Top 5 Marx Writings

[NovelGentry]

I'm gonna start this thread, cause I was just talking to a friend about what I would list in order as some of Marx's best works. It's obviously biased by my lesser interest in economics, as you won't find much of any economic works on here. Everyone else list their top five in order from 5 to 1, 1 being rated the highest.

5. Class Struggle in France
4. The Communist Manifesto
3. On the Jewish Question
2. The German Ideology
1. Critique of the Gotha Programme

[RedStarOverChina]

:o why dont u like economics? u r a dialectical materialist, arent u?

[workersunity]

1. Communist Manifesto
2.Capital
3.German Ideology
4.Critique of the Gotha Programe
5 The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 05:09 PM
:o why dont u like economics? u r a dialectical materialist, arent u?
I don't think he said he didn't like it's just his lesser interest. I'm with him on that actually because I've taken more of an interest in economics in the last few months but can't understand much of it so I focus on the history and politics.

Dialectical materialism actually doesn't have much to do with economics. It's the philosophical basis of Marxism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism

[codyvo]

Well I have only read The Communist Manifesto, but I'm working on reading more. Also I have a lot of friends that have trouble understanding Marx, so I think that someone should publish sort of a Marxist for beginners book.

[NovelGentry]

Also I have a lot of friends that have trouble understanding Marx, so I think that someone should publish sort of a Marxist for beginners book.

Have them read the introductions to various printed works. Search for introductions that explain it though, rather than oppose it (this can be difficult). Even ones that may seem like they're just trying to get the to the heart of what he's saying will have underlying bias.

I have a copy of The German Ideology with an introduction by a guy named C. J. Arthur -- I was actually looking through that when I was talking to my friend and when I decided to make up this thread.

[resisting arrest with violence]

5. On the Jewish Question (early writings)

4. Das Kapital Vol 1

3. Communist Manifesto

2. Das Kapital vol. 2

1. Civil War in France

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

1. Communist Manifesto
2. Capital
3. Socialism - Utopian and Scientific
4. Wage-Labor and Capital
5. Critique of the Gotha Program

[Dre_Guevara]

5. The Poverty Of Philosophy
4. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
3. German Ideology
2. Das Kapital Vol. I
1. Communist Manifesto

[redstar2000]

I cannot possibly "rate" this stuff...but these are the five that I would recommend to newbies, in chronological order.

Wage Labour and Capital (1847)

Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)

A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)

Value, Price and Profit (1865)

The Civil War in France (1871)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Monty Cantsin]

Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844

German Ideology

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

Capital

Communist Manifesto

[Severian]

1. Communist Manifesto
2. Wage Labor and Capital
3. Civil War in France
4. Class Struggles in France 1848-1850
5. Value, Price and Profit

There is actually a book called "Marx for Beginners" which is OK. Not a substitute for reading Marx, but an intro.

[Djehuti]

Grundrisse
Capital
Critique of Gotha program
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts
The Civil War in France

[Dre_Guevara]

There is actually a book called "Marx for Beginners" which is OK. Not a substitute for reading Marx, but an intro.

I would get the Marx-Engels Reader. It has a collection of his most significant works there.

[codyvo]

I have the Marx-Engels Reader, it is pretty interesting, I would suggest that to many readers, I think it is great.

[workersunity]

ya the thing is, is that i would get it, but i have like 5 of marxs works right now including three copies of CM, so i dont want that many duplicates

[flyby]

here are my views on this:

Modern communism was founded in 1848 by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. Their Communist Manifesto what truly historic and groundbreaking.

Here are some introductory notes on the Manifesto that give a sense of its power and importance:

The Story of the Communist Manifesto (http://rwor.org/a/v19/930-39/936/manifest.htm)

The Communist Manifesto Today: Still True, Still Dangerous, Still the Hope of the Hopeless part 1 (http://rwor.org/a/v19/950-59/958/cmnyc1.htm) and part 2 (http://rwor.org/a/v19/950-59/959/cmnyc2.htm)

At the same time, we have come a long way in 150 years. There has been a century of proletarian revolutions, experiments with socialism, revolutionary wars, overthrow of colonialism, and more. Capitalism has changed in important ways. And a great deal of struggle has gone down over theory and practice.

And so, i think the best introductions to Marxism are those that are the highest development of marxism today -- that start today, while applying (creatively) the method and approach first pioneered by Marx.

here are some places I would start to dig into the basics of Communism today. They are by my favorite communist leader and thinker, Bob Avakian:

How would revolutionaries know when to start the revolution? (http://rwor.org/a/chair/uflp/bauflp9.htm)

From Fighters to One into Fighters for All (http://rwor.org/a/chair/uflp/ba9.htm)

Is Revolution Possible in the USA? (http://rwor.org/a/chair/ask1e.htm)

Create Public Opinion -- Seize Power! (http://rwor.org/a/chair/ask2e.htm)

What will it take? (http://rwor.org/a/firstvol/890-899/899/ask899.htm)

After the Revolution: Dealing with "Racial Divisions" (http://rwor.org/a/v19/940-49/941/ask.htm)

Why Only Proletarian Revolution Can Liberate Women (http://rwor.org/a/chair/ask5e.htm)

What is criticism and self-criticism? (http://rwor.org/a/ideology/mlm1.htm)

Hatred for Oppression--It's Not Just a Personal Thing (http://rwor.org/a/ideology/mlm2.htm)

What is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism -- and whose ideology is it? (http://rwor.org/a/ideology/mlm3.htm)

Fighting For Complete Liberation--Not to Get New Oppressors (http://rwor.org/a/ideology/mlm4.htm)

Serving the People vs. Serving Yourself (http://rwor.org/a/ideology/mlm6.htm)

Art and Revolutionary Imagination (http://rwor.org/a/v19/950-59/952/artqts.htm)

Is There a "Fatal Flaw" in Communist Revolution? (http://rwor.org/a/v24/1161-1170/1164/bacdint9.htm)

How Do You Stay on the Revolutionary Road? (http://rwor.org/a/v24/1171-1180/1171/bacdint13.htm)

There is much much more....

I have just posted a few of the shorter and easier essays.

For more indepth stuff visit the writings of Bob Avakian (http://rwor.org/chair_e.htm) or downloadable speeches on revolutoin and atheism (http://bobavakian.net)

Hope that helps!!

[OleMarxco]

Okay, listen you, Bob-worshipper. Firstly, It was only 5 Marx writings, and secondly, it was MARX writings, not AVAKIAN writings, get it? <_<

[flyby]

look, people are discussing what are good introductions to marxism.

My point is that starting at the historical beginning (and reading marx&#39;s personal analysis of Napoleon 3) has value, but mainly as a study of method.

And that there are places to start that are contemporary and quite on the tip of both communist theory and the burning challenges of OUR day.

Sorry if that bugs you, but it is a valid point.

Or to put it even sharper: I think communists have to face up to a choice.

Are we just a residue of the past? (in which case we are deciding to just fade away)

Or are we really about the future -- and about being a vanguard forces that applies our science and ideology to all the challenges of the present?

cuz if we are the second, that has implications about how we study, and what we study too.

See what I mean?

[Dre_Guevara]

Helping is okay, but this is way off-topic

Hey, it&#39;s best that we help and teach one another more than what is asked for. They will gain more knowledge and then he will pass that knowledge+ onto another individual and so on so forth. Next thing you know, we have a thousand men and women with weapons of knowledge that supports the revolutionary cause and the numbers will continue to rise. ;)

[maoist_revolution]

The place I learned about communism

Was on this website I highly recommend it

http://www.marxists.org/

It has all the works you need to read to have a slight understanding on communism but you have to read lots more the top five most people have been saying are great books

[Dre_Guevara]

Yes, it is a great source for Marxism.

[codyvo]

Someone really should publish an easy reader for Marx writings because I have never met anyone that has read his stuff and didn&#39;t become a leftist.

[Severian]

Yeah, see Flyby, Avakian&#39;s not Marxist. And the line you just put out is Stalinist nonsense intended to keep people from reading Marx and other stuff that is Marxist.

That&#39;s why all the Soviet and Chinese editions of Marx were always so damn ugly - they weren&#39;t intended for anyone to actually read &#39;em, just published for the sake of havin&#39; em out there and maintaining the pretense of being communist. They were like the Bible, keep it on the shelf, only the pope is allowed to interpret it.

And now, of course, Stalinist and ex-Stalinist groups are less and less interested in publishing the Marxist classics even to keep up the appearance of being Marxist. The RCP&#39;s no exception, nothin&#39; but Pope Avakian there.

But there&#39;s no substitute for reading Marx and other historic revoutionaries, learning their method of reasoning, and being able to apply it...that is, think for yourself.

[OleMarxco]

The best educating is to learn from reality, not reading but experiencing by first-hand of the capitalistic society itself, me thinkesth&#33; Books are obsolote compared to witnessesing the brutal truth in itself, and more than enough "research introduction material" to become a Communist is to start working for some burgerouise fool&#33; That would be convincing enough :D

[Severian]

Yes, of course, there are many things which can&#39;t be learned from books.

But there are also things which it&#39;s impractical to learn any other way. If you learn everything from experience only, there&#39;s no way to avoid repeating other people&#39;s mistakes.

The experience of past revolutions is precious - bought with blood - and has to be studied to avoid repeating past mistakes - which costs more blood.

[Dre_Guevara]

The men of experiment are like the ant, they only collect and use; the reasoners resemble spiders, who make cobwebs out of their own substance. But the bee takes the middle course: it gathers its material from the flowers of the garden and field, but transforms and digests it by a power of its own. Not unlike this is the true business of philosophy (science); for it neither relies solely or chiefly on the powers of the mind, nor does it take the matter which it gathers from natural history and mechanical experiments and lay up in the memory whole, as it finds it, but lays it up in the understanding altered and disgested. Therefore, from a closer and purer league between these two faculties, the experimental and the rational (such as has never been made), much may be hoped.

[flyby]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 08:55 AM
Yeah, see Flyby, Avakian&#39;s not Marxist. And the line you just put out is Stalinist nonsense intended to keep people from reading Marx and other stuff that is Marxist.

That&#39;s why all the Soviet and Chinese editions of Marx were always so damn ugly - they weren&#39;t intended for anyone to actually read &#39;em, just published for the sake of havin&#39; em out there and maintaining the pretense of being communist....
Let me get this straight:

The Chinese and Soviet revolutionaries, in the days when those countries were socialist, translated and published the works of Marx, Lenin and later Mao. They made them available all over the world for the first time, in a hundred languages. And they did this in increadibly inexpensive editions so that anyone could afford a communist library.

but then (according to Severian) they made them "so damn ugly" because they didn&#39;t intend for anyone to read them.

Did i get your theory right?

hehehehe. Well, if anyone believes that..... as Lenin once said "Lie if you have to, but don&#39;t overdo it&#33;"

What is actually true is that socialist revolution help make Marxism an international worldview that was known and studied by large parts of humanity. Mao wrote that the "cannon shots of the October Revolutin brought Marxism Leninism to China." And that is how communism became a world movement.

And it was a sign of the genuine internationalism of both the Soviet and Chinese party, and their respect for communist theory that they worked (and frankly even sacrificed) to publish communist theory for the people of the world. Without that, for obvious reasons, it would have been very hard for anyone, and especially poor people in capitalist countries to find or afford Marxist works.

And in some ways, it brings out both the value of having socialist countries, and the difficulty we now have when socialist countries have undergone capitalist restoration. And it also means that we ourselves have to rise to many of these tasks -- fighting to promote and even publish communist theory.

It is very useful that the internet has emerged to provide very cheap ways of publishing -- and it is precious that all kinds of archives have emerged that contain Marxist works.

Then, of course, we actually have to read and apply that marxist method and worldview -- in a way that isn&#39;t religious or dogmatic or misleading. That is another important challenge -- which i&#39;ll return to in another post.

[flyby]

I would like to post my favorite writings by Marx. (And hopefully, by doing that satisfy those folks who felt my previous post was off topic -- hehehe).

And (in keeping with a correct understanding of communist theory) I hope to point out what was both pathbreaking and primitive about Marx&#39;s important works.

1) The Communist Manifesto

This is a vital piece to read. It laid out in a beginning and unprecentented way a materialist view of society and the world-historic role of the proletariat (as a class).

My favorite part is actually at the end. It puts forward several important points that are especially important to grasp deeply and apply today:

"The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas."

This is the concept that Maoists call "the two radical ruptures." And it undercores that communist revolution is an "all the way" revolution -- where we are not about changes in the economic structure in society, but a &#39;radical rupture" with "traditional ideas."

And we (obviously) live in a time where the oppressors have a complete MANIA about promoting "traditional ideas" and "traditional values" -- and we actually have to be much more bold and militant about putting forward a RUPTURE with all that crap -- in the realm of ideas.


"The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement."

This is the approach that we call "the living link" -- where we must not just be the "best fighters in the movement" but have the task of "representing the future" (a responsibility with incredible implications.)

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can he attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."

I often think of these words. "Distain to conceal their views and aims"&#33; It is so important to be that fearless -- and it is really something to take to heart. And what are the "ends"? "The forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." All&#33; All of them. Think about the audacity of that&#33; "NOthing to lose but their chains" -- that is a truly historic statement of what is most important about our class... that they are the outlaw class, that they have the least attachments to the "existing conditions," that they have so often been stripped of everything, and therefore have "nothing to lose." This is where our movement needs to be rooted. And what is our ends? "A world to win&#33;" We are not fighting for this or that. Not for crumbs or jobs. We have a whole fucking world to win&#33; And we intend to win it.

At the same time, I have to say that large parts of this Manifesto are outdated today (over a century later).

And, if we look at our theory and history scientifically, this is the only way it could be, that insights from a long time ago would inevitably be, in part at least, outdated and surpassed.

Two points in particular are important:

First:

"The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution."

This is deeply marked by those times: Europe was the center of politics. And in the century since then, the "stormcenters" of revolution moved to the colonial world -- with major implications and changes. And, at that time, finishing the bourgeois revolution was "on the order of the day" -- which meant that the communists were often fighting as junior allies of bourgeois forces. And finally, he thought that in europe the bourgeois revolution would (fairly quickly) be a "prelude" to communist revolution. In fact, the whole transition to socialism and communism has been much more drawn out and protracted than marx could have imagined.

There are cases where the bourgeois revolution has gone over to the proletarian. That was true in Russin in 1917, and in a different way it was true in China between 1919 and 1949.

Second:

Marx and Engels wrote in the Manifesto:

"In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

"The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."

There is much that is true and important in this passage (especially in the internationalism of the last paragraph). But we have to say that overall, its view of organizations and parties has proven basically wrong.

And that is in part because that transition (the two radical ruptures) that Marx and Engels were calling for have proved more ocmplex and protracted than they knew (as young men in their twenties when they wrote this Manifesto&#33;)

In fact even the next generation of Marxists (after Marx died) has a rather mistaken view of parties (developing a sometimes parliamentary social Democratic movement and having a mistaken view of how power would come).

It was not until Lenin that the basic Marxist understanding of parties and organization was put on a correct basis -- and even those understandings of the need for vanguard parties have had to develop since then.

So these are some of the things that Marx and Engels expected (that Europe would be the center of the world revolution, that the revolution to communism would be fairly compressed and that Marxists could lead the mass of workers without being organized as a disctinct communist party) and that were not the way things worked out in practice.

And summing up why that is, and how we advance beyond that, is the reason Marxism has needed to be developed (including as I discussed above, by leaders like Lenin, Mao and now Avakian).

I have four more Marxist works to discuss. But I have to run and will post the other four later&#33;

[Lamanov]

Hey, what about Engels. Top 5 Engels writings:

1. Anti-Duhring
2. Origin of the Family, Private Properity and State
3. On the History of Early Christianity
4. Socialism: Utopian & Scientific
5. Role of Labor in Transition From Ape to Man

2, 3 and 5 are short and not too heavy - perfect for beginners. They carry the esentials of historic materialism.

[bezdomni]

1. On the Jewish Question
2. Communist Manifesto
3. Das Kapital vol. 1
4. The German Ideology
5. Theses on Feurbach

[bezdomni]

Here&#39;s a list actually written by Marx of his most important works.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/04.htm

[RedStarOverChina]

Hey, what about Engels. Top 5 Engels writings:

1. Anti-Duhring
2. Origin of the Family, Private Properity and State
3. On the History of Early Christianity
4. Socialism: Utopian & Scientific
5. Role of Labor in Transition From Ape to Man

2, 3 and 5 are short and not too heavy - perfect for beginners. They carry the esentials of historic materialism.



2. Origin of the Family, Private Properity and State

This one is my favoriate. Damn I love the way this guy thinks.

[flyby]

I also love Engels work "origin of the family." And urge everyone to read it. And there is also the work "The role of labor in the transition from Ape to Man."

At the same time, it is worth pointing out that the dialectic of "visionary yet primitive" holds here too. Much more is known now about the emergence of humans from other species, and the development of class society out of early hunter gathering.

And so while Engels&#39; method and approach (his science) is something to learn from, there is a great deal more to sum up about these things than he knew when he wrote this, and than he COULD have known.

So here too we need a scientific view of our own revolutionary science. And understand that our approach has to be not merely to study and "interpret" the writings of previous Marxists (as if they were sacred scrolls) but to critically develop and apply this scientific world view -- in the most cutting edge way today.

Including, we need to sum up that there was (in both Marx and Engels) a bit too much of teleology (the assumption that developments in life and society will inevitably resolve themselves for the good by some larger logic).

So there is a level of "learning from new information and insights" gained over the last century, and also a level of "developing and criticizing elements of previous marxism that have proven wrong, or partially wrong."

In light of that, i&#39;d like to urge two writings that deal with these issues of how to view pre-capitalist society and how humans developed from a communist perspective -- with all the insights and knowledge we have available today:

Postinevitablist Marxism (http://rwor.org/a/1266/avakian-martin-post-inevitablist-marxism.htm) which is a conversation between a communist leader (Chairman Avakian) and a philosophy professor (Bill Martin) -- and takes up the issue of how communists (including Marx) looked at the fight between capitalism and indigenous people (for example).

And The Science of Evolution (http://rwor.org/s/evolution_e.htm) by the communist writer ardea skybreak. As you can see, this is a very deep analysis of evolution (and the assault on evolution by today&#39;s Christian Fascists). So it is both a work of communist theory and a powerful instrument in the political struggle of today.

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:43 PM
Well I have only read The Communist Manifesto, but I&#39;m working on reading more. Also I have a lot of friends that have trouble understanding Marx, so I think that someone should publish sort of a Marxist for beginners book.
Already been done: Marxist Education Pack (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/Resourcesframe.htm)

Just scroll down till you see a pink pic of Marx.

[Severian]

Engels stuff;
1. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
2. Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State - the foundation of a communist program on women&#39;s liberation, among other things.
3. Revolution and Counter-revolution in Germany - why the capitalist class can&#39;t even lead a bourgeois-democratic revolution anymore
4. The Housing Question
5. Anti-Duhring.

Good stuff by both Marx and Engels:
Selected Correspondence, some of their letters
Marx and Engels on the United States, a collection dealing with the Civil War among other things.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby
In light of that, I&#39;d like to urge two writings that deal with these issues of how to view pre-capitalist society and how humans developed from a communist perspective -- with all the insights and knowledge we have available today:

Postinevitablist Marxism which is a conversation between a communist leader (Chairman Avakian) and a philosophy professor (Bill Martin) -- and takes up the issue of how communists (including Marx) looked at the fight between capitalism and indigenous people (for example).

I thought about starting a thread in the Theory forum about the concept of "post-inevitablist Marxism"...but your link doesn&#39;t really discuss that -- it just assumes that it&#39;s true. To be more precise, Bill Martin seems to assume that it&#39;s true (and then takes back the assumption, sort of). And Avakian doesn&#39;t really discuss it at all.

So I will leave it to you to start such a thread if you wish. You could call it something like "Why is communism no longer inevitable?".

Or even "Why Marx was Wrong".

I think it would be most illuminating to see the arguments for such a position.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[flyby]

heheheheh.

I don&#39;t think "communism is no longer inevitable."

I don&#39;t think anything was ever inevitable in that sense. There are trends and tendencies within processes that lead a certain way. There are powerful pulls and forces emerging within capitalism that can produce communist society.

but that is not the same as "inevitable" in a teleological and predetermined sense.

[workersunity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 11:35 AM



2. Origin of the Family, Private Properity and State

This one is my favoriate. Damn I love the way this guy thinks.
omg i want to read that so bad, ill prolly be getting it sometime this summer

[RedStarOverChina]

LOL Engels is usually a good writer. Alot better than Marx. Try reading Das Kapital, ahhh.....

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby
There are trends and tendencies within processes that lead a certain way. There are powerful pulls and forces emerging within capitalism that can produce communist society.

But that is not the same as "inevitable" in a teleological and predetermined sense.

Teleology is murky waters for me; I don&#39;t see how, realistically, people in a given era could be aware of the "ultimate purpose" of history -- indeed, I don&#39;t think history has any "ultimate purposes"...it&#39;s not a "conscious entity".

On the other hand, given what we have seen in history up to this point, it does seem to me that "laws" are operating that "point" pretty decisively in the direction of communism as the "next stage" in human history.

Of course, there&#39;s always the chance of catastrophe that would throw us back into some earlier stage...even savagery.

But barring extinction, it seems to me that surviving humans would follow the same path that we did...eventually arriving at capitalism like we have.

And where else next besides communism?

It&#39;s...um, inevitable.

So the concept of "post-inevitablist Marxism" is very puzzling to me.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[NovelGentry]

Teleology is murky waters for me; I don&#39;t see how, realistically, people in a given era could be aware of the "ultimate purpose" of history -- indeed, I don&#39;t think history has any "ultimate purposes"...it&#39;s not a "conscious entity".

On the other hand, given what we have seen in history up to this point, it does seem to me that "laws" are operating that "point" pretty decisively in the direction of communism as the "next stage" in human history.

Of course, there&#39;s always the chance of catastrophe that would throw us back into some earlier stage...even savagery.

But barring extinction, it seems to me that surviving humans would follow the same path that we did...eventually arriving at capitalism like we have.

And where else next besides communism?

It&#39;s...um, inevitable.

So the concept of "post-inevitablist Marxism" is very puzzling to me.

Unless it repeats so precisely forever&#33;&#33;&#33; Including the catastrophe... then technically it&#39;s not inevitable, but impossible&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Novel Gentry
Unless it repeats so precisely forever&#33;&#33;&#33; Including the catastrophe... then technically it&#39;s not inevitable, but impossible&#33;

What are the odds of that? If the chance of one catastrophe is 1 in 100,000, then the odds of a smiliar catastrophe happening again is 1/100,000 x 1/100,000 or 1 chance in 10 billion.

I can see chance occurances intervening to delay the achievement of communism (the early death of a reforming emperor in China delayed Chinese capitalism for 500 years).

But the odds against an earth-shaking catastrophe are...well, astronomical. Two of them at just the wrong moment are one too many.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[1949]

I agree with Redstar2000 that humanity will in all likelihood (sp?) reach communism. And I don&#39;t see how what he says contradicts what Mao said and what Avakian is saying at all. I think one aspect of postinevitablism that RS2K doesn&#39;t touch upon is not only that we are not destined in some absolute sense to reach communism, but also that if we do, it is not the end of history; there is always the possibility of even higher modes of production emerging out of the contradictions within communism.

I noticed more than one participant in this thread list "On the Jewish Question" as one of their top five favorite Marx works. Can someone please explain why they like it so much? I&#39;ve seen quite a few fascists masquerading as "communist" or "leftist" cite that work in a pained attempt to justify their anti-Semitism, so I don&#39;t understand what genuine leftists see that is so great about it. Of course, I myself have not yet read the work, so that might be a factor in my confusion.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 09:34 PM
But the odds against an earth-shaking catastrophe are...well, astronomical.
The odds against global nuclear war are astronomical?

I don&#39;t read Marx as saying communism is inevitable in any literal, ironclad sense. Why bother making great sacrifices in the fight for it, if so? As Engels put it, civilization stands at a crossroads - forward to civilization or backwards to barbarism.

[RevolverNo9]

But the odds against an earth-shaking catastrophe are...well, astronomical.

Unless of course the catastrophe is inherent in a certain mode of history. It would not be ridiculous for one to suggest that capitalism will eat itself and civilisation with it by the course.


there is always the possibility of even higher modes of production emerging out of the contradictions within communism.

How can there be? No classes - no contradictions.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)The odds against global nuclear war are astronomical?[/b]

It seems pretty unlikely to me...though I wouldn&#39;t rule out a limited nuclear exchange.


RevolverNo9
Unless of course the catastrophe is inherent in a certain mode of history. It would not be ridiculous for one to suggest that capitalism will eat itself and civilisation with it by the course.

Where&#39;s the profit in destroying civilization? How much surplus value can you extract from a planet covered with corpses?

I think this hypothesis is based on an old assumption: that humans are fundamentally and hopelessly irrational. That they are willing to "destroy everything" if they can&#39;t "get their way".

I think the supporting evidence for this hypothesis is inadequate...to put it mildly.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[NovelGentry]

I think this hypothesis is based on an old assumption: that humans are fundamentally and hopelessly irrational. That they are willing to "destroy everything" if they can&#39;t "get their way".

You don&#39;t really need humans to be fundamentally and hopelessly irrational -- just the ones who control the nukes. Bush and his crew are pretty fucking stupid...

Could be something of a misunderstanding provoking accidents... could be some unforseen event.

My point was very simply that as improbable as it is, impossible it is not, and thus whether it is truly inevitable, a very presumptuous word, can at least logically be questioned.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:48 PM
I think this hypothesis is based on an old assumption: that humans are fundamentally and hopelessly irrational. That they are willing to "destroy everything" if they can&#39;t "get their way".
No, it&#39;s based on the idea that capitalism is irrational. Humanity isn&#39;t able to consciously and collectively decide this or anything under capitalism.

The capitalists cannot settle their differences peacefully. When redividing the world market, the only way they can definitely measure the relationship of forces among them, is by actually going to war.

NG is right that U.S. administrations have not always been rational. If one considers the very real potential for rightist military, Bonapartist, or even fascist regimes to come to power during deep social and economic crises...there could be regimes far less rational in control of major nuclear arsenals.

[Severian]

Originally posted by flyby+May 27 2005, 12:01 PM--> (flyby @ May 27 2005, 12:01 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 08:55 AM
Yeah, see Flyby, Avakian&#39;s not Marxist. And the line you just put out is Stalinist nonsense intended to keep people from reading Marx and other stuff that is Marxist.

That&#39;s why all the Soviet and Chinese editions of Marx were always so damn ugly - they weren&#39;t intended for anyone to actually read &#39;em, just published for the sake of havin&#39; em out there and maintaining the pretense of being communist....
Let me get this straight:
The Chinese and Soviet revolutionaries, in the days when those countries were socialist, translated and published the works of Marx, Lenin and later Mao.
....
And it was a sign of the genuine internationalism of both the Soviet and Chinese party, and their respect for communist theory that they worked (and frankly even sacrificed) to publish communist theory for the people of the world. [/b]
I didn&#39;t want to further derail the thread at the time, but since it&#39;s drifted and died now anyway, I&#39;m responding to this.

Excuse me, Flyby, but the USSR continued to publish these Marxist books long after the time when, you usually say, it became capitalist. Most if not all of the Moscow editions I&#39;ve seen were published in the time of Khrushev or his successors. The same applies to the books published by the CPUSA&#39;s International publishers, and other Moscow-franchised CPs. I&#39;m not sure about the post-Mao PRC.

Presumably you wouldn&#39;t argue that these....revisionists, you usually call them, "worked (and frankly even sacrificed) to publish communist theory for the people of the world" because of their "genuine internationalism" "and their respect for communist theory." Not unless you wanted to commit an even more obvious inconsistency than usual. Really you shoulda thought before pouring so much derision on my post.

So why did they publish...if not for the reasons I&#39;ve suggested? It would seem more consistent for you to accept the explanation...and just place a later date on its beginning.

(Of course, I&#39;d argue that contrary to Flyby&#39;s usual position, Stalin&#39;s and Mao&#39;s actions showed no more "genuine internationalism" or "respect for communist theory" than their successors&#39;.)


And in some ways, it brings out both the value of having socialist countries, and the difficulty we now have when socialist countries have undergone capitalist restoration.

The difficulty you have, yes, and all of those who&#39;ve perpetrated the Stalinist counterfeit of communism, betraying working people again and again. You&#39;re like parasites divorced from your host, the bureaucratic caste in those states. That difficulty is a good thing for genuine communism.


And it also means that we ourselves have to rise to many of these tasks -- fighting to promote and even publish communist theory.

As I said earlier, doesn&#39;t look like the RCP is "fighting" to publish Marx, etc. If I&#39;m wrong, please tell me which books. And why should they, when many of Marx and Engels&#39; views are considered overall "wrong." Those who study them are "just a residue of the past" who are "deciding to just fade away", you posted. Why publish Marx, when you can put your limited resources into publishing Pope Avakian, and his writings which "critically develop and apply this scientific world view -- in the most cutting edge way today." Or in reality, which revise Marxism. How ironic that "revisionist" continues to be your all-purpose epithet for political opponents.

But my point is not the abandonment of Marxism by Stalinists - that&#39;s not new. My point is the increasingly open abandonment of the pretense of Marxism. From Moscow and Beijing, to their acolytes and former acolytes abroad. Which is a good thing.

[cph_shawarma]

The five best writings by Marx (read in this order):

1. German Ideology - to get a basic understanding of the historic view on everything that is Marx.
2. Communist Manifesto - including the preface to the 2nd ed. of Russian Communist Manifesto, 1882 and the preface to a German edition (can&#39;t remember which though).
3. Critique of Gotha - to get basic but important notions of the revolution, anti-statism etc.
4. Letter to Otyecestvenniye Zapisky, November 1877 - gives you some immunity towards the "marxist" notion of historical materialism. Denounces superhistoric laws etc.
5. 1st chapter of Capital I - quite difficult chapter, but very good to read. Describes the notion of the atom of bourgeois society: the commodity.

Online resources:
1. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ology/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/index.htm)
2. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...festo/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm)
3. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...gotha/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm)
4. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...7/11/russia.htm
5. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

Edit: Otjetschestwennyje Sapinsky was changed to the English name: Otyecestvenniye Zapisky. Added links to all the texts.

[redstar2000]

A bit surprising to see so many fans of The German Ideology -- it was not even published until the 1930s and most of it consists of criticisms of the "left-Hegalians"...not exactly a "hot topic" these days.

It has a historical interest -- some claim it to be the first "mature" work of Marx.

But there&#39;s other stuff that&#39;s a lot better and easier to read.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 11:35 AM
4. Letter to Otjetschestwennyje Sapinsky, November 1877 - gives you some immunity towards the "marxist" notion of historical materialism. Denounces superhistoric laws etc.

that letter is not in Marxists.org collective works...is there another location were i can read it online? or doesnt it exist?

i can think of a few important letter&#39;s but i&#39;d like it if other people could point towards some more because thus far they have been sheding some light upon Marx&#39;s thought.

7 december 1867 Marx to Engels (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1867/letters/67_12_07.htm)

Marx To Ruge Kreuznach, spetember 1843 (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm#p144)

Marx to Pavel Vasilyvich Annenkov 1846 (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.htm#1)

anymore?

[Monty Cantsin]

the only copy of that letter i can find is this -

Från Marx till "Otjetschestwennyje Sapinsky", November 1877

Herr redaktör&#33;

Författaren till artikeln "Karl Marx inför herr Shukowskis tribunal&#39;&#39; är uppenbarligen en begåvad man, som säkert skulle ha varit klok nog att citera varenda punkt i min framställning som kunde anföras för att stödja hans egna slutsatser - om sådana punkter verkligen gått att upptäcka i vad jag yttrat. Eftersom han inte Lyckats hitta några uttalanden av det slaget, har han i stället varit tvungen att brodera vidare på en polemisk betraktelse - tryckt som tillägg till den första tyska upplagan av &#39;&#39;Kapitalet" - som jag ägnat en rysk "litteratör2". Vad är det då som jag angriper hos denne skriftställare? Jo, det faktum att hans lärdomar om de ryska småsamhällena inte är hämtade ur den ryska verkligheten utan endast ur en bok av Haxthausen (en hög preussisk ämbetsman); vidare att dessa lärdomar enbart får tjäna som bevismaterial för hans åsikt att vårt söndervittrande gamla Europa måste förnyas genom att panslavismen får triumfera. Mitt omdöme om denne skribent må vara riktigt eller felaktigt, men det kan absolut inte ge några tips om min inställning till "ryssarnas försök att åt sitt land finna en utvecklingsform som skiljer sig från den som Västeuropa valt".

I min efterskrift till den andra upplagan av &#39;&#39;Das Kapital" - en uppsats som författaren till artikeln om hr Shukowski måste känna till, eftersom han citerar den - talar jag om "en stor rysk forskare och kritiker3" med all den aktning denne framstående man förtjänar. Han har i en rad märkliga artiklar tagit upp frågan om Ryssland måste följa sina liberala ekonomers riktlinjer och upplösa det gamla bysystemet för att få till stånd ett fungerande kapitalistiskt system - eller om landet kan undslippa alla kapitalismens nackdelar genom att tillgodogöra sig sina tillgångar på ett annat sätt, genom att utnyttja de speciella förhållanden dess historia skapat. Själv vill han rekommendera det senare alternativet. Och min ärade kritiker borde ha minst lika goda skäl att av min aktning för denna av mig prisade skribent dra den slutsatsen att jag gillar dennes åsikter, som han haft då han av min polemik mot den förstnämnde författaren slutit sig till att jag ogillar dem.

Eftersom jag högst ogärna lämnar någonting åt &#39;&#39;lösa spekulationer", vill jag slutligen tala rent ut i denna sak. För att få möjlighet att bedöma den ekonomiska utvecklingen i Ryssland har jag lärt mig ryska och under många år studerat landets officiella och inofficiella publikationer i detta ämne. Genom detta studium har jag kommit fram till följande slutsats: Ryssland kommer att gå miste om helt enastående utvecklingsmöjligheter och bli dömt att utstå alla en kapitalistisk regims ödesdigra missförhållanden, om man inte förmår överge den politiska linje man följt sedan 1861.

Kapitlet om den "ursprungliga ackumulationen&#39;&#39; är inte avsett att vara någonting mer än en vägledning för den som vill fana hur kapitalismens ekonomiska system framfötts ur det feodala ekonomiska systemet. Därför beskrivs där den historiska utveckling som - genom att skilja producenterna från produktionsmedlen - förvandlar de producerande arbetarna till löntagare, medan de som förfogar över produktionsmedlen blir kapitalister. I denna historieform "blir alla revolutioner epokgörande, när de tjänar som hävstänger för kapitalistklassens vidareutveckling - och särskilt när de förser arbetsmarknaden med nytt folk genom att beröva stora grupper deras traditionella produktions- och existensmedel. Men grundvalen för hela denna utveckling finner vi i expropriationen av bönderna. Än så länge är det endast i England som man radikalt genomfört en sådan . . . men alla de västeuropeiska länderna är på väg att följa exemplet" (ur den franska utgåvan av &#39;&#39;Kapitalet", sid. 315). I slutet av samma kapitel ges följande sammanfattande karakteristik av produktionens historiska utvecklingstendens: Den skapar förutsänningarna för sin eget fall med det slag av obeveklighet som avgör naturens metaforfoser, och den har skapat förutsättningarna för en ny ekonomisk ordning genom att på en gång stimulera det samhälleliga arbetets produktivkrafter och varje individuell producents utveckling - den kapitalistiska egendomen, som redan nu bygger på en kollektiv produktionsform, kan endast omvandlas till samhällelig egendom. Här har jag inte bryn mig om att komma med någon bevisföring, eftersom detta konstaterande endast utgör en sammanfattning av de långa förklaringar jag tidigare givit i kapitlen om den kapitalistiska produktionen.

Vad kan min kritiker nu få ut av att tillämpa denna historiska analys på ryska förhållanden? Enbart detta: Om Ryssland strävar efter att utvecklas till en kapitalistisk nation i stil med de västeuropeiska staterna - och under de senaste åren har man i detta land underkastat sig mycket obehag för att underlätta en sådan utveckling - måste först en stor del av bönderna förvandlas till proletärer; och när landet sedan fastnat i det kapitalistiska systemets grepp, kommer det att få utstå samma skoningslösa prövningar som så många andra nationer redan dignar under. Så kan mina ord tolkas. Men detta räcker inte till för min kritiker. Han anser sig tydligen också tvungen att förvandla min analys av den västeuropeiska kapitalismens uppkomst till en historisk-filosofisk teori rörande den väg varje folk måste följa - helt oavsett vilka historiska omständigheter det rakar befinna sig i - för att till sist nå fram till den ekonomiska uppbyggnad, som säkerställer den mest omfattande utvecklingen av mänsklighetens möjligheter och den största möjliga expansionen av samhällsarbetets produktivkrafter. Men han får ursäkta att jag ser mig nödsakad att korrigera honom en smula - han har förvisso både överskattat och underskattat mig.

Låt oss ta ett exempel:

I "Kapitalet" förekommer åtskilliga anspelningar på det öde som drabbade plebejerna i det gamla Rom. De var ursprungligen fria bönder; var och en av dem hade sitt eget markområde och drev sitt eget jordbruk. Den historiska utvecklingen fick till följd att de exproprierades. Samma faktorer som berövade dem deras produktions- och existensmedel skapade också en ytterst förmånlig situation för storgodsägare och kapitalister. En vacker dag hade man alltså en stor grupp av fria män som inte längre ägde någonting annat än sin egen arbetsförmåga, och redo att exploatera denna stod en besutten skara som hunnit absorbera allt välstånd. Vad hände? De romerska proletärerna blev inte löntagare - i stället förvandlades de till en sysslolös, förslöad pöbel av ännu jämmerligare slag än de &#39;&#39;fattiga vita" man talat om i de amerikanska sydstaterna, och en följd av denna utveckling blev ett produktionssystem som inte var kapitalistiskt utan baserades på rent slaveri. Likartade händelseförlopp kan sålunda leda till helt väsensskilda resultat, om de utspelar sig i olika historiska sammanhang. Om man studerar dessa olika utvecklingsförlopp var för sig och sedan jämför dem med varandra kan man lätt hitta förklaringen till detta fenomen - men då får man avstå från att försöka tillämpa en allmän, historisk-filosofisk teori av verklighetsfrämmande och supervetenskapligt slag.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from here http://marxistisktforum.cjb.net/bokarkiv/0006.htm#Heading54

does anyone have this in English?

[cph_shawarma]

Sorry, I didn&#39;t reflect on the fact that it might be hard to find in English (or that the name was spelled differently in English).

Here it is: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...7/11/russia.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/11/russia.htm)

[Monty Cantsin]

that&#39;s a very important letter indeed.

[1949]

I&#39;m still waiting to hear someone explain to me what is so great about Marx&#39;s "On the Jewish Question".

I&#39;ll try to get back to RevolverNo9&#39;s response to me on postinevitablism later. I&#39;m still working on something for that, and I have a few other things to check out.

[cph_shawarma]

http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/187...rs/79_09_15.htm (http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1879/letters/79_09_15.htm)

Here&#39;s another important letter for those interested. Especially the last paragraph is important.


Originally posted by Marx and Engels to August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht and Wilhelm Bracke and others in September 1879
When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle-cry: the emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. We cannot therefore co-operate with people who say that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must first be freed from above by philanthropic bourgeois and petty bourgeois.

[Ultra-Violence]

I wolud like to know were could i purchse these books becasue all of the marxist literature ive read so sar (the communist manifesto,the 18th brumaire, and currently reading Capital Volume1) ive gottne it from the public libary and thats about all the books theve got&#33; so were wolud be a good place to purchase these other readings? :)