Hello everynyan, we’re studying Marxism-Leninism. Here is a link to the list
This week we’re reading:
-
Why Socialism? - A. Einstein (1949)
Webpage | Audiobook [~10 min / 22 min] -
Why Marxism? - R. Day (2020)
Webpage | Audiobook [~15 min / 21 min] -
Why do we Have to Study Theory? - Ho Chi Minh (1957)
Webpage | Audio book [~10 min / 11 min] -
General Rules for Independent Study - N. Krupskaya (1934)
Webpage [~5 min] -
“Tankies” - N. Frome (2020)
Webpage | Audiobook [~5 min / 11 min]
Next week we will be watching 6. US Interventionism, the Third World, and the USSR - M. Parenti (1986)
Webpage Transcription of Speech | Original Speech [~1 hr / 1 hr 33 min]
Welcome, everyone!
Each week I will be reading along with the rest of you, trying to examine my list for weak points. Essentially, I wish to trim out any and all redundancy, so the list can be as trim and lean as possible, and serve to take in anyone and have them pipelined into joining an organization and equip them with a basic Marxist-Leninist toolkit to help them on that journey. This list is not comprehensive, nor is it trying to be, as the point is for readers to be able to understand where they wish to pursue more learning on their own, as well as to be trained by whatever org they join, as any org worth its salt will have dedicated cadre training programs to take over from where this list ends.
For this week, we have a series of entries meant to answer the following questions: why socialism, why Marxism in particular, and why do we have to study theory at all? It then leads from that into how we organize our study, so the reader can get the most out of this list, and then addresses the problem of liberal opposition to what they call “tankies” that seems to plague every leftist space online these days (but rarely IRL in my experience). “Tankies” also serves as a short work to begin taking notes on, if you haven’t already! I personally take them in Markor, markdown format, and am setting up Syncthing on my new Void Linux install so I can take notes on my phone or laptop and access them either way. Neat!
I also want to draw your attention to the header image I selected for this section. It’s a work that shows a future, highly developed city. I think it’s useful to show the reader what we can accomplish, and get them excited about where we can go if we organize!
As for the specific works, Why Socialism? is one I would be okay with trimming. It’s useful, but redundant with Why Marxism? in many ways. Einstein isn’t exactly an ML. I still believe the work is useful to link to liberals and social democrats, even conservatives, but I don’t know if it strictly serves a complete purpose on its own. It has a short overview of historical materialism, which is nice, but that will be far more developed later.
Why Marxism? is spicier. It directly supports Deng Xiaoping, and directly counters anarchist and reformist groups. This one might draw contention on Hexbear, along with later works by Cheng Enfu, though I don’t think it will be too bad. I love this work because it introduces the reader to much of what I consider to be directly relevant today, namely China, reformism, and western chauvanism. It also references many authors and thinkers I really like, like Losurdo and Ian Paul Wright. For extra credit, read Wright’s Marx on Capital as a Real God, which develops Day’s point on capital controlling capitalism, with capital developed as a “real god” in the form of a control system. Neat!
Why Do We Have to Study Theory? is the second work I may trim. Comrade Ho Chi Minh provides a practical reasoning behind developing cadre, but I’m not sure that it’s strictly necessary. It does go over the relationship between theory and practice, but much of it is also uncle Ho talking about conditions in Vietnam contemporary to his writing of it, so it’s not directly additive in this context. Still love it though!
General Rules for Independent Study is one of the most important works on this section. Do not rush this reading group or treat it as a checklist, use it to develop yourself, which means taking notes and studying properly!
Finally, we end with “Tankies”. I love Nia Frome’s writing, but I also may take this one out. This is immensely useful for addressing concerns of liberals reading this list, but Why Marxism? already addresses most of these concerns. I see this one, like the other two I may take out, as more useful in specific cases that need them, rather than as a part of a reading list.
Those are my thoughts, what are yours? Please critique everything you can! That way I can trim the list and improve it!
I think having a friendly name with creds like Einstein is helpful.
Narratives like to paint revolutionaries as insane, but they don’t with Einstein.
It’s great starting material that helps lower people’s guards.
I started my own curriculum with a book from before Marx was alive, but what you have is a strong start and I’ve also brought it into my beginners section.
Thanks for the feedback! And agreed, that was the original intent, though Roderic Day isn’t hated, Einstein is certainly more widely known.
I think Why Socialism is still useful, Liberals would have a million excuses to dismiss something by Stalin or Mao, but Einstein? While still thinking in a liberal way, with a great man style worldview, they can’t dismiss something written by the guy whose name is a synonym for genius without massive discomfort that they can’t ignore.
Plus, lines like:
Shows a level of relevance to the modern day, a quick counter to common anti-communist claims about it being “outdated.” And the essay counters a lot of arguments about “human nature” as well.
The work also gives a foreshadowing of how theory is going to be going forward. You will have to think, you will have to challenge yourself, your brain will hurt, like exercising a muscle.
Why Marxism is better as a Marxist essay, but I would imagine this early stage of the reading list is mainly about challenging and overcoming liberal bias. Both have their role in this, they compliment each other.
Why do we have to study theory? Does feel a little out of place on a beginner’s list, it is a little too relevant to Vietnam and not really generalist. On the other hand, it does provide good insight into an era of Vietnam that most westerners would be totally ignorant of and casual discussion of ideas is very useful for “fleshing out” socialist states and having them be less cartoonish and monstrous.
General Rules for Independent Study is calling me out for reading this at 2:30 in the morning and should therefore be removed for making me feel bad about my study habits. Honestly though, it is just a really good overview of how to study in general, I wish I had it back when I was at uni.
Tankies is useful as the “end point” of the start of the list, prepping the reader for what is to come: works written by horrible authoritarian tankies. Without it, people may read less further into the list for fear of “authoritarian dictators”
Overall I’d say that maybe “Why Socialism” is probably the most difficult to read work here and the one most likely to turn people off from reading the rest, but it also isn’t something that a left-curious lib can challenge or deny like they might be able to if the first example on the list was a Red Sails article or something. Overall I’d say “Why do we have to study theory?” is the only one I could see needing to be cut completely, and that’s a big maybe. It still emphasises the importance of thinking for yourself, which is one of the biggest hurdles libs considering theory might face, if they are worried it is “brainwashing” having early works reassure them that the spooky scary socialists only want them to think for themselves makes the rest of the theory easier to read when they’re less “guarded” about it.
Only thing I might do is put “General rules” ahead of it on the list, I can see the logic here of “Answer the why, then answer the how” of studying, but “General Rules” is just good to read in general, you don’t even need to be a communist to understand it can be useful and apply it to your own life. Having some direct and applicable wisdom right before reading about “Why study” would help reinforce the point a bit better than reading it afterwards, in my opinion.
Thank you so much for your perspective! I definitely agree 100% with all of your reasoning for why each of these works is beneficial, you nailed exactly why I included them, and the order as well! I think, however, that Why Socialism? is still probably better as a standalone than a necessary stepping stone. I do agree that it’s useful, and the perspective of liberals favoring Einstein is good, but is a liberal going to read a self-described Marxist-Leninist reading list to begin with? I see it more useful to drop into liberal chatrooms and the like than necessary as a pre-organizing cadre preparedness course, as this list is essentially trying to do.
“Tankies” as well also directly challenges the user’s opposition to Stalin and Mao, as they appear in this list, but so does Why Marxism? That’s my biggest hangup, I don’t strictly need them in here, even if they do add to the course the time-cost is frankly something I question. This list isn’t a compendium of essays and books I like, it’s missing works I consider essential like Capital and Wretched of the Earth. In that sense, everything that’s here needs to need to be here.
I’m not dead-set either way, I am waiting for more feedback before I trim.
I’d actually argue the reverse. While I don’t disagree with Day’s points, I think he jumps the gun and doesn’t really lay out a solid argument to curious non-Marxists (presumably the target audience of “Why Marxism”) for some of his claims. Particularly:
“Critical support” is not defined beyond that, so it’s unclear to the reader what it specifically means or under what conditions critical support should or should not be applied. There are conditions that we should refrain from supporting, even critically, countries that just happen to have a common enemy in the West. For example, in the context of WWI, Lenin says: (as I analyzed here)
Neither the fact that Britain and France controlled the greater number of colonies, nor the fact that they had ulterior motives in fighting Germany, caused Lenin to critically support the German empire. Therefore, before declaring that we must critically support Russia, we need to establish whether Russia’s actions are similar to (for example) WWI Germany’s, whether or not the war in Ukraine is about acquiring a resource colony for itself. A curious liberal is certainly going to walk into the work with that assumption, and there’s nothing in here that challenges that.
This point is complex enough that it needs to be thoroughly analyzed on it’s own, with an understanding of when to critically support a state, what critical support means in practice, and what the actual conditions of Russia and Iran are. Dropping it casually here means that it’s left to the reader to fill in the blanks, and if they are skeptical of ML, then they’ll likely see it as being “knee-jerk anti-West,” and they may wonder if MLs would say that countries like Germany or like Japan should also be “critically supported” for standing against the West, and if not, why not.
I do feel like Day’s analysis in the rest of the article has merit, and there is some sense in including works that speak in a more modern language, but if you’re looking for weak points, I’d argue that’s one.
By contrast, “Why Socialism” makes for a good introduction, although it is not specifically ML and doesn’t get too deep in the reeds, because it is more approachable. “Why Do We Have to Study Theory,” though somewhat particular to Vietnam’s situation, is also reasonable to include.
As for “Tankies,” there are a few things I’d phrase differently (“normies?”) but it’s probably necessary to answer some of the common criticisms of our side, and there are some insightful parts. It establishes that some figures are controversial because of misinformation surrounding them and that refuting that misinformation is not the same as blindly defending them. That is a crucial point.
I would argue that “Tankies” covers some similar ground to “Why Marxism,” but in a way that is more appropriate to the target audience. Between that and my previous critique, I think “Why Marxism” could be replaced, though I don’t have a suggestion offhand on what to replace it with. I think it’s important to keep in mind that a “Why Marxism” needs to argue for Marxism from a non-Marxist standpoint, as for example Ho Chi Minh was drawn to Marxism, originally from the standpoint of just being concerned with liberating Vietnam. I may look into this and will let you know if I have a suggestion.
Thanks a lot for your perspective! This is the kind of critique I am actually looking for most, something that goes against my own gut feeling and provides fresh perspective. Indeed, critical support isn’t covered much. In a way, it’s a filter and bait for the reader to engage more with the list. This section is essentially laying the psychological desire to engage with Marxism. The provocative nature of Why Marxism? is deliberate, it pulls the reader a bit more into it.
Additionally, it directly sets the stage for the Marxist critique of capitalism and markets, rather than the moralist critique. It explicitly shows that markets can play a progressive role in the construction of socialism, where no other work really sets those same seeds at this point. In trying to trim the guide as much as possible, I am trying to make it essentially a pipeline to join an org, not a substitute for organizing. It cannot be lengthy, and it cannot drive people away by being too daunting a task to follow, so trimming it is still really critical.
In other words, this course isn’t a replacement for a study course on Marxism for cadre training. No org should use this as a replacement for a dedicated cadre training program. Instead, it’s a way to prepare workers for the work they will do in organizations. The target is the radicalized but inexperienced and non-organized working class, to raise the level of ideological development and pipe them into organizing.
Thanks for your perspective! I’ll keep that in mind for later when I actually make adjustments.
Unfortunately the suggestion I came up with is quite long at 6000 words: Marxism and African Liberation by Walter Rodney, 1975. While the title makes it sound specific to African conditions, a lot of Rodney’s arguments are for the general applicability and relevance of Marxism to different times and places. He directly addresses questions of like, “Why should we care about these old dead white guys?” and explains that Marxist theory is a methodology to be adapted to specific conditions, rather than a set of policies that would be irrelevant in different conditions. It also calls out:
I’m not sure if it belongs in the introduction because of it’s length, and it’s fairly dense. Part of it does depend on what the list is aiming to be, and who the target audience is. I think that there’s value in getting people to understand and consider Marxism, even from a neutral, academic standpoint. To adopt Marxism, you have to evaluate it, and to evaluate it, you have to understand it. Even if someone does not adopt Marxism and does not join a Marxist org, having people in other organizations who are not actively hostile to understanding what Marxism even is, is still potentially useful. But it’s a question of what the goal of the list is and who the target audience is.
As a Rodneyist, I heavily support such a reading, too (MLRL stands for Marxist Leninist Rodneyist Losurdoist lol). But, I think Day’s Why Marxism is sufficient for the list as Cowbee makes it. Rodney is amazing, but I would consider this work of his aa something to supplement this smaller reading list… but I find it hard to say such because of how valuable Rodney is!
I actually didn’t know who Rodney was until I did some digging looking for someone who made the case for Marxism and came across this. I was really impressed by his analysis and style. I started listening to “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” and as good as his analysis of the specific conditions is, again I think it’s useful generally, as an example of how Marxist analysis works and how to apply it.
And I’m pissed that he was assassinated, so young! They deprived the world of a generational talent, we could’ve had so much more of his work.
I wondered about if it’d be possible to trim the length to make it more approachable, but it’s hard because everything flows so naturally and logically. I wish people were just patient enough to appreciate it, but what can you do?
Rodney is GOATed. His work was incredible and he was assassinated so young precisely because he was a threat to power.
Thanks for the recommendation, I’ll give it a read! And yes, there is merit in protecting Marxism from vulgarization while simultaneously promoting it within broader context. I’ll summarize the target audience and goal of this list then:
The target: radicalized workers around the world, but primarily those that speak English (due to my own monolingual experience).
The goal: equip the reader with a basic Marxist-Leninist toolkit to use, and pipeline them into an organization to apply that toolkit.
To those ends, length is fatal. It needs to grab the reader and not feel a chore to complete. It needs to not scare away liberals, while also providing a riposte to any liberal anti-communism. This list is not a template for an organization to use for training cadre, it’s a pre-cadre list designed to help plant seeds for cadre training.
Agreed, referencing this work from Rodney as a more fleshed out explanation is good, but the length of Why Marxism is incredibly useful
Agreed.
I liked “Tankies” in addition to “Why Marxism”, because it prepares more directly for the emotionally exhausting task of having to go against all that anti-communist conditioning both in oneself and others.
I do too! Sadly there’s a difference between the list I’d make if I could force everyone to read it from beginning to end, and the list I’d make if I can’t and instead need it to be short enough to voluntarily complete for the majority of people. That’s why I may make a supplemental list of recommended essays and books that’s far more comprehensive.
I don’t feel Why Socialism is redundant. I feel like it does a pretty good job at explaining many things, if shallowly.
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
Point taken! These are all thoughts that developed after reading this week’s material (and I need to read Soviet Democracy still so I’ll do that over lunch most likely). My goal is to invite as much feedback as I can and make a judgement call after we wrap up each section, so after next week’s viewing will be when I start trimming the first section and adjusting. Thanks for the input!
I think Why Do We Have to Study Theory? could be shortened, or maybe replaced with something of your own making. As you say there is some good stuff in it, but there is also a bunch of (to us) unnecessary text about the contemporary conditions. I think the latter takes up at least half the text.
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
Good points. I could perhaps put something in the preamble to the list itself arguing for its necessity, or like you said, write something of my own (which is another ambition I have, making a WordPress or other kind of account to write my own essays and sharpen my own analysis). Thanks!