[HoniSoit]

I would strongly recommend against picking up original texts written by Marx or Lenin etc..

Try to find some introduction to Marxism first, for example, books by David McLellan are generally very accessible.

[Okonkwo]

I would strongly recommend against picking up original texts written by Marx or Lenin etc..

Why?
(I really feel out of place in this thread, I must be the only capitalist )

[Eauz]

I would strongly recommend against picking up original texts written by Marx or Lenin etc..

What? Revisionist?!? Why go with the middle-man, when you can go straight to the source? I'll agree that it's of great use to have a secondary version that breaks Marx and Lenin into easy-to-read blocks, but if you are to understand Marxism, you can't rely fully on what people have assumed to be what Marx was writing about.

To the re-education camps with you!

[HoniSoit]

Why?

Besides the obvious reason Marx's writing style is probably not the most lucid, there is also the problem of context. A solid introductory book on Marxism would not only explain in more accessible writing style and set the context for Marx's ideas it would also introduce Marxist theories more systematically.

[canadiancapitalist]

Aside from thinking about Marxism, reading about Marxism is the most efficient route to becoming a non-marxist, so I advise this course of action.

I think it is sad and pathetic how biased and unfairly the rules are applied in this sub forum, but whatever.

[Shah]

I've only read the Communist Manifesto (and yes, unlike some people I realize one cannot truly understand Marxism by just reading that) so far, but I'm interested in more. My dad told always told me about how he read all the texts by Marx, Lenin, etc and was a Marxist in his youth and now realizes that all it does is blind people to kill in the name of ideology, I'll see for myself I suppose. Why do you advise not reading books by Marx or Lenin initially, Hansoit?

[HoniSoit]

Why do you advise not reading books by Marx or Lenin initially, Hansoit?

I have explained my reasoning in my last post. The point is that it would be incredibly difficult to really understand what Marx and Lenin were saying without some contextualisation and background information because they wrote in terms and in contexts we're not intimately familiar today so you could expect a high probability of misreading/misunderstanding them. An excellent introduction, for example, by David McLellan would provide the necessary context and offer a much more systematic understanding of Marxism which is more beneficial than reading bits and pieces of Marx and Lenin's original writings.

[Luxemburgs_Pastry_Chef]

I find Marx to be rather lucidly written, very well written although he is dry in parts, but not within the works that really matter. What is this issue of contextualisation? Marxism is a method that is indeed contained in the works, from a movement from idealist materialism to a historical-materialism, one that properly understands the relation between subject and object as not one inherently and entirely one-sided, rather from the viewpoint of whichever dominant force. It is critique after critique, totally fluid and a method applicable to most branches of arts and science.
There is nothing particularly complicated with the world that Marx grew up in, nor much complicated with seeing the world through the spectacles of understanding the social underpinnings hidden beneath every single human action. Reciprocation from subject to object and so on.
David McLellan I haven't read, but there is no need for me now. Meszaros and Vygotsky were clinchers enough.

[HoniSoit]

I find Marx to be rather lucidly written, very well written although he is dry in parts, but not within the works that really matter.

I somewhat agree but I wouldn't say it's necessarily true for someone approaching the writings of Marx for the first time with little prior knowledge.

What is this issue of contextualisation?...There is nothing particularly complicated with the world that Marx grew up in, nor much complicated with seeing the world through the spectacles of understanding the social underpinnings hidden beneath every single human action. Reciprocation from subject to object and so on.

I don't disagree with you but my point is that Marx often makes remarks on 'current events' of his time on the assumption that everyone in his time should know what he is referring to but which we don't necessarily know - so there is a potential risk of misunderstanding or not understanding the points he is trying to make. Even for Marx's theoretical ideas, we, as someone who just begins to read Marx, don't also necessarily understand the terms of his debate (I'm calling it 'debate' because Marx's ideas are often critiques of previous thinkers or theories). So for example, for Marx's economic writing, we may want to know something about the ideas of the classical political economists and then see how Marx tries to prove/refute their theories. And this also goes for his philosophical writings as well.

David McLellan I haven't read, but there is no need for me now. Meszaros and Vygotsky were clinchers enough.

David McLellan has written a couple of accessible introductory books on Marx/Marxism as well as a biography.

My point is really just that it's a good idea to get some systematic introduction - some broad ideas about the subject - before picking up original texts.

[Luxemburgs_Pastry_Chef]

Newton was written in his time, and has been critiqued since on fair grounds. Marx, however, has not been, on fair grounds. It stems from the same argument that Newton wrote about gravitational forces, physical forces and their interrelations in general but must be false because he thought of it hundreds of years ago. Hell! The Zetetetic Astronomical Society is more "current" and more in context with the nonsensical, degenerative theories of our time.
Marx is more relevant than anything. Look into his pamphlets, they have hardly dated with the questions raised.

[HoniSoit]

must be false because he thought of it hundreds of years ago.

No, that's not my point at all. The fact that I think Marx's writings needs some contextualisation is simply an effort to try to understand him better (as we come to appreciate the social, political and intellectual world he lived in). It has nothing to do with whether his ideas are dated or not. Sorry to have not made my point clearer.

[grassroots1]

Rabble Rouser where are you?

[Kasu]

the Frankfurt School

Not Marxist.

[HoniSoit]

Neo-Marxist perhaps?

[Kasu]

Not Marxist, not neo-Marxist. It's Anti-Marxist.

The Steiner/Brenner document was based largely on conceptions that have long been associated with the "critical theory" of the "Frankfurt School" and related ideological tendencies, known collectively as "Western" or "Humanist" Marxism. Associated with the work of Max Horkheimer, Theodore Adorno, Karl Korsch, Herbert Marcuse, Ernst Bloch, Erich Fromm and Wilhelm Reich, the influence of the Frankfurt School reached its apogee during the heyday of radical student protests in the late 1960s. After that wave of middle-class radicalism receded, the influence of the Frankfurt School was consolidated in universities and colleges, where so many ex-radicals found tenured positions. From within the walls of the academy, the partisans of the Frankfurt School conducted unrelenting war—not against capitalism, but, rather, against Marxism. In this struggle, they were remarkably successful. With rare exceptions, very little resembling Marxism—even if one means by that term only the rigorous application of philosophical materialism to the study of history, society and social consciousness—has been taught for several decades in the humanities departments of colleges and universities.

Three interrelated historical factors underlay the persistent influence of this intellectual trend: first, the defeats of the working class during the first half of the 20th century and the annihilation (by fascism and Stalinism) of a substantial section of the socialist intelligentsia and working class who were the bearers of the theoretical traditions of classical Marxism; second, the post-World War II restabilization of international capitalism; and, third, the protracted domination of the Stalinist, social-democratic and reformist labor and trade union bureaucracies over the working class during much of the latter period. The complex combination of objective and subjective historical factors that obstructed the revolutionary resurgence of the working class created a pessimistic and demoralized intellectual environment hostile to Marxism.

To the extent that Marxism was barred by unfavorable historical conditions from serving as the theoretical spearhead of mass revolutionary class struggle, the path was cleared for its corruption and falsification in the interests of social forces isolated and alienated from, and even hostile to, the working class. The Frankfurt School played a central role in this process. It sought to convert Marxism from a theoretical and political weapon of proletarian class struggle, which Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse rejected, into a socially amorphous form of cultural criticism, in which the political pessimism, social alienation, and personal and psychological frustrations of sections of the middle class found expression.

[chuuzetsu]

There is a website called Marxists.org that archives the writings of almost every major Marxist thinker. I suggest you start here if you want to learn anything. Read up on Marx, Engles, Lenin, Luxembourg, Che, etc.,

[Kasu]

Right. Che, Fidel, Reverend Wright, Malcolm X, Hugo Chavez, they're all "marxists".

[Okonkwo]

Che, Fidel, Reverend Wright, Malcolm X, Hugo Chavez, they're all "marxists".

What? Malcolm X wasn't a Marxist. He despised modern politics and once actually talked about the hypocrisy of the Soviet Union and how communism presented itself as an alternative while not actually putting forth a realistic solution to the race question.

[HoniSoit]

What?

I think Kasu was meant to suggest they are not real Marxists.

But come on, Kasu - Marxism isn't going anywhere if it continues to be so sectarian with endless pointless squabbles about who is or is not a real Marxist, fragmenting itself into ever smaller groups of self-designated revolutionaries and at the same time losing touch with the working class and reality.

Do you think the workers really care about debates over undetectable differences in theories?

I say this as a fellow leftist and someone very sympathetic to Marxism. But I think the only question that matters is whether people have brought about real concrete benefits to workers - whether or not these people are Marxists or revisionists or reformists or whatever.

[Okonkwo]

I think Kasu was meant to suggest they are not real Marxists.

Ah, that explains it.
However in the case of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro he seems to be insisting on applying a close-minded definition of Marxism. From a certain point of view, they are both Marxists.

Do you think the workers really care about debates over undetectable differences in theories?

Precisely. If you seriously want to gain mass support, you should start by actually connecting with the working class and changing Marxism from a middle and upper-class intellectual ideology to an applicable working class ideology.