First Lenin text to read?

[The Douche]

I am preparing to do my first in-depth reading of Lenin, I plan to study/discuss it chapter by chapter with my fiance. What text do you reccomend?

Something with a lot of meat to it that is really going to give me a foundation of Leninism. So that we will better understand the ideology as two self-identified anarchists.

[Incendiarism]

State and revolution

[Abluegreen7]

I would say the First texts to be as the person above me recommended State and Revolution.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Agreed.

However, the last one is not 'Materialism and Empirio-criticism', since that book should be read by no one at all.

[Yehuda Stern]

I agree - State and Revolution. Plus I love it when people tell you not to read a certain book. It shows how certain they are of their own criticism of it.

[Charles Xavier]

Depends what you are interested in learning first. Lenin talks about a range of subjects, If you tell me in what you interested in learning about I can recommend some good articles or works written by Lenin.
I would recommend reading early stuff first in chronological order. Its my opinion the best way of learning because that way you can check out the ideological development of positions taken.

[KC]

State & Revolution obviously is a great first read; it's a really easy read and outlines the Marxist theory of the state and what follows from that.

Another good work to read is What Is To Be Done? However, I would read up on the Russian Revolution before you do this, as it is a contextual piece and will make a lot more sense when you know who he is talking about at different points in the pamphlet.

Imperialism is another popular work, although I would also read more on Marxist economics before tackling it, again so it makes more sense.

Other than that, you'd have to be more specific about what you want to read, because he wrote on such a wide range of subjects.

[The Douche]

I want to read about the organization of the "proletarian state". I'm trying to understand what exactly constitutes a worker's state, how such a state differs from my ideas on post-revolutionary organizing, and if there is anything I can learn from the idea.


Another good work to read is What Is To Be Done?

I was trying to choose between WITBD and S&R. I would say I have a somewhat decent understanding of the Russian revolution, but mostly from an anarchist context. I'm not new to revolutionary theory, or even Leninist thought persay, but this will be my first time doing an indepth reading from cover to cover of one of Lenin's works.

I also thought about Imperialism, because I have read a lot of it in bits and piecies, and I honeslty don't disagree with most of it, but I want to focus on the idea of a worker's state.


This has largely come out of a discussion I had with my history professor who is vaguely anarchist. And he said he often poses a question to people, and that is "what good does the state do for working people", and those people are often unable to give a real answer. But when phrased like that it highlights the class nature of the state, and while, as an anarchist I do oppose the state on principle, I need to settle up with the fact that I don't know as much about the socialist state as I ought to.

[KC]

I want to read about the organization of the "proletarian state". I'm trying to understand what exactly constitutes a worker's state, how such a state differs from my ideas on post-revolutionary organizing, and if there is anything I can learn from the idea.

Then I would definitely read State & Revolution. Lenin also delivered a speech at I believe Smolnya University titled The State that's a good, shorter, read (although not a substitute for S&R). Ernest Mandel's pamphlet titled The Marxist Theory of the State is also a good intro. I can link to them later if you want.


I was trying to choose between WITBD and S&R.

What Is To Be Done? is more about party organization and tactics, so I wouldn't recommend it for what you're looking for, then.

[Q]

I want to read about the organization of the "proletarian state". I'm trying to understand what exactly constitutes a worker's state, how such a state differs from my ideas on post-revolutionary organizing, and if there is anything I can learn from the idea.



I was trying to choose between WITBD and S&R. I would say I have a somewhat decent understanding of the Russian revolution, but mostly from an anarchist context. I'm not new to revolutionary theory, or even Leninist thought persay, but this will be my first time doing an indepth reading from cover to cover of one of Lenin's works.

I also thought about Imperialism, because I have read a lot of it in bits and piecies, and I honeslty don't disagree with most of it, but I want to focus on the idea of a worker's state.


This has largely come out of a discussion I had with my history professor who is vaguely anarchist. And he said he often poses a question to people, and that is "what good does the state do for working people", and those people are often unable to give a real answer. But when phrased like that it highlights the class nature of the state, and while, as an anarchist I do oppose the state on principle, I need to settle up with the fact that I don't know as much about the socialist state as I ought to.
Then S&R is your book. WITBD is, as said, written in a different context: it was written in 1902 as a discussion piece on how to organise the left in Russia. It put the focus on centralisation to solve many of the organisational problems up until then. Anyway, it won't give answers on a workers state really.

Edit:
Gah, darn you KC :P

[politics student]

Lenin collected works volume 2 - Explaination of law on fines imposed on workers.

Enjoyable read given hope that when workers are psuhed to extreme exploitation they take action. I know its a random text to recommend but it is very interesting, if only there was more action like that these days.

[Monreal Radikal]

As many said before me State and revolution is ideal book for starters.

In it you will see briliant responses to reformists and renegades such as Kautsky and re-stating the theories of Marx et Engels.

Also there are long quotations by Engels which reinforce understanding of socialism and socialist society as transitional phase to communism.

It is very good book and I enjoyed reading it.

Also after that I reccomend Lenin and Trotsky what they really stood for by Ted Grant and Alan Woods available online on marxist.com the webpage of IMT

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was trying to choose between WITBD and S&R. I would say I have a somewhat decent understanding of the Russian revolution, but mostly from an anarchist context. I'm not new to revolutionary theory, or even Leninist thought persay, but this will be my first time doing an indepth reading from cover to cover of one of Lenin's works.

The issue of the state is too much of a red herring, in my opinion. Most "Leninists" here have recommended the "obvious," but I suggest some shorter articles to indicate what actual "Leninism" (revolutionary "Marxism"/"Kautskyism") is about:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1900/nov/tasks.htm
http://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/lenin/works/1899/dec/draft.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/articles/arg3oit.htm (in particular)

As for WITBD, don't read it until you've read Lars Lih's lengthy historical context book on Google Books. :)


In it you will see briliant responses to reformists and renegades such as Kautsky and re-stating the theories of Marx et Engels.

:glare:

If anything else, if you really want to get to the bottom of historical "Leninism," I again recommend reading Chapter 5 of Kautsky's The Class Struggle (Erfurt Programme), which critiques economism ("The Political Struggle") and talks of vanguardism ("The Merger of Socialism and the Worker Movement") without the polemics.

[Black Sheep]

In it you will see briliant responses to reformists and renegades such as Kautsky and re-stating the theories of Marx et Engels.

Judging from personal experience, this is quite worthless.If you have not read the position Lenin refers to,how can you judge objectively?

This is naive IMO,and dangerous to the development of your critical thinking.

[ComradeOm]

I am preparing to do my first in-depth reading of Lenin, I plan to study/discuss it chapter by chapter with my fiance. What text do you reccomend?How much do you already know about Marxism? State & Revolution is an excellent work that you should really read eventually but it is not an introduction to Marxism. It was written by Lenin in a discourse with European Marxists and it assumes that you are already familiar with basic Marxist concepts and language

[Louis Pio]

If you want to understand the background of most of the ideas people put forward on revleft I would recommend "leftwing communism: an infantile disorder" http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm

But of course you need to read "state and revolution" also as most in this thread has suggested

[The Douche]

How much do you already know about Marxism? State & Revolution is an excellent work that you should really read eventually but it is not an introduction to Marxism. It was written by Lenin in a discourse with European Marxists and it assumes that you are already familiar with basic Marxist concepts and language

A lot. I have a firm grasp of marxism in my opinion.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem with State and Revolution is that it is, in fact, an incomplete work. Had Lenin had the time, he would have examined more works besides the critiques of the two Social-Democratic programmes (Gotha and Erfurt) and The Civil War in France.

[Tower of Bebel]

And it is a personal manifesto.

[Valeofruin]

State and Revolution.

Agreed.

I recommend IN THIS ORDER:

The State and Revolution
'Left Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder
What is to be Done?
The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism

AND just to be a good Stalinist

Once Again on the Trade Unions: The Current Situation and the mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin.

Really all his works are good.. and theres thousands of them, but those are really the 5 (or 6 >=-}) that in my opinion hit home hardest.

[Valeofruin]

As for WITBD, don't read it until you've read Lars Lih's lengthy historical context book on Google Books. :)


Or better yet when your done getting a feel fill in the pieces by reading "A history of the CPSU(B)" Categorized at www.marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org) as being written by Stalin when this isn't entirely the case.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And it is a personal manifesto.

Brilliant (short and sweet)! :lol:


If you want to understand the background of most of the ideas people put forward on revleft I would recommend "leftwing communism: an infantile disorder" http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm

:glare:

If you want to understand the background of most of the near-tred-iunionist ideas of the IMT I would recommend A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/dec/trend.htm


The separation of the working-class movement and socialism gave rise to weakness and underdevelopment in each: the theories of the socialists, unfused with the workers’ struggle, remained nothing more than utopias, good wishes that had no effect on real life; the working-class movement remained petty, fragmented, and did not acquire political significance, was not enlightened by the advanced science of its time. For this reason we see in all European countries a constantly growing urge to fuse socialism with the working-class movement in a single Social-Democratic movement. When this fusion takes place the class struggle of the workers becomes the conscious struggle of the proletariat to emancipate itself from exploitation by the propertied classes, it is evolved into a higher form of the socialist workers’ movement—the independent working-class Social-Democratic party.

[...]

From the following it can be seen how extremely narrow is Rabochaya Mysl’s conception of the political struggle. Speaking of the breadth of political demands, R. M. states: “For the workers to conduct such a political struggle consciously and independently, it is essential that it be waged by the working-class organisations themselves, that the workers’ political demands should find support in the workers consciousness of their common political requirements and the interests of the moment [note well!], that they should be the demands of the workers’ [craft] organisations themselves, that they should really be drawn up by them jointly and also put forward jointly by those working-class organisations on their own initiative....” It is further explained that the immediate common political demands of the workers are, for the time being (!!), still the ten-hour working day and the restoration of holidays abolished by the law of June 2, 1897.

[Poum_1936]

Valeofruin has it right in my book. I like his list. [Edit: His first three selections]

I would rate State and Revolution as a first without a doubt. But his second as Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder is a superb choice.

Left Wing is by far one of the most influential Lenin readings I've had. A very very close second to State and Revolution.

[Charles Xavier]

I dunno if you can say which is better, they cover different topics. Its like saying, which is better, scientific journal on the Tomato Plant, or Ricardo Palma's Tradiciones Peruanas (which is pretty bougie).

[chegitz guevara]

With Lenin, it's not about reading what is best, but rather, figuring out what you want to learn, and finding the appropriate text.

So if you want to learn about the organization of the state, you'd start with The State and Revolution, but would also include his later writings about the actual soviet state that was created.

Lenin always writes with purpose. His books are not like Marx or Engels' works, which can be separated from context. Lenin's work must always be placed in context. Removing them from their context not merely loses meaning, but actually distorts it. What is to be Done? is one of the least important books to read, and one of the most misunderstood, consequently, it's one of the ones that did the most damage, post-Lenin.

[Valeofruin]

i respectfully disagree with the above 2 posts.

"Leninism is Marxism in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution."- Stalin

Leninism is a trend of Marxism, a line of Marxist thought with several distinct features, and an extremely distinctive 'Tone'

Your first Leninist readings should be designed to give you a very broad understanding of these features, and this general tone.

It is important to understand the core issues that define Leninism first.

For example: How to organize the party for revolution, how to spot and combat opportunist trends, the views on peasentry, the national question, parliamentarism, and trade unionism (and how they differ from other major 'trends' in Marxist thought).

To get a very broad, general understanding of Leninism, there are certain works that should be read first, reguardless of what topic you really have an interest in. You have to know:

History and Tone (you have to know basic historical context, and you have to know how to essentially 'think like a bolshevik', ie. you have to be well versed in the most basic issues that are of a higher concern to Leninists)

Before you can read and actually have a complete understanding of Lenins lesser known, more 'specific' works.

This is why i feel, 'recommended reading' lists and the like still apply, and are still extremely important.

It's also why i recommend having a copy of 'The history of the CPSU (B)' on hand when you read Lenin, because as i said, historical context is important as well (just as important and possibly more important then tone). There are certain Lenin works, that intoduce key 'players' and historical figures and events that are, like tone, extremely important in understanding Lenin.

This of course is just my opinion on the matter, I'm entitled to them, Freedom in Criticism Unity in Action.

[Valeofruin]

Lenin always writes with purpose. His books are not like Marx or Engels' works, which can be separated from context. Lenin's work must always be placed in context. Removing them from their context not merely loses meaning, but actually distorts it. What is to be Done? is one of the least important books to read, and one of the most misunderstood, consequently, it's one of the ones that did the most damage, post-Lenin.

Highly disagree with this post, when put into historical context it is in fact one of the most important.

but as demonstrated in my last post i disagree with this notion that seems to be going around that its 'impossible to recommend Lenins works'.

[chegitz guevara]

This of course is just my opinion on the matter, I'm entitled to them,

When you learn more, then maybe you can have an opinion on the matter. As Mao said, "No investigation, no right to speak."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CG, I can't believe you accept this:


"No investigation, no right to speak."

I had not figured you for a 'top down socialist'.

[Newbies to RevLeft would never join if we took that attitude.]

Or, is this just a mistake on your part?

[Tower of Bebel]

[Newbies to RevLeft would never join if we took that attitude.]That is a different context.

[Junius]

Lenin always writes with purpose. His books are not like Marx or Engels' works, which can be separated from context.

I think this is clearly wrong. Even Marx and Engels recognized that circumstances changed and hence so should their opinions. For example, they recognized that the demands in the manifesto were partially obsolete in the latter editions. Luxemburg also recognized that the call for the independence of Poland in the Manifesto was in her time obsolete and incorrect. The aspects of Marx and Engels which do not change (and even this I am wary of, since we can certainly add to or modify them) are the paradigms they have drawn up regarding how society operates, since historical materialism is supposed to be a theory explaining all of history, not just the years upon which they lived on the Earth. Even so, how else are we to make for the conclusions which Marx and Engels made if not for the circumstances in which they were made? Wasn't it the Paris Commune of 1871 which impressed upon Marx the need to smash the bourgeoisie state and not a matter of simply taking it over? To paraphrase Keynes: When the facts change, so does my mind, what about you?

[chegitz guevara]

CG, I can't believe you accept this:

I had not figured you for a 'top down socialist'.

[Newbies to RevLeft would never join if we took that attitude.]

Or, is this just a mistake on your part?

I'm hardly a top down socialist, but I do find that if more people followed the Mao quote, there'd be a lot less ignorance presented. There is a reason, for example, that I don't get into it on dialectics with you, even though I think you're very clearly wrong. I haven't studied enough to even begin to present a reasonable case. So I shut up about it.

Vale' seems to think that Lenin's writings are universal principles which stand the test of time. This is a common theme in the writings of Stalinists (including many Maoists). Vale has not studied the context in which Lenin wrote, nor enough of Lenin's writings to understand that he is clearly wrong, and so, he is talking out his ass. Lenin himself, clearly on occasion after occasion points out the need to understand his works in place and time.


I think this is clearly wrong. Even Marx and Engels recognized that circumstances changed and hence so should their opinions. For example, they recognized that the demands in the manifesto were partially obsolete in the latter editions. Luxemburg also recognized that the call for the independence of Poland in the Manifesto was in her time obsolete and incorrect. The aspects of Marx and Engels which do not change (and even this I am wary of, since we can certainly add to or modify them) are the paradigms they have drawn up regarding how society operates, since historical materialism is supposed to be a theory explaining all of history, not just the years upon which they lived on the Earth. Even so, how else are we to make for the conclusions which Marx and Engels made if not for the circumstances in which they were made? Wasn't it the Paris Commune of 1871 which impressed upon Marx the need to smash the bourgeoisie state and not a matter of simply taking it over? To paraphrase Keynes: When the facts change, so does my mind, what about you?

The Communist Manifesto was hardly the only thing that Marx and Engels ever wrote. Nor was it even the most important work. It wasn't even the most influential. Off the top of my head, Capital, the Civil War in France, the 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonapart, the Class Stuggle in France, The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Anti-Durhring, and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, all were far more important than the the Manifesto. In fact, TCM was a very obscure writing in its own time. Not until after the death of Marx did it begin to become significant. Far more important for the advancment of Marxism was S:UaS and Capital is easily the most important work. And of all these I mentioned, none of them are so tied to time and place that meaning is lost or worse, if we fail to understand the context in which they were written. This doesn't mean that facts haven't changed since then.

The key difference is between the types of works these three authors wrote. Marx and Engels tended to write books about what is happening now or how did we get here, basically, history and analysis. Lenin wrote works primarily focus on, what do we do now. Therefore, it is of far greater importance in understand the context in which Lenin is answering his questions than it is to understand M&Es.

[Valeofruin]

When you learn more, then maybe you can have an opinion on the matter. As Mao said, "No investigation, no right to speak."

How dare you use the words of Chairman Mao to attempt to insult my intelligence?

Take your warped vulgarisations and lack of logic elsewhere.

Teh fact is certain Lenin works cover topics of more importance, and present ideas and concepts that set the very foundations of Leninist thought, what i describe as the 'tone', the line that distinguishes Leninist thought from the vulgarisations you've advocated.

[Valeofruin]

I'm hardly a top down socialist, but I do find that if more people followed the Mao quote, there'd be a lot less ignorance presented. There is a reason, for example, that I don't get into it on dialectics with you, even though I think you're very clearly wrong. I haven't studied enough to even begin to present a reasonable case. So I shut up about it.

Vale' seems to think that Lenin's writings are universal principles which stand the test of time. This is a common theme in the writings of Stalinists (including many Maoists). Vale has not studied the context in which Lenin wrote, nor enough of Lenin's writings to understand that he is clearly wrong, and so, he is talking out his ass. Lenin himself, clearly on occasion after occasion points out the need to understand his works in place and time.



The Communist Manifesto was hardly the only thing that Marx and Engels ever wrote. Nor was it even the most important work. It wasn't even the most influential. Off the top of my head, Capital, the Civil War in France, the 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonapart, the Class Stuggle in France, The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Anti-Durhring, and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, all were far more important than the the Manifesto. In fact, TCM was a very obscure writing in its own time. Not until after the death of Marx did it begin to become significant. Far more important for the advancment of Marxism was S:UaS and Capital is easily the most important work. And of all these I mentioned, none of them are so tied to time and place that meaning is lost or worse, if we fail to understand the context in which they were written. This doesn't mean that facts haven't changed since then.

The key difference is between the types of works these three authors wrote. Marx and Engels tended to write books about what is happening now or how did we get here, basically, history and analysis. Lenin wrote works primarily focus on, what do we do now. Therefore, it is of far greater importance in understand the context in which Lenin is answering his questions than it is to understand M&Es.

I can of course agree (for the most part that is) with the bolded, however I do not think we can underestimate the importance of the Communist Manifesto.

A. it is their most popular work, rivaled only perhaps by Capital

B. Its short and simple (and hence lacks detail), but also therefore serves as an introductory work.

C. It drew out the most general, basic concepts of Marxism, it highlights the foundations of Marxist thought. All people wishing to begin learning about Marxism should start, at least in my opinion, by understanding the Communist Manifesto, and gaining an understanding of Marx's outline of the class struggle, and the goals and tasks of all Socialists (the end of capitalist exploitation).

I also feel your idea of Lenin answering Marx and Engels is fairly accurate, hence why 'The State and Revolution' is of such importance as an analysis of the teachings of Marx and Engels on the state, and a description of a means of upholding these teachings.

"Leninism is Marxism in the era of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution" - Stalin

I also point out that at the age of 16 the list of Lenins works i have read can rival pretty much all of my peers.

I also point out that i view Marxism-Leninism as a method not a dogma, AND that I do investigate historical context.

You and I just clearly have a very different view of history, different opinions, and analysis of historical events. When analysing historical context there is rarely 1 side to the story, depending on how we go about analysing history, different conclusions can be reached. I could go on to say that i analyse history as a Marxist, analysing every angle to ultimately draw the more truthfull conclusion, wheras you are narrow minded, and ignorant, and engage you in yet another theoretical arguement, in which we can debate Marxian concepts and engage in petty quibbling over whos the 'real' Marxist, but who needs such a liberal debate? >=-}

That all being said one can not to say that I or more broadly as you extend this to encompass all of my Marxist-Leninist comrades, 'we' are ignorant of history.