/marx/ - Marxism

The Principles of Communism by Frederick Engels:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
Critique of the Gotha Programme by Karl Marx:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm

You should be able to read each one of these in one sitting, they are both very short. The Principles of Communism is pre-Communist Manifesto and shows Marxs and Engels early on formulating their thought. Critique of the Gotha Programme is a more mature Marx than what you would encounter in the Communist Manifesto.


I would advocate Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as a good direction to go from here, this is a good starting position:
http://www.bannedthought.net/India/PeoplesMarch/PM1999-2006/publications/mlm/contents.htm [html]
http://karlomongaya.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/mlm-study-notes.pdf [same, but in pdf]

>>1625
The main difference between Stalin and Trotsky, besides the fact that they both hated each other from the start, is that Trotsky advocated in "Permanent Revolution" for "spreading the revolution" before socialist construction, because Engels said that in order for their to before communism (Marx and Engels used socialism and communism synonymously, as Left-Coms and Anarchists are hell bent on saying) but Stalin advocated for socialist construction instead of "spreading the revolution" in "Socialism in One Country."
During the revolution, Marxists state the necessity of a "democratic (class) dictatorship of the proletariat (and the peasantry)," which, to simplify, a "class dictatorship" is a state (government) in which one class is (ideologically, culturally determinant, economically, and politically) dominant over another. Capitalist liberal democracies and fascist totalitarianism are both called "dictatorships of the bourgeoisie" because, in these states, the dominant class are the capitalists. The proletariat are the industrial urban working class typically controlled through wages meanwhile the peasantry is the agricultural working class typically tied to the land they work. How the dictatorship of the proletariat is defined depends on the tendency, but the Kautskyists, De Leonists, Ultra-left-communists and many Leninists (like me) see the dictatorship of the proletariat defined as a grassroots-democracy managed by largely apolitical communes, democratic workers' councils, and/or revolutionary syndicates/unions detemining the guidance of their planned economy. Many Leninists (including different Trots. It's hard to tell because Trotskyists are well known for their sectarianism) advocate (including me) for a single-party state of a party that acts as the vanguard of the working people ( typically of the proletariat, but some Western commentators on Maoists see the vanguard of Maoist movements as the peasantry.) during the DotP.
After the revolution, with the dictatorship of the proletariat solidified, comes the transitional communism between the state-capitalist (state capitalism is capitalism controlled by the state) dictatorship towards full, or true, communism, popularized around the time of Lenin as being called "socialism."
Though there would be MLs who would disagree, there are Marxist-Leninists (which is what "Stalin-ists" call themselves) that say that the state of the working class is synonymous, or at least compatible, with the transitional "socialism."
(part 1)

Here's something you can read in 5-10 minutes:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-theory-faq-t23569/index.html (The Principles of Communism by Frederick Engels)http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm (The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism by Vladimir Lenin)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=19009 (Things Marxism is Not by some guy on the internet)

Here's a list of must-read works in regards to individual(ish) Marxists

Lenin:
State and Revolution https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/
Left-Wing Communism an Infantile Disorder http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm (careful you don't become a reformist after reading this)
A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
The Right of Nations to Self-Determination http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/
(I don't personally recommend What is To be Done as an introduction. People tend to read the pamphlet without knowing the context behind it.)

Marx & Engels:
Anti-Duhring https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/
The Communist Manifesto https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/
The German Ideology https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/
Critique of the Gotha Program https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

Stalin:
Foundation of Leninism http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/
Marxism and the National Question http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm
Trotskyism or Leninism?
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm

Trotsky:
Results and Prospects http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp-index.htm
Permanent Revolution http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/pr-index.htm
The Revolution Betrayed http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/
Terrorism and Communism http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/

Luxemburg:
Reform or Revolution? http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/
The Russian Revolution https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/

Ask Ismail for Works by Hoxha.
I don't know enough to say anything about Mao, but I wish I could.
>>1626
Comrade, what should I read (besides the little red book) to get a good grasp on Mao Tse-tung Thought? (and consequently MLMism)
You should start with the Communist Manifesto. You can chose almost any in the list as a secondary reading, on the most part.
(part 2; had to cut my comment in 2)

>>1629
>Though there would be MLs who would disagree, there are Marxist-Leninists (which is what "Stalin-ists" call themselves) that say that the state of the working class is synonymous, or at least compatible, with the transitional "socialism."
The dictatorship of the proletariat continues to exist even after socialism has been built, yes. The Soviet, Yugoslav and other revisionists claimed this was "anti-Marxist" and that class struggle no longer continues under socialism. This, of course, was used to justify the state-capitalist regimes they established and to give a "Marxist" reason as to why the working-class should not have struggled against them.

If you want the ML perspective on the DOTP, socialism and communism, here's an excerpt from a 1952 pamphlet put out by the USSR:

99. - What is the dictatorship of the proletariat?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the State power of the working class that is established in a country after the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie. It continues throughout the period of the transition of society from capitalism to communism. During this transition period the working class, which is at the helm of State power, performs the following tasks:

1. It suppresses the overthrown exploiting classes in their attempts to re-establish their power, and it organises the country's defence so as to protect it from sudden attacks on the part of capitalist states.
2. It establishes and consolidates the friendly alliance with the working peasantry and other masses exploited under capitalism, drawing these masses into the work of building socialist society, exercising State guidance of these masses, enlisting them to take an active part in administering the country and educating them in the spirit of socialism.
3. It organises the planned development of the national economy, completely eliminates the exploiting classes and the capitalist elements in the national economy, works to carry through the complete victory of socialism in every sphere of life, and effects the transition to the classless communist society (see answer No. 100).

The dictatorship of the proletariat continues to exist in communist society as long as, side by side with it, capitalist countries continue to exist. The dictatorship of the proletariat (State power) will disappear when the capitalist encirclement is completely replaced by a socialist encirclement.

The State form of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not uniform. In the Soviet Union it takes the form of Soviet power (the power of the Soviets of Working People's Deputies). After the Second World War, States of proletarian dictatorship arose in Central and South-Eastern Europe (Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Rumania and Czechoslovakia). In these countries the dictatorship of the proletariat takes the form of governments of people's democracy. In both the Soviet Union and the people's democracies, the leading role in the State belongs to the working class, as the foremost class in society. The highest principle of dictatorship of the proletariat is the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, with the working class in the leading role. The leading and directing force in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the vanguard of the working class: the Communist Party in the U.S.S.R., and the communist and Marxist workers' parties in the people's democracies.

The leading role of the communist and Marxist workers' parties has, by the will of the people, been given legislative embodiment and secured to them in the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. and the Constitutions of the people's democracies.

>>1634
And the second part:

100. - What is communism?

The Soviet people have built up socialism and are now in the period of gradual transition to communism. What is communism, and in what way does it differ from socialism?

The teaching of the founders of scientific communism, Marx and Engels, a teaching developed comprehensively by V.I. Lenin and J.V. Stalin, propounds that socialism and communism are the two phases, two stages of development, of one and the same social system: communist society.

Socialism is the first (lower) stage; and communism is the second (higher) stage of communist society. While socialism and communism have much in common, there is, nevertheless, a difference between them. The following features are common to both socialism and communism:

Under both socialism and communism the economic foundation of society is the public ownership of the instruments and means of production and an integrated socialist system of economy. There are no contradictions between the productive forces and the relations of production; there is complete conformity between them. Neither under socialism nor communism is there social oppression. There are no exploiting classes, no exploitation of many by man, and no national oppression. Under both socialism and communism the national economy is developed according to plan, and there are neither economic crises, nor unemployment and poverty among the masses. Under both socialism and communism everyone is equally bound to work according to his ability.

What then, is the difference between communism and socialism?

Socialist society affords full play for the development of the productive forces. The level reached by socialist production makes it possible for society to give effect to the principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." This means that the products are distributed in accordance with the quantity and quality of the work performed. In communist society, however, the productive forces will reach an incomparably higher level of development than under socialism. The national economy will develop on the foundation of a higher technique, the production processes will be mechanised and automatised in an all-round way, and people will extensively utilise every source of energy.

The higher level of technique and productivity of labour will ensure an abundance of all consumer goods and all material and cultural wealth. This abundance of products will make it possible to meet fully the needs of all members of communist society. Social life under communism, therefore, will be guided by the principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Ignoramuses and enemies of communism assert that under communism there will be a levelling of the tastes and needs of all people. This is slandering communism, for tastes and needs of people are not and cannot be the same or alike in quality or quantity, either under socialism or communism. Under communism there will be an all-round and full satisfaction of every demand of civilised people.

Under socialism there are still the working classes—the workers and peasants—and the intelligentsia, among whom there remains a difference. Under communism there will be no class differences, and the entire people will become working folk of a united, classless communist society. Under socialism there still exists a distinction between town and country. Under communism there will be no essential distinction between town and country, that is, between industry and agriculture. Under socialism there still exists an essential distinction between mental and manual labour, because the cultural and technical standards of the workers and peasants are not yet high enough. Under communism this distinction will disappear, for the cultural and technical standard of all working people will reach the standard of engineers and technicians.

Under socialism there still exist the survivals of capitalism in the minds of some members of society (indifference towards work, a tendency to take all you can get from society while giving as little as you can get away with, etc.). Under communism all survivals of capitalism will disappear. Under communism work is no longer merely a means of livelihood, but man's primary need in life.

For a detailed analysis of Trotsky's politics from when he was involved in political activity up to 1917 see:
* http://ml-review.ca/aml/CommunistLeague/Compass2-Trotsky1975.htm
* http://ml-review.ca/aml/CommunistLeague/Compass3-Trotsky2-1975.htm

And on Trotskyism post-1917 see: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/olgin0.htm

>>1630
>Comrade, what should I read (besides the little red book) to get a good grasp on Mao Tse-tung Thought? (and consequently MLMism)

On Contradiction, and On Practice are the two most important works by Mao himself:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm

This migth interest you, From Marx to Mao Tse-tung: A Study in Revolutionary Dialectics: http://www.bannedthought.net/MLM-Theory/MLM-Intro/Marx2Mao.pdf
>Though written over 40 years ago, this is still a fine introduction to revolutionary Marxism. It includes a great many quotations from Marx, Lenin, Mao and others, all arranged in a way to illustrate the overall coherence and unity of MLM theory.

>>1638
>Do you think if I read the pamphlet, I would be able to understand the basic idea of Marxism-Leninism(?)?.
Well the pamphlet I cited is called "The USSR: 100 Questions Answered" and is mostly just stuff like "what are Soviet collective farms?" It's not about Marxist-Leninist theory.

If you want a good introduction to the significance of the doctrine of Leninism and its relationship to Marxism (obviously from a ML perspective) then consult the first four chapters of the Short Course: http://marx2mao.com/PDFs/HCPSU39.pdf

Another very good introduction to Lenin's work and life (and it's also brief) is Christopher Hill's "Lenin and the Russian Revolution": https://archive.org/details/lininandtherussi035179mbp

Hobsbawm's works on history are basically good reads, but his understanding of Marxism? Not so much. In the 1970s he criticized Salvador Allende for being "sectarian" and scaring away supposedly "progressive" sections of the Chilean bourgeoisie from his govenrment. His is a watered down "Marxism."

Gramsci's writings can be quite interesting, but there are efforts to counterpoise them to Lenin and Stalin (and indeed supposed "Marxist determinism" in general.) Just like the early writings of Marx (which many revisionists in the West try to arbitrarily separate from his post-1850s writings, i.e. to proclaim the existence of a "humanistic" Marx on one side and a "deterministic," economics-obsessed Marx on the other), there's stuff to be learned from Gramsci so long as you don't get involved in "cultural Marxism" (aka academic navel-gazing.)

Das Kapital is fundamental reading for anyone who wants to learn Marxist economics. It'd be like calling oneself a Keynesian without having read "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money." Of course you don't just pick up Das Kapital and treat it like a quick read; it's a comprehensive and at times quite literally exhaustive study of how capitalism works. It helps to get a background in the writings of Adam Smith, Ricardo, and other classical economists, as well as a basic grasp of Marxist concepts in general.

>>1638

>Does "democratic (class) dictatorship" basically mean, that only the proletariate gets to vote?
Yes and no. Under the DotP, the national bourgeoisie (national capitalists; local entrepreneurs) would, on the most part, be stripped from their power if not completely liquidated. You don't necessarily have to put "class" or "democratic" in it; it's just more formal if you do. We prefer "the dictatorship of the proletariat."

>So Marxist-Leninist = marxist-leninist =/= Leninist ?
Marxist-Leninist = "Stalin-ists" (MLs tend not to like because it's used as a bad word)
Leninists are those that follow the party line of Lenin and follow his political works; you don't necessarily have to be an ML to be a Leninist. Most Trots are Leninists.

>And did Trotsky even have political and economical plans then? Since it sounds like he was rather supporting the fight for communism than building a state.
He believed in the same things Stalin did when it came to economic development when Stalin consolidated power. They both believed in dissolving the NEP, collectivizing agriculture, and rapid industrial development. They disagreed on foreign policy. Trotsky wanted to spend more of the Soviet Union's resources on supporting foreign communist parties rather than on development, prefered the United Front over the Popular Front, and discouraged alliances with the national bourgeoisie against the comprador and imperialist bourgeoisie in underdeveloped nations.

>Thanks a lot for the links, I'll save them all and look through them. Is there one you would recommend especially to somebody to learn the very basics? (Besides the 5-10 minute ones.)
A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/

Trotsky was, first of all, an opportunist. His line was that the USSR could not build socialism because the imperialist powers would economically and, eventually, militarily crush it unless revolutions occurred in Western Europe. Initially, then, he proposed to compromise with imperialism.

Then as the 20s continued he shifted to a "leftist" stance, denouncing Stalin for not immediately carrying out the collectivization of agriculture and industrialization of the country. Trotsky claimed that Stalin was on friendly terms with the kulaks and was reluctant to move against them.

Then when collectivization and industrialization were actually carried out, Trotsky did an about-face and proclaimed the Soviet economy "in danger" in the early 30s, calling for a "controlled return" of the kulaks, etc.

He posed as whatever helped him. As the 30s continued he called for a multi-party system in the USSR and portrayed himself as some great admirer of democracy in the Western world, even though in the early 20s he had been criticized by Lenin and Stalin for his bullying methods towards the trade unions.

>>1638
>Does "democratic (class) dictatorship" basically mean, that only the proletariate gets to vote?
No, it means that the proletariat holds state power. The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which exists in the USA, UK, etc. allows the proletariat to vote, but in reality the vast majority of the population has no real say over the policies pursued by the major parties, which express the interests of the bourgeois class (a tiny minority.)

Initially the USSR removed the right for certain classes and strata in the country to vote and participate in soviets, such as what bourgeoisie still existed, the clergy, etc. This is because Soviet power in many regions was still quite weak and it was possible for local reactionaries to influence politics by hoodwinking workers and peasants. Lenin explicitly said this was a temporary measure. By the 1930s this was no longer a problem and such restrictions were lifted.

Under the dictatorship of the proletariat it is possible for the petty-bourgeoisie and certain other elements in society to be given definite representation, such as in the form of having their own parties, but these all acknowledge the leading role of the vanguard of the working-class and the basis for the existence of the other parties withers away with the construction of socialism.

>So Marxist-Leninist = marxist-leninist =/= Leninist ?
Marxism-Leninism, as far as pro-Hoxha persons use it, refers to those that uphold the line of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, and who oppose revisionist trends such as Trotskyism, Maoism, etc. Of course Maoists, the Soviet revisionists, the Castroists, etc. all claim to be "Marxist-Leninist" as well.

>>1649
He spent the better part of two decades denouncing Lenin and the Bolsheviks and as late as mid-1917 was affirming that he could not be considered one of them. Trotsky later claimed that Lenin abandoned his "wrong" views on revolution and adopted Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution" theory that same year.

In 1933 Trotsky sent a letter to the CPSU(B) Politburo, asking to be reinstated within it in exchange for an end to his efforts to propagate the program of the "Left" Opposition inside and outside the USSR. The Politburo's refusal led to Trotsky announcing his "Fourth International." (Source: "Trotsky in Exile: The Founding of the Fourth International" by J. Arch Getty.)