.

So if you want to talk about plowing through rocks... Try taking "practical action" for the cause in the US and not get arrested for it. You'll be faced with more than rocks - more like police batons, handcuffs, pepper spray, tear gas, and bullets.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What's up with all the rhetoric in this thread? This person had a pretty straight-forward question to a problem everyone should be able to relate to. If Marx was easy to just pick up and understand we likely wouldn't be relegated to discussing him in activist ghettos and on back water discussion boards. What a great introduction to a complex subject.

[T.A.Frawley]

What's up with all the rhetoric in this thread? This person had a pretty straight-forward question to a problem everyone should be able to relate to. If Marx was easy to just pick up and understand we likely wouldn't be relegated to discussing him in activist ghettos and on back water discussion boards. What a great introduction to a complex subject.

Why thank you! I'd love to read your introduction it!

[Rafiq]

Rafiq's "critique" wasn't a critique. As usual Rafiq is just spouting off angry nonsense, unable to control his emotions.
A critique requires analysis, details, and evaluation. None of these describe Rafiq's posts. :P

What I said amounts to little more than this: There may in fact be more substance to Marx's words that you should actively struggle to understand, rather than reduce to your misunderstanding. I know it's hard to believe, Subversive, but behind the "angry nonsense" there's actually a point or two being conveyed.

To Frawley: Marxists.org has a very good, very brief beginners guide to Marxism. Rather than jumping right ahead onto reading Marx directly, it is imperative that first one understands in one way or another the historic tradition of Marxism, through which Marx makes much more sense. Of course, if you have any direct questions on the manner, feel free to message me. Of course, judging by the shallowness of Subversive's understanding of Marxism as demonstrated in a previous thread, he too should take this advice.

https://www.marxists.org/subject/index.htm
https://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm