Supplementary texts

I thought it might be useful if we could pool together a collection of the various commentaries, study-guides etc. that are out there to help when reading the Grundrisse. I have found several things on the internet, and there is of course the wikipedia page (which is never that in-depth or helpful).

Here is quite an old blog (last updated in 2007) which contains some very useful notes etc. There is even a powerpoint presentation on the Grundrisse:
http://grundrisse.blogspot.com/

There is always the marxists.org study-guide, which does not exactly explain like a commentary, but aids discussion with some questions for each section and chapter:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...isse/guide.htm

I have also found an online text of Felton C. Shorthall's The Incomplete Marx (1994) which contains what looks like quite an interesting discussion (I have only skim-read the chapter) of the link between the Grundrisse onto Capital:
http://libcom.org/library/incomplete...-c-shorthall-7

Also, there is Roman Rosdolsky's The Making of Marx's Capital (1977), which seems to be one of the most well-known and comprehensive analyses. However, it is not available online at marxists.org or as a pdf. somewhere esle as far as I am aware of. So if anyone can find it online that would be useful.

I have found Negri's Marx Beyond Marx: Lessons on the Grundrisse (1991) as well which, again, seems like a good additional read but it doesn't look like it's available online anywhere.

This is all I have found at the moment, but there is surely some more out there. I hope some of this is helpful to any folks here; if anyone else has some suggestions, go ahead. Thanks

There is an interesting book on MIA by Hiroshi Uchida called 'Marx's Grundrisse and Hegel's Logic' examining the relationship between the Grundrisse and the Science of Logic:

http://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/uchida/index.htm

http://www.sendspace.com/file/6jzasa here's Marx Beyond Marx. Seems to be an okay version, but far from perfect.

To help understand the importance of Historical Materialism (a pivotal theme to understanding the Grudrisse) the author of the forward recommends:

Dialectical and Historical Materialism by J.V Stalin : http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...ks/1938/09.htm

On contradiction by Mao Zedong: http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...1/mswv1_17.htm

and...

On Practice by Mao Zedong: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm

Problem: i'm pretty sure neither Stalin nor Mao read the Grundrisse...

Yeah, I will echo Kadir's thoughts. Although some sections of the Grundrisse were discovered in the late '30s and published in the Soviet Union, it remained relatively obscure until it the more comprehensive 1950s version was published in German (which forms the basis for our English translation, I think). It then received interest from academia in the "west" in 1970s; this when it translated into English, IIRC. But interestingly, I am pretty sure Nicolaus was a Maoist, which comes through subtlety in his introduction; and more explicitly if it was him who recommended On Contradiction!

By the way, just an quick note as regards one of the sources I mentioned: the first link, which is a blogspot on the Grundrisse, was actually made by the Alliance for Workers' Liberty in the UK. That's not to deny its usefulness, but just be careful how you go with that one: it seems to be trying to prove the orthodox Trotskyist theory of a 'deformed worker's state' against "the impossibility of state-capitalism", (i.e., it's a bit doctrinaire; there's some kind of political agenda).

Problem: i'm pretty sure neither Stalin nor Mao read the Grundrisse...

Stalin, Mao, and Lenin didn't read the Grundrisse, however, they did contribute to Marx's Dialectical theory; this theory, if you remember the forward by Martin Nicolaus, is vital to understanding the mindset of Marx when he was writing the Grundrisse.

I am pretty sure Nicolaus was a Maoist, which comes through subtlety in his introduction;

It's not very subtle, though. He explicitly compares the 'free social individuals' which Marx talks about with the youth in China and Vietnam, claiming that this gives Marx's work a concreteness which it did not have in 1857-58. It's blindingly obvious to anyone that Nicolaus was a Maoist.

it seems to be trying to prove the orthodox Trotskyist theory of a 'deformed worker's state'

Alliance for Workers' Liberty is an unorthodox schactmanite type group which holds to an analysis of the fSU as 'bureaucratic collectivism' rather than a 'degenerated workers' state', for the record.

Stalin, Mao, and Lenin didn't read the Grundrisse, however, they did contribute to Marx's Dialectical theory; this theory, if you remember the forward by Martin Nicolaus, is vital to understanding the mindset of Marx when he was writing the Grundrisse.

It's true that dialectics plays a fairly big role in understanding the Grundrisse, but Marx would never have been aware of the dialectics of Stalin, Mao or Lenin. The dialectics that he was aware of and that immediately influenced him were those of Hegel's Science of Logic. I think the latter is the thing that we should be focusing on more than the works of the figures you mention.

True,but I don't think we should disregard the texts completely since they still give us an understanding of Marx's thought.Though I agree, we should be focusing on Hegel's Logic.

True,but I don't think we should disregard the texts completely since they still give us an understanding of Marx's thought.Though I agree, we should be focusing on Hegel's Logic.

With all due respect, I would say they give an understanding of Mao's and Stalin's thought: not Marx's or Engels'. Mao's philosophy is particularly interesting since I am pretty sure he never really read much Marx as it was not widely available at that time in China.

It's not very subtle, though. He explicitly compares the 'free social individuals' which Marx talks about with the youth in China and Vietnam, claiming that this gives Marx's work a concreteness which it did not have in 1857-58. It's blindingly obvious to anyone that Nicolaus was a Maoist.

Given a more thorough reading of his introduction, it does seem pretty explicit. And, leading on from what I have alread mentioned, Nicolaus lauds those works of Stalin's and Mao's. I was just looking through his foreword and he says of On Contradiction, On Practice and Dialectical and Historical Materialism etc. amongst other works by Lenin and Bukharin, that "they remain the classic exposition of materialist dialectics, the standard against which all other writings must be measured, and which will probably remain unequalled for a very long time." So yeah, it is definitely in no uncertain terms.

Alliance for Workers' Liberty is an unorthodox schactmanite type group which holds to an analysis of the fSU as 'bureaucratic collectivism' rather than a 'degenerated workers' state', for the record.

Oh gee I dunno. I am meant to be part of 'Trotskyist' organisation, but you seem to know the tradition better than me! My point was that it just seemed a bit iffy as far as '-isms' go, if you catch my drift.

Although this leads me onto another thought: I find it interesting how the Maoists or Trotskyists (or anyone else, for that matter), try and infer points from a text like this that will fit into their particular doctrine or their own specific "Marxism". The AWL tried to use "disprove" state capitalism with their interpretation, and Nicolaus drew some spurious comparison between Vietnamese youth and free social individuals with his. As a poster mentioned a few posts above: we should stick with Marx for the time being, not the Marxists. I try to avoid reading a text like this through the spectacles of an ideologue or party member. Thanks for the clarification by the way, Zanthorus

I am unable to participate in this reading group as I am already pre-occupied with reading. But on a not-so-important piece of left-wing trivia:

Alliance for Workers' Liberty is an unorthodox schactmanite type group which holds to an analysis of the fSU as 'bureaucratic collectivism' rather than a 'degenerated workers' state', for the record.

Almost accurate. IIRC the AWL while holding a 'bureaucratic collectivist', members should as Martin Thomas adhered to one of the variants of the state-capitalist analysis. I think it says this on their Wikipedia page as well but have not checked that before positng.