I’ve read a lot online and listened to a lot of videos/podcasts in the last 3 or so years, but I’m genuinely interested in reading solid theory (instead of hearing them quoted in YouTube videos, podcasts and articles). I am not smart enough to understand das kapital and I don’t read books that often at all (I have read the manifesto)
What should be the first three books I buy to warm myself up into understanding the theory more in depth compared to quotes, memes, YouTube videos/podcasts etc. (I was thinking maybe a Marx book, Lenin book and a Foucault book? But I have no idea!)
What would your suggestion for your first 3 books
PS I’m also new to the chapo.chat community! I haven’t been a part of a cth community since the original was banned so sorry if it’s in the wrong community!
Seconding State and Rev and Foundations of Leninism. As for Foundations of Leninism, Stalin is an incredibly easy to digest writer I find.
Many people recommend State and Revolution. State and Revolution has some real banger quotes in it. For whatever reason though, it didn't grasp me too much though. I really owe it another read.
On the other hand, while it is technically an offshoot of ML, I found On Contradiction and On Practice by Mao to be truly enlightening. Combat Liberalism is a meme shitpost by comparison. Combined, On Practice and On Contradiction are about the same length of State and Revolution (as in, relatively short pamphlets akin to the Communist Manifesto), but they really tackle the fundamentals of dialectical materialism in the most concise way I have ever been exposed to. They are a solid foundation to build from.
Absolutely. I can't overstate how much these short texts helped me better understand the rest of Marxist literature as a whole.
On Practice and On Contradiction are a large part of why I consider myself a Maoist. They're such a thorough, well-written, and easy to understand explanation of dialectical materialism and have influenced how I read other pieces of theory
Thank you for your recommendations! I’m adding them to my reading list for sure. I’ve always wanted to understand mao more than “we should eradicate landlords” so thank you for a starting point
Yes this is the right place, welcome back comrade! What kind of books/topics are you interested in? There are a lot of ways to go here! I'll recommend three of my favorite "theory-heavy" books that aren't just straight reading Marx/Lenin etc, since I think a bit of context for these folks before diving in is helpful. These are unorthodox picks, but I think they're great "theory" books that are much more relevant to our modern moment, while building on theory from the past.
- Lenin's Electoral Strategy from Marx and Engels Through the Revolution of 1905: The Ballot, the Streets—or Both by August H. Nimtz is a wonderful book that I think is very important for our current moment. It explains how Marx, Engels, Lenin, and many other Marxists viewed electoral politics as a ground for propaganda and agitation, but not as a means to take power. That can only be done through a revolution, and therefore you must have an independent workers party to educate the masses. Helps cut through a lot of the "lesser evil" discourse around left-leaning spaces, and does so with a heavy dose of theory.
- Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation by Silvia Federici is a great book about primitive accumulation (building on Marx and Luxemburg) in the context of the early modern world, and how it laid the groundwork for (and continues to feed into) modern day labor exploitation. Very readable.
- Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam-Power and the Roots of Global Warming by Andreas Malm is my favorite book on here. It's a Marxist account of how the switch to burning coal over water wheels was predicated on labor control rather than anything to do with price, and demonstrates how the cause of global warming lie squarely in the court of capitalists, and not "humanity" or some other vague amalgamation of people. Really recommend this one
BONUS: The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View by Ellen Meiksins Wood. Great account that builds on Marx to demonstrate how capitalism was not inevitable, but a historically specific development in 17th century England that relied on a very lucky coincidence of factors. Easy introduction to this very large and important topic.
EDIT: Reread your post and just wanted to include a warning to not read Foucault until you're more well versed in "theory-world." His language can be... obtuse, and if you're not used to reading books like a lot of jargon picking up Foucault and giving him a read is going to result in something that will look like high-level gibberish.
Thank you so much for the detailed response! I don’t know a lot at all about dialectical materialism (as in I could barely describe it to a liberal), I know a little bit about class, but not a lot in regards to what a post-socialist society would look and sound like!
I’ve seen some quotes in regards to imperialism and the vanguard when it comes to Leninism but I’m still not sure how it works. And the term “stateless” in regards to “stateless, no money society” means when it comes to Marxism confuses me too
Yes so Lenin's Electoral Strategy will clue you in to how Lenin thought of a vanguard and how that would work in bring about revolution. Caliban and the Witch deals with imperialism, but if you want it made more explicit I recommend Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism and How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney.
As far as "stateless" goes, in Marxist terms the state is how classes "fight" each other, so when you get rid of class (the ultimate goal of communism, where the idea of class is abolished) the state, by consequence, will "wither away." Until you get to that point, however, most Marxists advocate for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (as opposed to the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie like we have now), as that is needed to ultimately abolish class as a category. If you want a better understanding of classes outside of the Manifesto, I highly recommend Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, which is (I think) his most accessible work outside the Manifesto that shows how classes work in the context of a very specific historical event (Louis Napoloen couping his way to power). It also serves as an example of dialectical materialism in action, as you get to see how Marx evaluates a real historical event using that lens. For a more theoretical explanation of Marx's materialism, I recommend reading Part 1 of his The German Ideology.
Now note that I'm talking from a very Marxist perspective here on state and statelessness. To anarchists a lot of this analysis is wrong, and I encourage you to seek out some anarchist theory as well. Kropotkin and his The Conquest of Bread is wonderful, but doesn't touch too much on the state as a historical category. Bookchin and Abdullah Öcalan have a lot more to say about the state from an anarchist perspective, but I've only read a few writings by each and don't have a solid book to recommend.
The words “dictatorship of the proletariat” make me question the volcel life 🥰 but in all seriousness thank you heaps for the recommendations! I don’t know how far I align with anarchism in comparison to Marxism/Marxist Leninism but I reckon I should give it a shot in the name of ~self exploration~
It's definitely not an either/or situation in a lot of cases anyway. Anarchism and Marxism are often fantastic critiques of each other. Marxists say you need a state, and a strong one, to protect yourself from the inevitable backlash of capitalists powers coming to destroy you, while anarchists will remind you that a strong state lends itself to strong state repression, and can often end up bureaucratic and oppressive nightmares. Neither critique is wrong per say, but I definitely lean more heavily on the former than the latter. And regardless, we're both in agreement that the current state of things (and the state itself) must be smashed for a new world to be born. We'll figure out what that new world looks like together when the time comes!
I think the variance in opinion on the state among Marxists is greatly visible in Marx himself. I mean Marx makes critiques of anarchism to Bakunin, but then makes anarchist-esque critiques of statism too in lots of places. All the while also musing in a few letters whether or not the US can vote its way to socialism. He wrestled immensely with what the state was, and imo never came out with a satisfying theory of it.
To me the most satisfying answer is that fundamentally Marx is a radical democrat, and wants political organs of radical democracy as a means of freedom from domination, and that's antithetical to the state. I'm not sure Marx believed the state could whither to "simple administration" as Lenin put it. Engels put that withering quote in the anti-duhring, Marx never said it. When we look at drafts of capital and other notes, you can see Marx and Engels disagreeing with each other constantly over what the state is. We also have letters where Marx is frustrated and notes that he wants to get around to writing a capital length work on the state, but he never got around to it. It's not clear to me what at the end of his life post Paris Commune he thought. I do think he certainly thought the state machinery had to be utterly destroyed and political organizations remade with the DOTP, and the form of organization he thought socialism would be under is some sort of federated commune, but I'm not sure at the end if he would still call an intermediate organization a state anymore or whether there could be one. Remember Marx's lower stage communism, which we have very little notes on, has already abolished commodity production and the market entirely while Lenin's renaming of it socialism has changed what it meant perhaps significantly imo.
The woods and malm books are great. I will say nimtz from what I read (did not read the whole thing) wasn't totally convincing.
What are you qualms with Nimtz? Everytime I read one of his works I come away with appreciation for his research and have learned something new.
I think overall he's right mostly about Lenin (if missing some stuff that I think Lars Lih explored better in his work What Is To Be Done: In Context), but more falters at least from what I read in lifting the analysis to current political situations. I think he just did not make a great case on the relationship between absolutist Europe (or rather it and the transition to capitalist republics) and the modern capitalist states as he could have. It's been a long time since I read any of it though.
Side note, I love how Lih's book is essentially "wtf why is everybody still reading this random pamphlet of Lenin's that's only relevant to a very specific situation/critique?!"
Anyway, yeah his modern analysis isn't fantastic, but I think he does a great job of laying out Marx, Engels, and Lenin's views on electoralism and voting, which is the bit I care about.
Settlers by J. Sakai
Just a sidenote here, I think Theodore Allen's The Invention of the White Race (both volumes) is a far better, more convincing, and appropriately sourced historical account of how race formation and "whiteness" was created and exploited in an American context for the benefit of those with money and power.
tbf an embarrassingly large amount of white people are in desperate need of being told the obvious
like maybe its because i grew up around commies or something but it seemed so obvious thats how the world worked since i was like 10 years old
I really love the idea you said of re-conceptualising and unlearning, that sounds like an incredibly sound starting. I also really appreciate the non-white recommendations for a rounded view. Thank you!!
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how one can recommend all these without also making clear/articulating which ones disagree with which. Like multiple books in that list take oppositional positions on politics, oppositional conceptions of history compared to each other. This isn't a dig at you at all, but like I don't understand. When I recommend books I try to point that out in whatever I'm recommending the contradictions.
I mean to be concrete, Federici's view of history is very different from Lenin's for example.
No sweat, I'm certainly not free from contradictions either lol.
State and Revolution is essential reading for any Marxist, but you probably already knew that. Lenin also conveniently cites a lot of Marx and Engels to point the read towards some of their important political works. It's relatively short but also really dense, as an incomplete series of 6 pamphlets written between the February and October revolutions. You could fill an hour just discussing the implications of almost any two consecutive paragraphs from most of the book. You'll want to discuss it with comrades you trust and take careful notes.
Quick side note for some of the more challenging economic literature: it's better to read works like Wage Labour and Capital, and Value, Price, and Profit like scientific textbooks than like historical literature. I found myself writing equations in my notes for some of the chapters in Value, Price, and Profit, for example. The exact numbers matter less than the underlying quantitative relationships - and the power differential between the working and capitalist classes that these relationships imply - that Marx and Engels are trying to describe.
I'm trying to get everything mentioned in this thread into the new theory archive I'm working on so check out the "Recommendations for Newer Leftists" folder.
edit: as of OP being 9 hrs old I think I have every title here uploaded. Let me know if I'm missing something.
Ernest Mandel - Introduction to Marxism
Marx & Engels - Communist Manifesto
Engels - Principles of Communism
Lenin - Imperialism
Lenin - State and Revolution
J Sakai - Settlers
blackshirts and reds edit: fuck you asked for theory specifically. whatever it's still great and good and dispels essentially every anti-communist argument
I’ve heard blackshirts and reds is a phenomenal read regardless so I appreciate your input! I’ve heard it really pictures fascism in a realist light, rather than “protecting the future of our white children”
It's a doozy. I was averaging two to three infuriated "WHAT THE FUCK?"s per page.
Not really "theory," but if you're interested in Great Depression-era US leftist movements, Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath is a barely-fictionalized version of some shit that he saw while working for the TVA, and I've heard good things about Robin D. G. Kelley's Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression. Probably relevant since we're veering headlong into Mad Max-world.
- get the marx engels reader and just read whatever interests you in there. flip around. have fun
- the state and revolution
- the koran
All of the recommendations by others are great. I'd also add "Post Scarcity Anarchism" by Bookchin, it's an easy read and relevant on multiple levels. Just ignore the occasional Soviet bashing.
Marx: A Very Short Introduction by Peter Singer is really useful, just what you're looking for I think.
Foucault can be difficult, but his lectures are much easier: I recommend Society Must Be Defended.
And why not Quotations from Chairman Mao, aka the Little Red Book?Thanks for the little red book recommendation! I’ve always wanted to learn more about mao beyond being a landlord lover
Sorry if I sound ignorant, but what kind of views would be considered unacceptable? If it isn’t accepted within a neoliberal/classist society that sounds great, but if it is overtly homophobic or gender critical I might not be fan. What points should be taken away from it?
