Hello, Holla Forumsfag here. Recently I've been interested in leftist literature

Hello, Holla Forumsfag here. Recently I've been interested in leftist literature.

I've been misled by people on what socialism is about (I thought it was about all people sharing the same wealth)

What books should I read and in which order to become red-pilled on marxist theory?

Other urls found in this thread:


I think this is a good intro to Marxist theory.

Do you seek specifically Marxist theory for now? Or are you interested in a broader left wing litterature?


Anything helps. But it needs to be in a good order so I don't end up getting confused.

With Marx in particular I recommend The Communist Manifesto, Wage Labour and Capital, Value Price and Profit, and Critique of the Gotha Program. Those texts give you a decent intro to both his economic and political theory, but to really grasp Marx you'll have to delve into Capital and the rest of his works. No matter your ideology Marx offers rather incredible insight. He has short comings, but without a doubt somehow tapped into a view of the world that to this day influences many fields including anthropology, history, and economics. Dude was fucking GOAT. Do not recommend secondary sources. While they make Marx easier to digest they more often than not falsely interpret his theories. Also reading the source material gives you additional room to stroke your own cock. Also worthwhile to delve into anarchist theory. Though not on quite the level of Marx I'm personally a big fan of Emma Goldman and she's one writer than makes feminism somehow desirable and despite being a goblin in looks and a massive bitch will make you love her for just that.

The communist manifesto is trash throw it in the fire.

Read this first it is very short very boiled down marxist theory

Then read this like a true man faggot, Pancake man has the best theory.

OP, if you have trouble getting some of these,
>>>/freedu/ have a fuckton of pdfs.

This isn't exactly on topic, but how did you reach this realization? Most people double down when confronted with evidence that something they've been trained to accept as fact is wrong.

Care to explain?

Engels, The Principles of Communism is the best short intro type work, it will give you the bare bones basics.


After that I recommend Engels anthropological work: Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, this will introduce you to a Marxist historiography which serves as a basic introduction to what you could call the 'Marxist worldview'; its also only 100 pages long.


After that I recommend reading: Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and then The German Ideology by Marx, again both works are quite short under 100 pages each.


is an infographic on /lefty/ movies if you would like to space out reading

Anything by Marx that isn't capital. The Conquest of Bread.

It is very anchored in the specific context of its redaction. It's more an historical document than a piece of theory tbh.
Still interesting though.

Also, while we're on the topic of historical worldview, i advice you to look at some point Kropotkin's mutual aid and the conquest of bread (this is no more entry level stuff tho)


The whole point of lefty literature is to mislead you.

well obviously

books should be burned

Heil hitlar

This is why your sorry excuse for a controlled opposition movement is falling apart, Holla Forums. It started before Trump was even inaugurated when he picked corporate shills to fill his cabinet, but you're doing most of the work yourself at this point.


OP here, one more thing, if a business operates under socialism, does everyone get the same wealth or does everyone get wealth based on their labour output? For example, does someone who is doing the call support earn less than the one doing all the work (for example, software development, or doing system management)

Fuck off, everyone can see right through you

socialism means workers own the workplaces and they make the decisions of how they run the place democratically. it's also the recognition that work is an essentially social activity requiring the input of everyone in the workplace. In a democratic workplace I would imagine it would be hard for a small group to set up a wage that outsizes everyone else.

this is the kind of shit that varies a lot depending on your view. But by the time these kinds of decisions become important we will probably have way more time to think about and find the most pleasing solution.

butt still this question is one that scares away many people from socialist ideology. For now i like to say that in any kind of socialism all work will be properly rewarded none will be under or overapreciated. (aside from reputation and street cred, You can't overcome the fact that beeing a firefighter is way cooler than pressing buttons).

I'll first let you know that this is asking for sectarian answers, personally I think that as markets will be abolished everyone will work for the necessities of the community and at the same time will receive anything he needs from it, I see this as the spirit of the quote "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs", and essentially this is how primitive communism in hunter-gatherer societies worked

Well color me impressed

You mean the government owns the workplaces?


Under socialism it's democratically decided by your fellow communards.

Under communism/after post scarcity it's from everyone by his ability to everyone by his need.

think of cooperative companies

Then I dont see how that would work.

My friend works part time at Manchester United stadium as a marshal (where they watch the crowd and make sure they behave),

How can my friend own old trafford stadium when its a multi billion pound premesis?

What does that means?

socialism means that the workers do what the fuck they want really
for example in this case the idea is that the workers should seize the stadium and work it themselves without the need for capitalists (football players are proles too after all)
of course you've given a particularly bad example because this sort of gigantic multibillionary bussinesses would be seized in a very advanced stage of the revolution

How does whoever "owns" it now own it? Because they have a piece of paper that says they own it?

The form socialist "ownership" would take varies from tendency to tendency, but generally if you built/work some place you should have control over that place.

There's a factory in Turkey that the workers managed to win from their former employer a few years ago. They're still going strong as a co-operative. Everyone owns the factory and the machines, and everyone gets to decide how they're run, what they make, and what to do with their income.

So if your friend works at the stadium it would be similar. He has the right to decide along with everyone else that works there what happens to it, how it's run, and what to do with whatever they receive for running it.

That is if it's even necessary to have someone running it at all. Socialism isn't just "capitalism with democracy." It's a complete reorientation of the material basis and cultural superstructure of society.

Richard Wolff's Introduction to Marxism:

Watch from the begining, its long but really easy to understand.

Marx's Wage-Labour & Capital is also a great, easy intro to some Marxian economic concepts, IMO perfect Red Pill material (short and easy to read):

And then there are the simple ones like The Manifesto of the Communist Party and Engel's Principles of Communism, which are short and give a good intro as to what we are all about.

Marinaleda Spain is also an example of a socialist town. I'd provide some links if I weren't heading right out the door, but it should give you a somewhat clearer picture of what one incarnation of socialism looks like.

Check out Murray Bookchin, and especially "The Next Revolution" (a new collection of his essays).

Read this.

In his case its a huge stadium.

Yeah they paid for it.
When you own something, you have certain rights and responsibilities.

Lets say as an example, my friend decides he doesnt like football (soccer) any more and wants to transform Manchester united stadium in to a cricket pitch. If he really owned it, he could do that. But as it stands there's hundreds of other workers who would be put out of a job by him doing that. And I presume they also 'own' the stadium in the same superficial way as him? So what happens then?

he will accept that his wish is undemocratic and carry on working on the stadium or find another job, maybe gather some people to build a cricket pitch.

Ah so he owns it in name only and doesnt have any of the usual rights that come with ownership?


Well, if your friend had cooperative ownership with the workers, then it would be put to a vote on whether or not to turn the stadium into a cricket pitch. People vote, voice their opinions, argue a bit, compromise, but the point is that nobody is left out of the process.
In a socialist world, nobody would lose their jobs because the executive team decided to merge with another company to consolidate market control.

Nihilism is a spook user :^)

Don't fall for it, this is a Holla Forums psyop to try disable new converts by locking them into the vortex of an ideology so useless that it actually induces a form of autism, rendering you functionally inert.

yeah kinda like joint stock companies.

It's the truth, but also a lie at the same time.

Ideology is a spook. But you cannot escape it.

Read this if you want to become a living meme

Ah I get you now.

He would owns a limited share that gets taken off him if he quits the job?

oops meant for

Nice, the polyp got triggered

IMO, he would be less likely to spookposting for no reasons if he understand the stuff behind it.
That's far from being necessary to get into leftist stuff tho.

It's a very old political manifesto which has little to do with the present day situation or the general points of socialism. It's like reading the British Liberal Party's 1870 electoral program to understand Liberalism.

yeah pretty much this but unlike shares you cant buy them and every worker has the same amount of shares.

Holla Forums is a bit put off by the "cuck revelation"
I mean come on now.

That's ruined a perfectly good source on his ideas. Now when you read it you think "but this guy literally was a cuck"



Do you like hitting yourself?
How do you live without being told what to do?

Feel free to provide a citation that implies that Johann Smith enjoyed prepping a bull

Oh wait, you cant, you are a dumb polyp grasping atbstraws, you aree a virgin so thats why you belive an open relationship = cuckoldry

For my misstress, yes

What the fuck, why did this thread devolve into Stirner and spookposting?

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Spooks or Stirner approaches one.

Was testing a hypothesis, my bad, sorry. Good suggestions at the top tho.

The funny thing is that discussion ended with the Stirner guy saying the guy from Holla Forums is grasping at straws and the Stirner guy uses an ad hominem himself.

Adhom is perfectly acceptable here, gaylord.

Its not an adhom because an adhom is used in place of an argument, I am straight up calling him a virg

Abridged version of Capital volume 1. IN order to avoid any confusion, I'll lay out what Marx is trying to do in Volume 1 of Capital. A "contradiction" between 1 and 3 is often harped on by critics, but they miss what Marx is trying to convey.

Volume 1 of Capital is trying to show:
- How labour is allocated in a Capitalist society
- How the law of competition gives rise to an average productivity (also known as the socially necessary labour time)
- How this average productivity determines the long term fluctuations of price
- Where does profit come from?
- How the allocation of labour is intrinsic to the accumulation of capital
- How the accumulation of capital serves as the independent factor in determining the long term fluctuations of wages
- Why Capitalism has a tendency to bring on technological innovation, and how this effects the allocation of labour in a Capitalist society

In other words, Marx is showing how the average productivity of an industry (and thus the allocation of societies total capacity for labour) forms the axis which short term fluctuations in the economy are dependent on. The fact that businesses often use cost-price + markup when pricing an individual commodity does not contradict Marx's laws. He is trying to lay out Capitalism in its most general form. I can not stress this enough, as this is something I got caught up on and confused about when studying Marx myself.


Remember that its not necessarily the workers only that controll the means, in many models the wider community(town/neighbourhood level) directs the overall direction of the different "cooperatives" while the workers deal with the everyday stuff mostly.

How does anything get built under communism if there's no profit to be made?

society would literally just crumble

Read the Anarchist FAQ


Debt:The First 5000 Years.
Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution
The Conquest of Bread
What is Property?

For anarchist stuff. What is Property? And Mutual Aid the most important. They are of equal importance IMO.


wait, stirner was a cuckold?

u forgot the part where those jews books have literally only led to death and suffering of hundreds of millions

people usualy don't like starving so they tend to work, and workers never profit anyway. only investors profit on the work done by the workers.

works so well in africa

Stirner cucked his wife out of her inheritance to start up a milk shop.

It works brilliantly, do you have a problem with people starving so governments can profit off of cash crops?

Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution which deaths did cause friendo?

Not even jewish lol where you gonna go now

africa is completely domniated by imperialist proxy governments that keep people from organizing. starvation is caused by unfertile lands, combined with wars, and control over production either by the forementioned governments or porkies. not everyone knows how to properly work a farm.


How did society ever survive without glorious capitalism

anyone can lear how to work a farm if properly taught


Beginners guide on Political Economy with Questions at the end of each chapter to check your learning success

Here's a collection of works focusing on economy in chronological order:

This way it's easier to build yourself up to read Capital, too.

simpleton Holla Forumstards are the most hilarious to watch because they really show how stupid and emotional Holla Forums really is


He married a woman for her money and didn't give a shit if she fucked other men because he was just as busy fucking other women.


The only reason I'm not ridiculing you is because I assume you're joking.


we've always been at war with Eurasia

and East Asia

That depends on the type of socialism implemented. The point is that, under any type of socialism, those decisions are in the hands of the workers, because, unlike in capitalism, they collectively own the things that they produce–either through their cooperative business, or through the local government.

I approve.

Most large enterprises are already owned by large groups of people. That's what shareholders do. In capitalism, the owners (shareholders) decide what to do with their property by voting, and the votes are weighted according to how many shares you own. In capitalism, the owners (either workers or citizens, depending on the type of socialism) decide what to do with their property by voting, and each vote is equal.
It's really not that complicated. The defining feature of capitalism is that whoever owns the capital (the machinery, tools, equipment, etc.) takes complete ownership over everything produced using said capital. Socialists call this arrangement "private property" (for lack of a better word), and oppose it. They think the people doing the actual labor are the ones who should own the finished product.

Most large enterprises are already owned by large groups of people. That's what shareholders do. In capitalism, the owners (shareholders) decide what to do with their property by voting, and the votes are weighted according to how many shares you own. In socialism, the owners (either as workers in a cooperative business or as citizens in a democratic commune, depending on the type of socialism) decide what to do with their property by voting, and each vote is equal.
It's really not that complicated. The defining feature of capitalism is that whoever owns the capital (the machinery, tools, equipment, etc.) takes complete ownership over everything produced using said capital. Socialists call this arrangement "private property" (for lack of a better word), and oppose it. They think the people doing the actual labor are the ones who should own the finished product.
Oh my God, I keep making fucking mistakes, I'm sorry, this time I got it right.

well spooked my friend XD

not if he want to become more in touch with leftis lit, but if he decide to read that he should als read the other books

There are more leftist ideologies than genres of punk, but nearly all of them would pay workers based on the labor they put in. For example in the Soviet Bloc (which was State Capitalist, but is an experiment in socialism) workers were paid very different rates depending on their output. (In practice this meant your pay depended on be-friending the foreman)

The essential criteria to answer "is X socialist?" is who owns the means of production. If it's the workers it's socialist, if it's someone else it's not.

I think the better test is to ask, "Who owns the product of labor?" I could easily envision a system in which capital owners rent their machinery out to laborers, yet with the laborers retaining ownership of the finished product. That would also be socialist. Seizing the means of production is a means toward achieving the end of worker ownership of the product of labor.