Hello everynyan, we’re studying Marxism-Leninism. Here is a link to the list

This week we’re reading:

  1. Why Socialism? - A. Einstein (1949)
    Webpage | Audiobook [~10 min / 22 min]

  2. Why Marxism? - R. Day (2020)
    Webpage | Audiobook [~15 min / 21 min]

  3. Why do we Have to Study Theory? - Ho Chi Minh (1957)
    Webpage | Audio book [~10 min / 11 min]

  4. General Rules for Independent Study - N. Krupskaya (1934)
    Webpage [~5 min]

  5. “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]

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.mlEnglish
    10·
    4 days ago

    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.

    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:

    Anti-imperialism not only means support for the important pro-social projects of states like Cuba, Vietnam, and China; it also means critical support for non-socialist states such as Iran and Russia. Critical support acknowledges that, though instituting various indefensible policies, enemies of empire are not being antagonized because of said policies. The only thing that can drive empire to act in the world is capital accumulation.

    “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)

    Germany is fighting not for the liberation, but for the oppression of nations. It is not the business of Socialists to help the younger and stronger robber (Germany) to rob the older and overgorged robbers. Socialists must take advantage of the struggle between the robbers to overthrow them all.

    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.

    • Cowbee [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netMEnglish
      8·
      4 days ago

      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.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.mlEnglish
        7·
        4 days ago

        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.

        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:

        It is particularly true in our part of the world, that is, the English-speaking part of the world, because the Anglo-American tradition is one of intense hostility, philosophically speaking, towards Marxism, a hostility that manifests itself in a peculiar way. It manifests itself by trying to dissociate itself even from the study of Marxism. If you were to check on the continental tradition in Europe, you would find it is not the same. French, German and Belgian intellectuals, whatever their perspective, understand the importance of Marxism. They study it, they relate to it, they understand the body of thought which is called Marxism and they take a position vis-à-vis that body of thought.

        In the English tradition, which was also handed down to this part of the world, to the Caribbean, to many parts of Africa, it is fashionable to disavow any knowledge of Marxism. it is fashionable to glory in one’s ignorance, to say that we are against Marxism. When pressed about it one says - but why bother to read it? It is obviously absurd.

        So one knows it is absurd without reading it and one doesn’t read it because one knows it is absurd, and therefore one glories in one’s ignorance of the position.

        It is rather difficult to seriously address the question of the relevance of Marxism unless one does the basic minimum of accepting that one should attempt to enter into this full body of thought, because it is a tremendous body of literature and analysis, and from the outside as it were, it is extremely difficult.

        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.

        • MLRL_Commie [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          5·
          3 days ago

          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!

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.mlEnglish
            4·
            3 days ago

            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?

        • Cowbee [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netMEnglish
          7·
          4 days ago

          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.