Anyone have the ML reading list?

Anyone have the ML reading list?

Other urls found in this thread:

read Bob Black

bump cuz i want some good ML books that isnt lenin or marx

Ask your party.

sure here you go


The most standard one:


Lenin. The three sources and three component parts of Marxism

Lenin. Karl Marx

Marx, Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party

Historical Materialism

Marx, Engels. The German Ideology, chapter 1

Scientific Socialism

Engels. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

Lenin. What is to be done?

Lenin. State and Revolution

Lenin. Texts against revisionism and opportunism:

The historical destiny of the doctrine of Karl Marx
Opportunism and the collapse of the Second International
The collapse of the Second International
Imperialism and the split in Socialism
Certain features of the historical development of Marxism
Marxism and Revisionism
Marxism and Reformism
Lenin. Left-wing Communism: and infantile disorder

Engels. Anti-Dühring, part III: Socialism

Stalin. The foundations of Leninism


Mao. On contradiction

Engels. Anti-Dühring, part I: Philosophy

Engels. Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy

Marx. Theses on Feuerbach

Political Economy

Marx. Wages, price and profit

Engels. Anti-Dühring, part II: Political Economy

Marx. Capital Volume I

Lenin. Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism

Anything that isn't oudated by 100 years?

Meme tier

Marxism-Leninism is outdated by 100 years :^)
In all seriousness though Marx's critique of political economy is still more or less valid

read Jason McQuinn

Read Pol Pot

If you wanna be an ML you'll have to

Read Chris Hann

Are you a member of ML party at the moment?

read Wolfi Landstreicher

read Peter Lamborn Wilson


read Renzo Novatore

You need to read the basics first before the advanced stuff. In ML philosophy, you can move on to:

Politzer. Elementary Principles of Philosophy

Illenkov. Dialectics of the Ideal

For Political Economy:

Kozlov. Political Economy: Socialism

If you want really modern stuff, you could read Continuity and Rupture by Moufawad-Paul

This is actually a good idea

but even Engel's definition of the proletariat will quickly lose relevance in a strongly automated economy

Statements like this are more wishful thinking than correspondence with reality, considering not only the often blatant logical incoherence of other tendencies, but also their absolute, catastrophic impotence.

You can't make fun of me for driving an old car that broke down that one time when your own car won't even start

like pottery

You're driving a horse driven carriage saying it gets you around well enough, when we're discussing how to get to the moon.



Getting to the moon is utopian and undialetical.

Dutt, Fundamentals of ML
Konstantinov, Fundamentals of ML philosophy
Stalin, Foundations of Leninism
Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR
Hoxha, Imperialism and revolution
Hoxha, Reflections on China
Hoxha, Yugoslav "Self-administration"

Top tier materialist analysis there. It's sign of a victim complex to completely ignore the own mistakes which you made but instead blame a boogeyman. Which revolutions were "destroyed" by tankies? Considering "tankies" carried out succesful revolutions up into the double digits you better make a convincing case for that.

You don't know what Marxism-Leninism is. It is a guide to action, and a guide to methology for identifying historical conditions, detecing opportunism of "left"-communist utopians while providing a logical coherent toehold to figure out what actually works. Marxism isn't a science based on a priori theories that can not be falsified.

Did you just reduce the importance of the first proletariat revolution to simple industrial development?

fucking. yawn.


It's a bird-watching guide full of extict birds you will spend eternity looking for in your broken-down car

activates the almonds

Anarchists should have seized power in spain instead of thinking the bourgeois republic was a reliable ally against fascists. USSR was never socialist nor did it have any potential to become socialist. Stay mad though

ML theory is utopian and undialetical

Literally fuck you kulak. My party will win .4% of the vote next election and that'll show all you liberal ultra-left anarcho-trotskyist imperialist revisionists.

Why must anarchists lie? This statement is dumb on so many levels. The USSR supplied weapons to the anarchists, how is that sabotage? They could have supplied more, is that what you are saying? The reasons they didn't was to maintain balance with UK because they were still industrializing and couldn't alienate the west due to the looming threat of a fascist invasion.
Your mind on anarchism. You know what really sabotaged the Spanish Civil War? To fucking split from the main fighting force in the middle of a fucking civil war. But alright, all Stalins fault. Remember, Stalin ate all the children and then raped their corpses.

Maybe get your own shit together ONCE before claiming a "red fascist" detains you or whatever

Marx disagrees. What you are displaying is the worst form of opportunism.


False. The Republic gave them next to useless rifles and dismantled the militias, and to pretend that the republics biggest backers had nothing to do with this is seriously delusional
Retarded on multiple levels. If Marx could have weighed in from the grave he probably would have said that Russia did not have the material conditions necessary for socialism and furthermore would have agreed with Alexander Bogdanov's assessment.


What do ML's think of his assessment of the situation and how do you defend this?

He's delusional.

That is the same as sabotaging? It was the anarchists who split from the republic. They weren't big on fighting as well. I remember reports of anarchist militias routing, falling asleep on their posts, etc.
Wrong. He says in the introduction to the Russian edition that socialism in Russia is indeed possible, and sees potential for a cooperative society within the Russian peasents commune. There is also a letter to Russian comrades which confirm this.
The theory that you need like "perk points" in productive forces to get socialism is a vulgar misunderstanding of Marx' dialectic and frankly revisionist, as you can defend Dengism and its deveations with that.

introduction of the Russian edition of Kapital*

He actually lived during that period but i'm sure you know better. I mean, afterall. You read Marx.

An anarchist telling me to read Orwell is like a tankie telling an anarchist to read Kim Jong-Il; they will never do it.


Possible is not the same as probable, and the USSR did not establish a socialist system in the end. The anarchist actually joined the government, so to say they "split off" is inaccurate. Do you expect me to believe that Stalin would have or did give weapons directly to the anarchists?

I've read a little bit of his work on cinema and wasn't impressed.

What's a socialist system for you?

Yeah I meant his work on Juche. Isn't that bad btw. The main work of Kim Il Sung, "With the Century" is a very nice read as well.

DotP creating a system of production for use and distribution through planning. USSR was not a DotP, had production for exchange, and throughout it's whole history used markets as a means of distribution.

Why would you say that? Production wasn't based on exchange value before the profit-oriented Kosgyn reforms. Where do you identify a market? The only commodity-based enterprises were agricultural cooperatives, and they didn't operate according to market forces either, as they sold their produce to the state by a fixed price. Regarding the DotP, how can you claim that when during the collectivization movement Stalin didn't get reports for three months, yet still the proletariat continued to collectivze? Recommended reading: John Scott, Behind the Urals. He lays down his experiences with workers, how they were in control of things and thought of themselves as builders of a new society. Furthermore, only worker orgas could nominate candidates for the soviets, and trade unions determined the pay in the respective industries. How is this not a DotP?

This is your brain on anarchism.

Sorry am late

You're lacking reading comprehension. I never denied that they supplied the republic, but the anarchist militias were not supplied by them but instead got old, barely usable german rifles.

You're a worker in the USSR during the reign of Stalin. You are paid a wage determined by the state, a wage taking the form of currency printed by the state owned bank, controlled by a party and bureaucracy that you are alienated from. You use this wage to purchase commodities from your local market, commodities which are produced based on a plan dictated by the bureaucracy. You are ultimately alienated from the production process the same as in capitalism. Just because the state plans what is available on the market for what price and in what quantity does not change this, nor does it change the fact that you are essentially being paid a wage that you do not have any say in determining. To pretend that the party was not the ultimate determiner of all policy is completely false.

But pay was determined by the All-Union Council.
The national bank practically printed no money before Krushtshev.
How do you measure "alienation"? Appartchicks didn't really exist before the introduction of the profit-motive, which required a new milieu of middle men allocating labor and goods in accordance to the state plan, due to the more volatile nature of production for exchange. Again, I really urge you to read witness reports:
What do you mean by "market"? A place where you buy means of consumption? That's not a market in the sense that it allocates those products. The existence of supply and demand doesn't imply a market, this is also to be found in Marx
That's vague, again, we don't know what you mean by "bureaucracy", Gosplan was a reciprocal participative organization, read
How? You don't produce for exchange. You produce for use. The fact that your surplus of labor (surplus of labor =/= surplus value!) is being allocated by society doesn't disprove that. The pioneer spirit of Stalinist industrialization disproves that:
Untrue, also, the wages in the USSR weren't really "wages" in the Marxist sense of wage labor. There was no surplus value extraction, and, more importantly, no labor market. Workers in the USSR did not sell their labor on a labor market. Pay was the same in every enterprise of a respective industry. From Foster's book:
Read this. You don't know what you're talking about. I'll respond to your post in greater detail later

Would you/anyone recommend these to an absolute brainlet? (If not, got anything easier?)

State and Revolution. Read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific first though, if you haven't already.

Lol. The USSR supplied weapons to the Republic alright. And actively defended the republic and private property from the proletarian elements who treated the war and the revolution as one and the same and actually challenged the republic. Republican army =/= proletarian militias.

The pro-Moscow party and the USSR defended and supported petty borgeois interests and the bourgeois republic from attack both from the fascist and the socialists, this opportunism is a historical fact.

What the fuck is wrong with a ML reading list?
pic related

sage for doublepost
Tall gotta understand the no one ideology applies to all situations. Ya gotta pick and choose ideas and apply them to your current situation. Stop being ideological puritans.

Worst Marxist theory of all time.

The Tsar was a good and kind man who did everything he could. He cared for the people and spared Lenin's relative too many times.

Read a real Marxist.

t. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

the ego and it's own by max stirner
there is no communism in russia by emma goldman
homage to catalonia by george orwell

the ghost of Lenin is sad now

pick one

left unity is a meme that has not to be taken seriously in any way.

Should be though. Sectarianism is an issue



also read Ernst Jünger "The Worker: Domination & Form". It's a good manga.


underrated post

Fundamentals of ML is a good overview of ML. The second one Fundamentals of ML philosophy is more advanced and mostly deals with materialism, you should try it after the first.

is this any good?

Is it even possible to find this book anywhere for a decent price?