84
As a non communist, should i read the manifesto? (Plus other Marx and Engels stuff) (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
76 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I am interested in politics, and even tho i am not a communist, i am interested in what can be learned from it and i also want to learn more about political ideologies as a whole, instead of speaking out of my ass whenever someone mentions communism and potentially say some bullshit. What do you think?

Edit: thanks for all the answers! I swear i read them all, i just don’t know how to answer to each of them, but thanks for all the recommendations!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 month ago (9 children)

The manifesto isn't even particularly long or difficult to read. Das Capital by Marx is really where his economic theories are actually presented. It is an extremely difficult read.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    I'd say the first 3 chapters of Capital are the most difficult to get through, but if you can the rest goes pretty smoothly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (6 children)

    Michael Heinrich wrote a very helpful guide for Capital. Perfect for the first 100 pages.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    I prefer David Harvey, who sometimes misses the mark slightly. Heinrich is closely associated with the Neue Marx-LektΓΌre school of Marxism that deviates pretty heavily from Marx's actual ideas IMO, and quite far from Marxism-Leninism, which is where I stand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

    I find Heinrich to be more stimulating over all. He is really unique in that he and his peers consulted some pretty obscure notes and unpublished corrections/refinements M&E made. They differ from the big editions that were historically published. I am an "agnostic" Marxist – as in I don't like to moralise about the USSR like a Trot and hate the present discourse around doctrinal purity and traditionalist legacy, who the real communists supposedly are and whether or not anyone today is allowed to call themselves a communist – I don't at all believe in distancing yourself from an author's work because other positions they hold don't conform neatly to one's previous politicisation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    My point isn't that I think people should never read anything by Heinrich or anything, nor that I am arguing for purity. I think Heinrich presents a very specific reading of Marx that lends itself to opposing practical action with respect to existing socialist states, and that this insistence on adhering to Marx and minimizing the contributions of Engels downplays Marx's lifelong agency and cowork with Engels. Harvey is more agnostic, in that sense, and defends the Fowkes translation, based more on the French edition that Marx developed latest than earlier Marx-only editions.

    Really, this gets more into esoteric and usually trivial differences. Among modern Marxist economists, I am most a fan of Ian Paul Wright over others.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •