Recommend Literature!

  1. More Fire for the People
    More Fire for the People
    This is not a sectarian literature thread, but a list of books, articles, and other literary works you found useful in relation to revolutionary Marxism.

    So recommend some!

    My recs:
    Conspectus of Hegel’s book The Science of Logic by Vladimir Lenin (1914-1915)
    Draft and Explanation of a Programme for the Social-Democratic Party by Vladimir Lenin (1895)
  2. Winter
    Winter
    I must say that I have to give props to Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn for openning my eyes to the way governments really work. Although they aren't revolutionaries, I still have endless respect for the guys.

    As for revolutionaries, it goes without saying that Lenin's "State and Revolution" is a necessity to read. And of course I would be clueless about all of this if it weren't for "Marx for Beginners" by Rius!
  3. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=200

    Updated List

    Lenin:
    - Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism
    - What is to be done?
    - One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (the crisis in our party)
    - Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution
    - The Tasks of the Proletariat in our Revolution
    - Lenin: The State and Revolution
    - "Left-Wing" Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality
    - Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder
    You stole most of my Lenin works, damn it!

    Anyhow, I'll add just one more (but one that you yourself really need to read): Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

    EDIT: You stole this one, too, you meanie! At least you didn't add this one: Our Immediate Task

    Now, on to other authors (socialist and otherwise):

    The Class Struggle (Erfurt Program) by Karl Kautsky
    The Social Revolution by Karl Kautsky
    Letter to Vera Zasulich by Karl Marx
    Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and 'the Peripheries of Capitalism' by Teodor Shanin
    The Managerial Revolution by James Burnham
    The Soviet Century by Moshe Lewin
    Lenin's Last Struggle by Moshe Lewin
    Lenin Rediscovered: What Is To Be Done? in Context by Lars Lih
    Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 by Geoffrey Roberts
    Cold Peace: Stalin and the Soviet Ruling Circle, 1945-1953 by Yoram Gorlizki and Oleg Khlevniuk
    The Soviet Elite from Lenin to Gorbachev: The Central Committee and its Members, 1917-1991 by Evan Mawdsley
    Marx at the Millennium by Cyril Smith
    Most of the works cited in my post above (and the last one, even if written by a not-so-Leninist Marxist author, can be found in the Cyril Smith Internet Archive), but I'm sure you might want to read some of Ben Seattle's web articles on post-revolution conditions, too:

    http://struggle.net/ben/2007/cargo-1-intro.htm
    http://struggle.net/ben/2008/126-agitation.htm (comments here)

    There are key points where I express personal disagreement with Ben Seattle, and said points are addressed here and here.
  4. PRC-UTE
    PRC-UTE
    here's literature I recommend. I realise it will not be relevant to all comrades here and apologise for that!

    The Ta Power Document

    Socialism Made Easy

    Loyalism and the Connolly approach

    The Communist position on the national colonial question (from the Minutes of the Second Congress of the Communist International)

    I also found The German Ideology and Left Wing Communism very helpful.
  5. Lenin II
    Lenin II
    LENIN: State and Revolution, What is to be Done?, Left-Wing Communism.
    The one in my signature.
    TROTSKY: Should America Go Communist, What is National Socialism, Fascism: What It Is And How to Fight It.
    MARX: The Attitude of the Bourgeoisie Towards the Proletariat
    STALIN: The Foundations of Leninism
    ENGELS: The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844
    MAO: Red Book, Analysis of Classes in Chinese Society
    HOXHA: Imperialism and Revolution
  6. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    The one in my signature.
    Didn't you read Hopscotch's remarks above - "This is not a sectarian literature thread... literary works you found useful in relation to revolutionary Marxism"?

    I know you added the token Trotsky books here (and said defensive works aren't really revolutionary/offensive), but come on!
  7. Lenin II
    Lenin II
    Didn't you read Hopscotch's remarks above - "This is not a sectarian literature thread...
    I am not keenly aware of the definition of "sectarian literature." Technically any literature can be seen as "sectarian" since it usually pushes a particular point of view which may be in direct conflict with another.
    literary works you found useful in relation to revolutionary Marxism"?
    I did find the book useful is researching Marxism. It changed my outlook and historical knowledge about WWII profoundly.
    I know you added the token Trotsky books here (and said defensive works aren't really revolutionary/offensive), but come on!
    Despite the anti-Trotsky rhetoric of the anti-revisionist crowd, he had some fantastic books on economics and fascism. I became a communist because I read Trotsky and I will not listen to anyone who tells me I musn't read Trotsky.
  8. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    ^^^ Sorry for the overreaction, then.

    I did find the book useful is researching Marxism. It changed my outlook and historical knowledge about WWII profoundly.
    Polemics and overreactions aside, but the semantics there make a huge difference: there is a difference between ordinary Marxism (which can degenerate into "cargo-cult" Marxism, and I'm not even talking about the more distant Leninism and "cargo-cult Leninism" here) and revolutionary Marxism.



    [BTW, part of being a revolutionary Marxist also means questioning existing concepts that seem too static for the modern era, given all the new information we have at our disposal.]
  9. Random Precision
    A couple I can think of:

    Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg: Excellent polemic against Bernstein's revisionism, still my first stopping point for that debate when it comes up on RevLeft and in real political activity.

    One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: The Crisis in Our Party by V.I. Lenin: Makes clear many questions of organization, in my opinion a better resource than What Is To Be Done?, which "bent the stick" too strongly against economism. The call for a party of "professional revolutionaries" rather than a workers' party resulted in no end to Maoist substitutionist revisionism. As Lenin himself said (LCW Vol. 13 p. 85),

    The basic mistake of those who polemicise against What is to be Done? today, is that they tear this work completely out of the context of a definite historical milieu, a definite, now already long-past period of development of our party ... To speak at present about the fact that Iskra (in the years 1901 and 1902!) exaggerated the idea of the organisation of professional revolutionists, is the same as if somebody had reproached the Japanese, after the Russo-Japanese war, for exaggerating the Russian military power before the war, for exaggerated concern over the struggle against this power. The Japanese had to exert all forces against a possible maximum of Russian forces in order to attain the victory. Unfortunately. many judge from the outside, without seeing that today the idea of the organisation of professional revolutionists has already attained a complete victory. This victory, however, would have been impossible if, in its time, this idea had not been pushed into the foreground, if it had not been preached in an “exaggerated” manner to people who stood like obstacles in the way of its realisation ... What is to be Done? polemically corrected Economism, and it is false to consider the contents of the brochure outside of its connection with this task.

    The State and Revolution: The Marxist Theory of the State and the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution by V.I. Lenin: Good resource on the role of the State post-revolution, draws upon the work of Marx and Engels to combat anarchist theory, or lack thereof.

    The Modern Prince by Antonio Gramsci, from his Prison Notebooks which has some interesting observations on the role of the revolutionary party in power, drawing on Niccolo Machiavelli's philosophy of rule in The Prince. Unfortunately it's not available online
  10. Comrade Nadezhda
    Comrade Nadezhda
  11. chimx
    chimx
    Although I do not identify with Marxist Autonomism, I like what Harry Cleaver is trying to do with his book Reading Capital Politically, and I think most Revolutionary Marxists would agree with that.

    Often times though, I find theoretical works, especially minor ones like Lenin's State and Revolution, to be somewhat stale compared to historical works that examine the actual experiences and struggles of working peoples. I think these have much more to teach us, and that is no doubt why I spend my time in the history forum than the theory forum on revleft...
  12. Lenin II
    Lenin II
    especially minor ones like Lenin's State and Revolution,
    "Minor?" Please do tell.
  13. chimx
    chimx
    Theoretically it did not bring anything new to the table. It is largely acknowledged to be a simple regurgitation of what Marx had already written. Its value only lays in its historical context, especially with Russian anarchism's strong flirtation with Bolshevism.

    IMHO...
  14. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    ^^^ I felt for some reason that State and Revolution was just another (albeit lengthier) rehash of the rather simplistic Communist Manifesto (comrades should that I've only read both of these in very small parts, hence my reasoning). CDL keeps quoting the "bailiffs... shopmen" quote from the latter to justify the security guards being petit-bourgeois, even though my Theory thread on class relations goes deeper.

    Left-Wing Childishness, on the other hand...
  15. Lenin II
    Lenin II
    Exactly HOW was State and Revolution a rehash of the Manifesto? Is not Marxism-Leninism different than Marxism? Their approach to class consciousness is entirely different.
  16. Winter
    Winter
    Exactly HOW was State and Revolution a rehash of the Manifesto? Is not Marxism-Leninism different than Marxism? Their approach to class consciousness is entirely different.
    I agree, I think State and Revolution is essential and further explains the Manifesto.

    I see State and Revolution as Lenin's attempt to clarify and defend Marx's revolutionary positions against social-democrats who sought a peaceful evolution to communism.

    I think State and Revolution is essential, for it puts together many of Lenin's ideas including how to organize and to actually pursue a proletariat revolution.
  17. chimx
    chimx
    Is not Marxism-Leninism different than Marxism?
    Yes. But I think it is important to be clear what that difference is. Works by Lenin such as S+R and WITBD? are not a significant divergence from 19th century communist politics.

    WITBD? advocates a political vanguard of professional revolutionaries to push class struggle beyond trade union struggle. This very easily fits into the longer history of communist praxis. From Babeuf and his conspiracy of equals, to Blanquist conspiractors, to Bakunin's "invisible dictatorship". The necessity of a vanguard of committed revolutionaries has been emphasized for a century before Lenin.

    S+R is partly attack on contemporary Social Democrats by emphasizing the necessity of revolution. The theoretical side of S+R that people laud is that of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin clearly wants to emphasize the Marxist roots of the DofP by heavily quoting from Marx and Engels in S+R. Lenin does not add anything significant to the theory of proletarian dictatorship, but just reiterates what Marx and Engels have already said on the subject. Again, S+R is important in its historical context as an attack on anarchists and social democrats.

    IMO, Imperialism is the defining theoretical aspect of Leninism. It sought to update Marxism to the mechanism of modern imperialist capitalism.

    But I also think that beyond theory, Leninism has become distinct from Marxism in terms of political praxis.
  18. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    ^^^ Aren't you subscribing to the "textbook" interpretation of WITBD (linking Lenin's vanguard concept to the Blanquist organization)? Newer interpretations due to a better understanding of historical context suggests that Lenin's vanguard party concept was an application of the organizational structure of the German Social-Democratic Party to more authoritarian circumstances (czarist rule, the secret police, etc.).

    After a few more discussions with Ben Seattle, we (primarily he) will come up with a process for the emergence of a future revolutionary mass workers' party from some mass workers' network. I am just hoping that the process incorporates Lenin's vanguard organization as a proto-party within some mass workers' network, Connolly's concept of "one big union" to apply to this mass workers' network (though it probably won't be a union, the idea that this mass network should be exclusively proletarian is important), and Luxemburg's concept of a revolutionary mass workers' party to emerge from this network.
  19. chimx
    chimx
    ^^^ Well I have said elsewhere that Bolshevism openly became a mass party following the February revolution. The basic premise of having a group composed of committed revolutionaries, (even if only during times of authoritarian rule) is not anything new. Whether it was German influenced or derived from the Jacobin tradition, the point remains basically the same.
  20. Comrade Nadezhda
    Comrade Nadezhda
    Lenin's "State and Revolution" may seem very simplistic compared to his other works, but it, nevertheless, carries significant importance - that of which is not "minor".

    Jacob Richter, I do not understand your statement [unless you consider Lenin to be revisionist, which I think is a question I should then address, in that regard- given I can't understand why a Leninist would find State and Revolution unimportant. Perhaps you should take the time to actually read it if you want to have a proper discussion on it, or anything relating to Leninism- it might shed some light for you, which I have begun to think is pure necessity.

    State and Revolution was a lot less vague than Communist Manifesto, it provided such that could be applied in revolutionary movement; Marx left a lot of questions and holes that needed to be filled. Nothing is clearly defined and it can be used in many different ways- taken out of context and used to advocate pacifism and "evolutionary socialism" which is highly unmarxist and only leads to reform NOT revolution.
  21. chimx
    chimx
    If Lenin had only written S+R he would not have made a significant contribution to Marxist thought. Nearly everything of theoretical importance within that pamphlet was simply a reiteration of what Marx had already talked to death about. Again, it is historically important, but theoretically inconsequential.

    Also, Marx advocated pacifism as a possible means for proletarian emancipation provided the proper political institutions were in place. It was this advocacy by Marx that later led to evolutionary reformism from Kautsky and others.
  22. Comrade Nadezhda
    Comrade Nadezhda
    If Lenin had only written S+R he would not have made a significant contribution to Marxist thought. Nearly everything of theoretical importance within that pamphlet was simply a reiteration of what Marx had already talked to death about. Again, it is historically important, but theoretically inconsequential.

    Also, Marx advocated pacifism as a possible means for proletarian emancipation provided the proper political institutions were in place. It was this advocacy by Marx that later led to evolutionary reformism from Kautsky and others.
    How was it? Marx was very vague. He left a lot of holes needing to be filled. He didn't provide any argument for centralized organization [post-revolution] and hardly got into it. Lenin's contribution was much greater than that of Marx and the importance of State and Revolution cannot be forgotten. Perhaps you should re-read it and pay attention to the details a bit more.
  23. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    CN, I do not consider Lenin to be a revisionist. How did you suddenly come about such a preposterous notion?

    [That thinking is more like ComradeRed's, NOT mine.]

    I have read greater portions of it in recent days. One particular quote that strikes my interest is one on universal suffrage:

    "They themselves share and instill into the minds of the people the false notion that universal suffrage 'in the modern state' is really capable of ascertaining the will of the majority of the toilers and of securing its realization."

    That's true, but how does that add to the related minimum demand in the Manifesto?



    I also note that, while he criticized the Erfurt program, he did not criticize one iota of Kautsky's commentary on it ("The Class Struggle"). This omission (especially where it pertains to the MERGER formula), in my opinion, is extremely important for comrades in the modern world!
  24. Winter
    Winter
    If Lenin had only written S+R he would not have made a significant contribution to Marxist thought.
    State and Revolution is Lenin's own manifesto because it takes all his most important contribution and places it in one work. I see it as if Marx laid the foundation of a piece of art whereas Lenin worked in the details.
  25. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    ^^^ Forgive me for my simplistic use of words, then. Given the content of my previous post, what I meant to say was the S+R, given its length, was a detailed rehash of the Manifesto - minus the minimum demands. As WintersDemise put it, S+R was Lenin's own manifesto.

    In any event, this discussion REALLY should shift towards some of the more underrated works - either by Lenin ("Left-Wing Childishness," which helps dispell the notion that planning a post-revolutionary, still-extensively-capitalist economic structure is utopian) or by someone else (Kautsky's "Social Revolution" and "Class Struggle" come to mind).



    Note on Kautsky: I'd like some comrade in the near future to do to Kautsky's theory what Marx did to Hegel's philosophy: put the elder figure's ideas back right side up. While Lenin was the "third-generation" Marxist who came closest to achieving this goal, there were key items that he didn't address (mainly because of the exceptional circumstances in Russia).
  26. chimx
    chimx
    He left a lot of holes needing to be filled. He didn't provide any argument for centralized organization [post-revolution] and hardly got into it.
    Personally I think that this is why S+R is so weak theoretically. Marx was always extremely purposeful in how vague he depicted post-revolutionary scenarios, and with good reason. There are countless variables that effect the course of revolution, many of which are entirely distinct geographically. In my opinion, what Marx wrote of proletarian dictatorships was sufficient precisely because of how succinct it was.

    "They themselves share and instill into the minds of the people the false notion that universal suffrage 'in the modern state' is really capable of ascertaining the will of the majority of the toilers and of securing its realization."
    And here is a perfect example of this. Marx wrote exactly the opposite. He thought broadly enough to specifically say that a proletarian dictatorship could come about in countless forms, especially considering the diversity of capitalist superstructure. He suggested that a socialist transition could occur via violent revolution, or alternatively, under a peaceful democracy. Marx's point was that it is illogical and shortsighted to try and define the course of human emancipation throughout all of history from solely a single point in time and geography. I agree with Marx.
  27. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    ^^^ Alas, chimx, that vague post-revolutionary stuff is precisely a crisis of theory for modern revolutionaries.

    In any event, Marx also wrote during a time wherein REALLY detailed information wasn't readily available, and when capitalism was still maturing. There weren't enough historical points in time to prove that only violence is the answer.

    Now, on to peaceful transition. The irony of ironies is that the October revolution wasn't a "glorious" bloody revolution. I think Lenin said something about power being left on the streets for the Party to pick it up.
  28. chimx
    chimx
    Alas, chimx, that vague post-revolutionary stuff is precisely a crisis of theory for modern revolutionaries.
    And this is one of the reasons I identify solely as a Marxist, and would probably never call myself a Leninist-Marxist. Regardless of anybodies opinion of Lenin's praxis, at the very least I think we need to agree that the Bolshevik experience was entirely historically unique. Given the inimitable nature of 1917, modern leftists seem to glorify Bolshevism more out of socialist pride than practicality. Some modern leftists even fail to temper their pride of socialist victory in history with the fact that at the very least, Bolshevism failed to institutionalize safeguards from counterrevolution.

    This is just my opinion, but I still think that modern leftists should be make our own State and Revolutions, e.g.: brainstorming and theorizing our own frameworks for the emancipation of working peoples based on contemporary experiences -- not experiences from a century ago.

    ::shrug::
  29. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    ^^^ You do realize that there is a huge difference between being merely a Marxist and being a revolutionary Marxist, right (since academic Marxists like David Harvey come to mind)?

    [And yes, my agreement with your "contemporary experiences" remark is expressed in the "'Internal' challenges..." thread portion decrying "traditional schematism.]

    If anything else, modern revolutionary Marxists (and yes, I am identifying with this term more than with the logical subset "Leninist Marxists," "Luxemburgists," and "Connollyists") should be making our own (Kautsky's works in bold):

    WITBD
    The Class Struggle
    Our Immediate Task
    One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (hence my recent remarks on "circumstantial discussive unity")
    Imperialism: THSOC (hence my "New Theory of Imperialism" Theory thread on macro-capitalism)
    The Social Revolution (revolutionary activity and the post-revolution "multi-economy")
    Economics and Politics [...]
    Left-Wing Childishness (the post-revolution "multi-economy")

    Notice that S+R is left out.
  30. Comrade Nadezhda
    Comrade Nadezhda
    I may be the only comrade here who reads this much, but I recommend reading Vol. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 of Lenin's collected works, and once you've done that keep on reading until you've read all 45 volumes. Yes, comrades, I mean completely until you have read all the words and can reflect on that reading coherently, without hesitation. (And no, comrades, I am not "kidding") When you've finished, do yourself the duty of reading Joseph Stalin's work, which you can find here and here.

    If you have any further questions feel free to contact me, as I have access to lots of interesting material which it is necessary for all comrades to read in the name of the revolutionary struggle.
12