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!
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 extremely dire.
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.