On May 5th, 1818, Karl Marx, hero of the international proletatiat, was born. His revolution of Socialist theory reverberates throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of Capitalism, development of the theory of Scientific Socialism, and advancements on dialectics to become Dialectical Materialism, have all played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.
He didn't always rock his famous beard, when he was younger he was clean shaven!
Some significant works:
Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Manifesto of the Communist Party (along with Engels)
And, of course, Capital Vol I-III
Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don't know where to start? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!
I have read some books that maybe cover some of these topics tangentially, but I have not studied the source material. I do want to, so thank you providing a list of resources to check out!
When I go through Lemmy and see discussions on theory, my views tend to align quite strongly with those of socialism. I do see there are a lot of controversial takes when it comes to historical figures, but if I am being honest those discussions are well outside my depth. I wish I knew more about history so that I could get more value out of that. So, if you know of any interesting history books, I am interested.
And thanks for the feedback! I figured that aligning an instance with my own personal interests would make more sense as I can make more valuable contributions and I find the content interesting.
Great! If you want to learn more about Dialectical and Historical Materialism specifically, my two favorite works are Elementary Principles of Philosophy by Georges Politzer, and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels. The ProleWiki article on Dialectical Materialism is also quite good if you just want an overview, it's a much faster read and will get you the general idea, but not the depth the other two sources would give.
I bring up DiaMat and HistMat specifically because of your statements here:
The key inferences of Historical Materialism, oversimplified, are that each mode of production paved the way for the next. Capitalism largely arose from Feudalism. Over time, a bunch of quantitative shifts, such as improvements in technology, production, and buildup of wealth, result in qualitative shifts in the Mode of Production. The steam engine, for example, allowed factories to be set up in cities, focusing on commodity production and close living quarters, as opposed to being more spread out and largely agricultural due to being tied to the land. Capitalism is a very natural point to reach, but also has its own quantitative shifts that lead to Socialism overtaking it.
Human Nature, therefore, is malleable. It depends on the material conditions humans find themselves in, these structures and externalities are what drive change to new ideas, the old gives birth to the new. Capitalism is as much Human Nature as Socialism, as Feudalism, as Communism, as tribal hunter/gatherer societies, yet what was considered "human nature" has changed and will change yet again based on all of these modes of production.
As for history, this is a much deeper subject. If you have a specific subject you'd like to learn about, I can field some suggestions, but for a short and general historical contextualization of Socialism as it exists in the real world, there's no better work I've found than Blackshirts and Reds. Dr. Michael Parenti isn't so much a Marxist himself as he is a pro-Marxist. He supports Communists and Socialists globally, while not being some fifth-level grandmaster Marxist-Leninist. As a consequence, his writing is much more approachable for non-Marxists, and does a great job walking through why someone would support, say, the USSR, Cuba, etc while giving nuanced critique of the successes and failures of Socialism historically. His 1986 lecture is also a fantastic companion piece.
If you'll forgive the tangent, I also want to point out that people often over-focus on the issues of ghosts. People love discussing if x event was justified, y person "good" or "bad," z country "truly" Socialist or "betraying" socialism, but these aren't generally as useful as studying history so as to discover what challenges and successes are universal or local to Socialism. Socialists tend to adopt the stance of trying to learn what works and what doesn't work critically, while non-Socialists tend to boil all of Socialism down to purely the mistakes made by Socialist leaders, building up "legends" surrounding these figures in an attempt to discredit Socialism entirely. That can be why you find yourself seeing controversial claims, a large part of defending Socialism is defending it from the unjustifed attacks those opposed usually jump to, rather than the more useful critique of Socialism as it truly exists. You'll find that the best critique of Socialism in the real world comes from Socialists, and we Marxists are not afraid of genuine critique. Rather, Marx himself advocated for the "ruthless critique of all that exists."
With that all being said, that should be good to get your feet wet into theory if you want! If you prefer, I can also offer different recommendations on more specific topics in theory or history. I'm no expert, but I've read a good fair bit myself and as such have works I'm fond of, and ones I think you can save til later, if you so choose. Hope that helps!
One teeny tiny final note, I also like Why Marxism? as an introduction for why we should even study Marxism specifically. Roderic Day breaks down the importance of Marxism as a scientific framework useful for understanding humanity, how we got here, where we are going, and how to best take advantage of that knowledge.
Thanks a lot for taking the time to write out such a thorough reply! I have ordered a copy of Blackshirts and Reds (I really prefer reading printed books) and have begun checking out the links.
My not-very-developed perspective is: When I think of capitalism as a 'metastable', I think that this meta-stability is achieved by allocating some resources to keep the masses just comfortable enough to remain somewhat pacific and complacent. It is not essential to achieve this globally, but it is somewhat important locally. So those who have accumulated more can simply apply the more violent and extractive practices abroad while things locally are OK.
The thing is... The pathway to leaving a meta-stable state involves first hopping out of that stability. In practical terms this means shaking things up and pissing off those who are interested in maintaining the status quo and who have the means to cause a significant amount of pain. If successful, for example, by means of a violent revolution, there is no guarantee of landing in a better spot. Furthermore, a violent revolution can potentially distribute power unevenly to those willing to exercise violence.
I don't think it is so much "Capitalism is great!" as much as "We are currently stuck in this system, it doesn't work but at least I am one of the lucky ones, and so far there doesn't seem to be a good plan to get out of this mess". This is being complacent, and it is not ideal. But it is difficult to figure out how to not be complacent in a meaningful way without self-sabotage. I can see how to take specific actions to try to make the world around me a little better, but these are things that don't shake up the system.
That makes sense. The type of criticism that I commonly see is that many of the historical examples of "socialism" are characterized by a leader imposing their will on a population, suppressing the media, and a leader and family living with luxury despite the population suffering. I don't know how much of it is accurate and how much is propaganda. But I know reality is nuanced and there is probably a mix of truth and fiction in there. When I see a strong bias in either direction I am suspicious.
Regardless of what is true and what isn't: when someone glorifies a leader, it is not clear to me if the person believes a different historical narrative than the common/western one (for example, the counter-narrative might be: 'That was a complete fabrication! People were free to leave and there is no evidence of suppression of the press'), or if they accept the common historical narrative but believe the actions are justified (something more along the lines of: 'yes, X did force the population to stay within the borders to protect the state and killed those lying propagandist journalists, all of this was justified.'). This is what I wish I knew more about. My knowledge of these people is superficial. I don't know neither the commonly accepted narratives nor the alternate narratives (if they exist), I just see that people have very different opinions about Castro, Maduro, Stalin, Mao, Xi Jin Ping, Putin, and even Kim Jong Un.
You have already helped me a lot and given me many things to look at. If I make the effort to go through some of the material you already provided I will probably find many of the answers. Thanks!
Great! You'll probably fly through Blackshirts and Reds, it's a quick read.
Not to overload you, but this is 100% correct. This process is known to Marxists as Imperialism, in the Global North, concessions are often made in order to pacify the proletariat using the spoils expropriated from the Global South, a complicated process stabilized through bodies like the IMF, NATO, and US overseas millitary presense. Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is the best text outlining how this process came to be from Capitalism specifically (colonialism and other forms of Imperialism of course predate Capitalism). I also recommend Alice Malone's Concessions for how thst worked.
The consequence of Imperialism is that, rather than cropping up in the most developed countries like Marx initially predicted, Socialist Revolution occurs first in the Global South. That's why a lot of rapid industrialization and millitarization to protect from outside threats has solidified in every surviving Socialist state.
Your holdouts regarding revolution, however, take a much longer time to study. Revolutionary strategy and tactics, historical applications, and more is more of a deep topic. I could simply link Lenin's The State and Revolution as well as an abridged version of Lenin's What is to be Done? but that's an unsatisfying answer without familiarizing yourself with the history of Socialist struggles and victories, from a proletarian point of view, and not bourgeois. After you read Blackshirts and Reds, I can make other recommendations, in absence of that I will link Blowback, a podcast on US Imperialism and taking a sympathetic view of the victims of it, and the why behind the actions on all sides of, say, the Iraq War or Cuban Missile Crisis.
Regarding your section on not knowing if events are true, or if they are being justified, etc, this unfortunately as you already hinted is clouded in decades of Red Scare misinformation. Usually those upholding Actually Existing Socialism are less likely to outright fabricate information, but that does exist to a degree, usually among supporters of Gonzalo and Pol Pot (and these people usually have absurd claims about AES, and are nowhere to be found among Marxist-Leninist orgs, usually small isolated groups). There is no one-size fits all answer, each event, figure, etc has a different answer. Some may distort the quantities, some may distort the qualities, some may distort both. There's no "one indisputable history of Socialism" I can recommend that covers all the countries and figures you listed, so if after finishing Blackshirts and Reds you have a specific country or figure you'd like to delve into, I can do my best to help. I'll also plug Zhenli's Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" as an example of a Marxist critique of existing Socialism, in a manner that still ends up pro-Socialism and upholds existing Socialism.
And no worries! Sorry that the historical answer isn't very satisfying, I'm not trying to dodge it so much as ask that you specify further if you want an answer that does such a question any kind of due justice. The history of Socialism is, as I said, hotly debated and frequently distorted heavily, Blackshirts and Reds is going to be a much better intro and give you good points to jump into other areas. Personally, I recommend starting with Cuba, as it's usually easier to grasp historically, but the USSR and PRC are the two largest examples in history we can look to if you want to dive into the deep end.
Additionally, the website Red Sails (which I have linked throughout this conversation) often has speeches and interviews from some of these figures, and modern analysis of some of these countries. This can help you found a more "multi-sided" understanding, rather than a one-sided one as presented in "normal," presumably western society. My favorite description of Red Sails is in the footnotes on their Mission Statement:
Hope that helps!
Great, lots to study! I will make an effort, really. Thank you!
To add some context... I am originally from the south of Mexico. The view of 'Imperialism of the Global North' is a common understanding there. The evidence of this is quite explicit. There is also a lot of classism that is routinely used to harmonize religious ideology with the unjust reality of inequality. Perhaps a reason why the theory of socialism resonates with me is because it successfully explains the dynamics that give rise to the systems that support the inequality that I grew up around.
After going through some of the background theory this is where I will want to focus my attention:
My distrust of the government in Mexico and South America is very high - regardless of political ideology. It may be simplistic but in this moment I think that a lot of the powerful people ruling these countries are primarily driven by self-interest, are corrupt, often use populist rhetoric including vague anti-imperialist and anti-corruption messages, and do not have a concrete specific plan. I know that human liberties in Venezuela and Cuba are severely restricted in face of awful material conditions because I have met several people who escaped and who have been there. I have not visited either myself, but family and friends have. So this would be a good topic for me to study. I promise you that despite coming in with my preconceived notions I approach this with an open but still always skeptical mind.
To pick a specific example that I am curious about... Is Venezuela's government today seen in a positive light by socialists in general? If so, do you know of any good reading I could do to understand why this is the case? Why would I trust that Nicolás Maduro wants what is best for the Venezuelan people? Was he democratically elected? If not, does it matter?
Your background makes a ton of sense as to why you've been able to essentially grasp the essense of Marxism-Leninism, without committing to studying it. This is a very common phenomenon! The reverse is also true. I live in the US, and Marxism-Leninism is an extreme minority here, because many are "bribed" by the spoils of Imperialism, on top of the US being founded on Settler Colonialism.
I think it's an excellent choice to focus on Cuba and Venezuela, given their proximity. As a precursor, I'll state that both face economic pressure from Imperialist countries far beyond what other countries in the Global South normally face, due to nationalizing parts of their economies, and pulling those resources out of the hands of Imperialists, so to speak. Many fleeing are from privledged backgrounds who lost their property when their assets were siezed for the public, but sadly there are also those whose economic conditions were very dire, primarily due to sanctions. Cuba in particular is under intense embargo, as I'm sure you know.
One thing that's important to know, is that Venezuela is better described as pseudo-socialist, while Cuba is Socialist. Venezuela is a petro-state, and is similar ecomomically to Social Democracy in the Nordic Countries, but without the Imperialism inflating the lifestyles of those within. Cuba on the other hand is Socialist because large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly in the public sector. Cuba is generally more supported by its own people, even if circumstances during and post-COVID have been more dire. Normally, Cuba does well for itself when measured against its peers despite the sanctions.
As for Maduro, I myself am not an expert. It is generally believed that he was democratically elected among Socialist circles, and that the US supports candidates and calls foul when elections are close in an effort to practice regime change, like with Guaido. Democracy is an important part of Socialism, as "commandism" separates the party from the masses, and loses support for the system. You can read an example of a publication from a Marxist-Leninist org on the Venezuelan elections here, from Liberation News, run by the US-based Party for Socialism and Liberation.
Sadly, this isn't an area I have studied thoroughly. As such, I can only say that this looks outwardly like a narrow but legitimate election that the US is trying to overthrow. The reason I say this is because it's a tried and true tradition of the US to stir up opposition to those who would oppose their plunder. Maduro did declare himself a Marxist-Leninist on TV, but I myself am again not super familiar with the Bolivar Revolution or Maduro himself.
So, to summarize, Socialists support Venezuela's attempts at taking control over their own economy and resisting the US's Imperialist ambitions for their economy. The actual specifics are debated, but this resistance to Imperialism itself is seen as progressive, regardless of the successes or failures of the government. More nuanced critique can be had from those who have done more research than I, but that is the general opinion of Marxists as far as I am aware.
Again, thank you!
Yes, for Cuba's situation I put most of the blame for the US. I see a lot of anti-Cuba propaganda that is ridiculous. Virtually most UN members have agreed for a long time that the US should drop the cruel embargo, I don't see it as a controversial take that the US is the aggressor here and is to blame in many many other cases. Don't get me wrong on that, I won't deny the imperialist reality.
As far as the concept of a 'socialist revolution' goes, this stage makes sense to me! It is in understanding the actions that leaders take after the revolution is where I become skeptical. It is difficult for me to distinguish between a genuine attempt at socialism and someone using the compelling ideas of socialism as a tool to justify actions that concentrate power to their benefit. An enemy is a useful tool to consolidate power. Imperial systems built on capitalist system can provide this enemy, the question is whether the concept of this enemy is being used as a useful tool or if a serious attempt is being made to defeat it. Is there a winning stage were the leader would say "Fantastic, we did it guys! I will step away now", or is there no end-point planned?
My father's side of the family is originally from Yugoslavia/Slovenia, and they do speak well about Slovenia under Tito. And, when I look into Tito, it does look like his government is regarded in an overwhelmingly positive light. Their system at least on the surface looks to me like an example of a socialist(?) system that can co-exist with a largely capitalist world. My knowledge on the actual details/history of this comes from a few very focused YouTube videos and wiki pages so maybe he is not considered a good example of a socialist leader by socialists. I do see a contrast here in that this is a leader that is painted generally in a positive light, but I am not sure if this is because he was friendly to the west, or my experience is biased because I mostly hear about him from Slovenians and YouTube. The specific example of Slovenia gives me some hope that a kind of intermediate system that co-exists with capitalism can be used to peacefully transition, and from what I understand they did achieve a system that distributed ownership and the power to make decisions among workers more than to the state. Although things did not end so well for Yugoslavia, so maybe a system like this one would be quenched.
I understand your caution, though it's best to contextualize why Socialist States often have long-serving leaders. As Socialism generally exists under siege, often times there is heavy millitarization and political stability is prioritized. The people generally approve, be it through elections or general support, as the Socialist system would fail if it lost the support of the people. Looking more into various Socialist leaders, like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro from a proletarian point of view, can help contextualize. Blowback season 2 is about Cuba, for example, and has helped me understand Cuba more.
What's important to understand is that, for Marxists, public ownership and planning in a world government run democratically is the end-game, not necessarily worker self-management. This gets more into the economic basis of Marxism, but Marxists don't see administration as the same as the "state," a highly millitarized entity, but that the state can only wither when class is abolished globally.
Tito is an interesting case. Yugoslavian Socialism was loved by the people, but also depended heavily on IMF loans that ended up being its undoing. Some Socialists hated Tito for being a revisionist, and for splitting from the USSR, some believe Tito's Socialism was the best example of Socialism in practice.
The standard Marxist-Leninist take is that Tito's Socialism was undone by tying to the West via IMF loans, and thus can't be seen as a true measure, but that it was still an example of how a generally Socialist system can achieve great things, even if its brand of Socialism was distinctly diverted from traditional Marxism at the time.
Again, thank you very much for taking the time to respond in such depth. As I read what you write I think of more questions, but I think it is unfair that I continue asking when you have given me already a lot of explanation and study material. My questions will most likely be addressed in the material.
On my way home now I was thinking about what would be a good way to approach this study. At first I thought of picking Venezuela because it is a bit close but not too close to me. But from what you mention it seems like it might be a difficult one to start with. I have decided I will focus on Cuba first (well, once I am done with the pre-req theoretical background). I even made a small plan to follow, I'll try to visit Havana within the next few years.
No problem, never apologize for being curious! I mainly use this account to try and gain comrades and correct misconceptions about theory when I can, so it isn't wasted time by any stretch! And developing a plan is excellent, I always recommend that if I can, many people meander and spend far more time than necessary as a consequence.
If you've seen my "Read Theory, Darn it!" intro reading list, you'll find that the way I structured it is focused on building up over time. I start with a quick FAQ from Engels, then Blackshirts and Reds to dispel common red scare myths and promote a sympathetic view towards the people in Socialist countries in their real struggles to build real Socialism.
After that, though, it delves into the theory side, in a specific order. I start with Dialectical Materialism, as it's by far the most useful concept to understand first. It's kinda like approaching the world from a scientific point of view, always stressing to view things as they exist in context and in motion, rather than isolated and static. After that comes the Law of Value, and the concept of Scientific Socialism, then we return to Socialist history and Imperialism/Colonialism, Social theory, then putting it all into practice.
I bring this up, because if you really study the Dialectical Materialism section well, you'll already be equipped to do your own political analysis from the Socialist viewpoint, even if you don't fully understand the Law of Value, the theory of the State, etc. Those all help contextualize, but in my opinion that's the single biggest step you can take in knowledge of Marxism, and when you can consider the most critical "pre-req" research relatively solid. Studying Cuba after you get those basics firmly down will help you see what they are trying to do, and measure how they are doing in your own eyes, for whenever you can make it to Havana.
Now, you can always spend way more time reading, but you can also start reading Che Guevara's speeches and writings as well as Fidel Castro's interviews and whatnot to begin to get some context on the thoughts and actions of Cuban revolutionary leaders. I also recommend researching what happened to Slavador Allende in Chile, who tried to play by the rules, so to speak, rather than going the revolutionary path. This is an important point of contrast to put the success of the Cuban Revolution in context.
Feel free to ask any questions you want, no worries!
Thanks! I had the chance to read a bit.
So far... Engels Principles of Communism says some sensible things to do if the government is trusted (for example, the concept of abolishing private property, inheritance taxes, etc...), but it is also makes some point that I find concerning. Specifically, the combination of the answers provided to "Q16: Will it be possible to bring about the abolition of private property by peaceful means?" and "Q24: How do communists differ from socialists?" concern me because Q16 suggests violence as a method and Q24 significantly broadens the scope of who is an enemy of the revolution, while still keeping it ambiguous. A call for violent revolution + ambiguity of who is the enemy is a dangerous recipe because it leaves a lot of room for "interpretation" and "nuance" that will probably lead to disagreement between violent factions.
I think of this mixture of call for violence + an ambiguous enemy in the context of what I see sometimes being posted to social media, including Lemmy. I have seen calls for violence against "owners" that often extends to small business owners and landlords, usually without distinguishing between a commercial entity as a 'landlord' and a grandma renting out a room. Sometimes I think this is just a figure of speech but sometimes I doubt and consider that these might be actual calls to action. So, then, when I see such a broad brush being used to paint the 'enemy' I get the impression that pretty much anyone benefiting in some way from these systems is an enemy if they do not immediately understand and fully embrace the revolution. A revolution, then, seems to ask the revolutionary to be violent against friends and families if living in a developed country. I find it difficult to imagine that a majority within a population would want to go through this process if they fully understand the implication. When a Engles writes about "the majority of the people", does this count every individual in the population, or only those who are friendly to the revolution?
As I continue I am curios of whether I will find find some robust method to distinguish between the 'proletariat' and the 'petty-bourgeois', and to find out whether I will keep my head during the revolution. It would be nice to find some ideas on how to achieve the goals without violence. I have also seen that many more modern philosophies are built on top of Marxism-Leninism (like Degrowth), so in any case I am certain I will get a lot of value out of this topic.
I also found that you are running a book club on Das Kapital, I will try to catch up.
Do you know of a community where I can ask questions about this topic?
It's great to see you reading! One thing I do want to point out, though, Principles of Communism is more of an FAQ than a developed and principled response to each question. It's helpful for getting terms straight, but can also lead to people like yourself reading more into each line than is likely intended. I'll respond to 16 and 24.
Re: 16, the question of reform or revolution, and the theory of the State. Revolution, in the Marxist sense, does not mean killing everyone that would oppose you, even the bourgeoisie. Revolution requires overthrowing the State, and replacing it with one that is comprehensively for the workers. It does not mean forming a small band of warriors to go and kill grandma for renting out a house so she can retire, it means guiding the revolution that will redistribute land while providing safety nets that make it so that grandma doesn't need to be a landlord to survive.
When Communists and Socialists say "violence is necessary," they mean that never in history has a ruling class given up power without force. The fun thing about the ruling class, though, is that it's small. It can only rely on the state to do its bidding and fight, it cannot fight by itself. Jeff Bezos is not going to grab a rifle and fight a glorious war. What's interesting about various Socialist revolutions, like in Russia, frequently the army stands down. The reason for this is that revolution isn't something you can just do, it happens when the overwhelming majority of the population (total, not just the proletariat, though these are often very similar numbers as the proletariat outnumbers every other class in most nations), and the army frequently stands down in mass.
There are violent and lengthy revolutions, such as the Chinese revolution. This one was a long and bloody fight against colonialism, and then against a nationalist dictatorship. The people, however, supported the Communists, which is why they won. Cuba was an example of a mid-length revolution. There was a revolutionary war, but similar to Russia, the army did not fight very hard as they were in it for money, while the campesinos and beardos were in it for a better world.
There are also dogmatic, anti-Marxist "Marxists," like the Shining Path in Peru under Gonzalo. They are little more than a band of murderous thugs that think "class struggle" means killing villagers that don't agree, or randomly assassinating politicians instead of building up a mass movement. These are the people you are referring to as your fear, and they do exist, but are in an incredible minority globally.
I recommend reading Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin's The State and Revolution for why revolution is necessary. Entirely peaceful methods have been tried, like Allende in Chile, and they get overthrown by the bourgeoisie against the people, along with the US.
Re: question 24. Revolution does not happen without a broad, mass, organized movement. If that movement does not exist, there will be no revolution. When Engels says these reactionary types must be opposed, he means so ideologically, so that when a revolution does happen, the revolution will take a correct character. It does not mean killing everyone that disagrees, it means you must thoroughly debunk and discredit incorrect viewpoints, and if they engage violently (as the SPD did against the KPD in Germany, or some of the reactionary "left" groups in Russia during the Russian Civil War), defend yourself if you must.
As for as distinguishing between Proletarian and Petty Bourgeois, it's not necessary at the individual level. Marxism is not a moral judgement, but an analysis of how classes behave in society. It doesn't mean killing the petite bourgeoisie, it means working towards abolishing the foundations of the petite bourgeoisie through collectivization at the degree to which production has developed. Make sense? You'd keep your head, unless you decided to take up arms against a popular revolution and gave the people no other choice. Marxism isn't about collectivizing through killing the owners, but through siezing the state and weilding its power to gradually fold more production into the public sector. You can't kill a farm into a collectivized industrial farm, you have to develop out of small ownership.
When people say "kill the landlords" online, they are usually expressing frustration at the parasitic nature of landlordism, they are not announcing that they intend to kill grandma. I really want to stress this, the Marxist goal is not to achieve classless society by killing owners. Rather, the Marxist position is that you can't achieve classless society that way, as each level of development best coincides with different forms of ownership, and it is highly developed industry that can best be publicly owned and planned.
As for Capital, I actually recommend staying away from it until you get some more of the basics of theory under your belt. You'll notice its absence from my intro reading list, it's an advanced text! It's certainly a critical read, but if you want to get into the economic side, I recommend Wage Labor and Capital and Wages, Price, and Profit. Both combined are very short compared to even a single volume of Capital's 3. However, I won't stop you if you've decided to dive into the deep end! I just think you'll understand it better if you are more familiar with Dialectical Materialism and Scientific Socialism first.
Glad you're reading, feel free to ask more questions! If you want to ask questions, the Marxism comm on Hexbear is a good spot, or Ask Lemmygrad on Grad, or the Socialism and Communism communities on Lemmy.ml.
Yes, it does, very much so. Thanks a lot!
It is good to hear. For what it's worth, I just went through a bit of an exercise for Cuba trying to look for examples of the types of violence that they committed and also looked into some of the other groups that I associate with the concept of a "violent revolution" (ETA in Spain, IRA in Ireland, different groups in Yugoslavia). What I found is:
The groups that I associate with terrorism tactics are nationalistic, not fighting for socialism (at least not as a main goal).
The Cuban revolutionaries used guerrilla tactics that, from what I can find, did not use terrorism as a tool. Their enemies, including CIA-backed groups, did.
So, that's points in favor to Cuba.
Good to know! Before the 2016 US election I would rarely choose the literal interpretation when reading statements like this online. When Trump was elected and I realized that people online were not actually being sarcastic and making jokes, I began to take online statements more seriously and literally. I still think there is a high probability that some people who write about violence online mean it literally. That doesn't necessarily reflect on Marxist-Leninists though, many ideologies/religions can be pushed to extremism, and it is not entirely fair to ask everyone not to use figurative language online.
I am half way through Wage Labor and Capital now. It is very interesting, I think that I will like Marx's Das Kaptial because I do like dense/analytical. I already have several questions but I will first read more and then see if I can get some help in the communities you mentioned.