where do you stand on the socialist spectrum? i’ll start: my socialist views are a fusion of market socialism, welfarism, georgism and left-libertarianism - i took the leftvalues quiz (as shown in the photo attached in this post), and i got “centrist marxism”. you DON’T have to take the quiz though.
EDIT: i just added the link
Here are mine. I don’t think about (or know?) what ideology i’d adhere to, but i’m not sure it matters much. Imo it’s my views/opinions of the concepts themselves that are important, not a big-tent name of an ideology.
I am still not comfortable enough with my grasp of marxism/anarchism/etc (still reading theory to understand them all. I’ve been progressing well) to the point i could answer properly to these questions so it’s probably not reflective of my actual views,
Nonetheless i of course get this is just a fun little online test, nothing serious ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Congrats on your studies! Anything stand out to you particularly, whether it’s anarchist or Marxist? As in, particularly useful, enjoyable, etc?
Thanks!
I don’t like to tackle more than one subject at once, so currently I’m just focusing on Marxism, which i have unfortunately limited time for, but i still try :) iirc I’ve read/am reading currently:
- How Marxism Works (Trotskyist pamphlet, but still pretty good even by anti-Trotskyist standards),
- Principles of Communism (still reading, but easily digestible, thankfully)
- The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism
And thanks to the last text, I think I have a good framework of what i should focus on while studying; i.e.:
- Dialectic materialism (I’ve grasped the laws, but I’ve yet to learn how to apply it to analysis of the world),
- Labor theory of value (understood!)
- Class struggle, which from a first impression, sounds like a basic “no shit Sherlock” concept, but I’m sure it ties back to materialism, and the transition of feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism, though I’ve yet to reach the relevant reads for that.
I’ve actually been using your reading list as a good starting point (thanks for that, by the way!) so far, I’m only loosely using it to know what I should read next, since i already recognize a ton of the material there anyway, but it is still very useful for it to be organized well. But eventually I’ll probably follow it more strictly for the sake of accuracy.
After I’m finished with the principles of communism, I’d have completed my current 3 ‘to read’ texts and move on to the next one, which would probably be: What is to be Done, The Wretched of the Earth, and (tediously 🫠) all volumes of Capital.
Although, an important point now for me is trying to re-understand history/figures. I’ve found it easy to like Marx+Engels/Castro/Ho Chi Minh (and by extension, more fairly analyze Cuba/Vietnam + read their works without a negative bias), since there’s very little hatred towards them in my region/on the online spaces i regular, but a lot of material that most Marxists today consider crucial, I have negative/mixed views towards the authors; but in fairness most of my negative views have been earned years before, and I’m no stranger [now] to how propaganda can reframe even good people into being “scary baby eaters”, so my goal as of now is trying to read on important figures and change my opinions on them, for better or worse. Of course, I’m not saying my views are wrong and I should force them to be positive, but a critical re-analysis of them all would be very useful. If they are bad people, then that’s that, and there’s nothing I could do about it, but otherwise, it would help me a lot in reading their works, and in general, change my world-view.
Okay, this comment is getting long lol. Thanks again for the reading list :D
That’s awesome!
Harman’s How Marxism Works, outside of the weird misogyny and Trotskyist parts, is legitimately a good place to start. It’s clear and concise.
You’ve nailed the 3 core areas, those being dialectical materialism, the law of value, and class struggle. Dialectical materialism applied to history becomes historical materialism, and broadly ties to class struggle, which you correctly point out as the driving force behind the progression of historical modes of production.
Class struggle also informs class ideology, ie the petite bourgeoisie tends to go for more individualist ideologies while the proletariat understands the importance of collectivization, because how we live and produce informs how we understand the world. Mao’s On Practice & On Contradiction is probably the single best pair of shorter essays on driving this home and developing it.
If I may make a suggestion, skip What is to be Done? for now. That’s more of an article talking about strategy, and while useful, isn’t very important for grasping the basis of Marxism. I’d say Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism and The State and Revolution are both more immediately important, but before them I would suggest more than any other single work Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (or better yet, Anti-Dühring). This right here is what will dramatically expand upon and tie together everything you’ve learned thus far.
Capital can honestly be postponed for quite a while, I consider it critical but quite advanced. Excellent choice with Fanon though, The Wretched of the Earth is a banger.
As for the figures I’m assuming you’re referring to, I highly recommend Domenico Losurdo’s Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend. Stalin wasn’t a saint, and this book doesn’t make him out to be one, it tries to correctly separate the “black legend” from the man in reality and place him in his correct historical context, using only western, anti-communist sources. Sadly I don’t know of a book of a similar caliber for Mao, but I also find Mao isn’t as heavily demonized as Stalin is. The closest is Nia Frome’s short essay “Tankies.”
Anna Louise Strong’s works, such as This Soviet World, are excellent ways to expand your knowledge of what the USSR was actually like from someone on the ground reporting on it. Also beloved by me are Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds and the “Yellow Parenti” speech.
And thanks for the kind words on the reading guide!
Good to know my understanding to this point has been correct! And as for dialectics, I’ve been trying to figure out good examples on how to apply it to understand a situation but did not understand how. Based on your comment, are dialectics in Marxism only really used for Historical materialism, or is it used for more applications? If so, then I see I was wrong in trying to understand dialectics without looking at historical materialism 🙃
And the class struggle explanation makes sense. Just a question, do the labor aristocracy count as petite bourgeoisie, or are they the non capital/land-owning equivalent? That would explain on why more middle class people I meet (even the progressives/leftists sometimes :/) are more likely to support imperialism / liberalism to preserve their own material conditions, at the cost of others. And I’ll read the two texts, thanks
Thank you very much for the suggestions ❤️ I’ve always wanted to read wretched of the earth/how Europe underdeveloped Africa, but I knew I should at least get familiar with Marxism first, since both books are Marxist, the majority of national liberation movements are Marxist. These books/facts are very important to me personally, since before I even considered myself a socialist, I was still firmly anti-imperialist/anti-colonial since that’s the only solution the turmoil in the middle east, and the rest of the global south.
And yup, Stalin and Mao are the ones I take issue with. I used to do so too for Lenin, Castro (not a huge extent but there is still a lot of BS around him, unfortunately) but my views toward them softened, since Lenin’s work emphasizes democracy but the USSR was in big turmoil, but it was the very first, and only in its time Marxist state that had to face WW1 which they suffered hugely + a devastating civil war where there was a huge coalition against the reds, the economic turmoil due to both these wars and new governance at once and that he had an assassination attempt on his life, it’s easy to see why things turned the way they are for his time. Ultimately though the USSR under Lenin was incredibly progressive in comparison to the Tsar a few years ago, and the strides in literacy, healthcare and him giving more rights for the minorities in the Union was very admirable despite all his faults. I have the same opinion here about Fidel, lots of errors but the CIA was constantly attempting to kill him, the bay of pigs, and worst of all the embargo, comparing him to Batista the difference is astonishing. The mark twain quote about two reigns of terror applies pretty well.
But Stalin? From what I’ve heard, i don’t think much good of him. I will read the book you recommended about him, though! As for Mao, I think the same reasoning applies above too somewhat, but the mismanagement of the cultural revolution, great leap forward and four pests campaign is hard to ignore. I definitely haven’t done enough reading on these events and hope I’ll learn more soon.
This Soviet world, along with the book “Soviet democracy” I see you comment a lot about definitely sound like good books to get hands on. Thank you! And damn I love Parenti. I listened to his ‘Imperialism and Drugs’ speech and fell in love immediately lol. I haven’t watched the yellow parenti speech (yet) but I adore the quote about how countries are rich, not underdeveloped; its their working classes that are overexploited :)
Good questions!
First off, dialectical materialism is the single greatest tool of Marxism. Marx used it when writing Capital, it’s critical to class struggle, it’s why we have historical materialism. Dialectical materialism is a way of thinking about forces and change, and the motions of change in the world. Not to keep sending book recommendations, but Engels’ work Dialectics of Nature goes over the immense applicability of dialectics to everything (though this is a more advanced text IMO, and quite lengthy). Same applies to Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.
Mao’s On Practice & On Contradiction are critical for understanding dialectical materialism because the former goes over the dialectical materialist approach to understanding the unity of theory and practice, and the latter helps us understand the nature of contradiction. Contradiction is what compels movement, in a way, and by identifying imperialism as the primary contradiction, it’s useful for identifying what movements to support in overthrowing that, such as Palestinian liberation.
As for the labor aristocracy, they are ultimately the upper stratum of the proletariat. They are kind of like a subclass, if you will. Petite bourgeois relations push towards individualism and fascism as they fear being proletarianized, but the labor aristocracy are already proletarianized, just bribed by the spoils of imperialism into supporting it, or opposing anything that meaningfully represents an alternative. A good look at class ideology is the incredibly short essay Stalin’s Shoemaker, which traces a worker that finds himself in different occupations and thus his mindset changes until ultimately being proletarianized and naturally adopts a more proletarian mindset.
Your third paragraph is excellent, and Ho Chi Minh’s The Path Which Led me to Leninism describes exactly why so many anti-imperialists come to Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism’s strong stance on national liberation struggles and effectiveness in leading them is exactly why it is so prevalent. Both Fanon and Rodney are excellent reads, great choices.
One thing about Lenin and the progressive achievements of the USSR under him is that Lenin died very early on, and it was ultimately Stalin that had to take on that task. Sverdlov, the most likely candidate for General Secretary, was dead, and Trotsky distrusted the peasantry and had menshevik tendencies towards splitting and infighting. For all of Stalin’s faults, it was ultimately Stalin that carried on Lenin’s legacy in the midst of siege and incredible turmoil. The CPC rates Stalin and Mao both at 70% good, 30% bad, and I think that can help contextualize that we don’t idolize these figures just because we agree with much of what they wrote and did. There’s also much to critique.
For Mao, the CPC is very negative on the Cultural Revolution and Four Pests Campaign. The Great Leap Forward is more mixed, but the prior two were seen largely as mistakes even if the reasoning for attempting them were solid. Marxist-Leninist-Maoists uphold the Cultural Revolution and believe it universal to successful socialism, they just believe Mao failed. I’m not an MLM though, and neither was Mao, Mao was an ML. Hope that tangent made sense!
I love that you love Parenti, haha. The “Yellow Parenti” speech is honestly responsible for creating countless MLs, as is Blackshirts and Reds. Anna Louise Strong wrote This Soviet World in the 1930s, so it’s a good look at what the early USSR was like, as was Soviet Democracy. A good intro though to some of the history and context of AES are the Prolewiki pages on The USSR and on The PRC before you delve deeper into these.
Awesome work on your journey so far!
Thank you very much for your kind words and guidance ☺️ I’ll definitely try out the suggestions and recommendations!
Besides the writers of the works themselves, you’ve probably been the single most influential person to me in my learning lol. As always, have a great week! C:
That’s way too kind of you, in reality it was your own willingness to learn that’s been the primary mover. See, that’s the fun bit about dialectical materialism, you can’t just shout theory at someone and have them desire to learn it. Your environment shapes you by responding to that which is internal to you. A seed only becomes a tree because it’s placed in soil with good water, nutrition, and light, but placing a stone in the soil won’t create a tree no matter what conditions you put it in.
Just a cheeky example of Diamat, haha.
Have a great week, and thank you so much!
3·16 hours agoEvery time I look over and refresh the comment seems to change.
I’m a perfectionist over the smallest things, and get lazy with larger projects 🫠
so you’re less centrist?
Yep.
For some of these questions, I felt I lacked a sufficient understanding to provide a confident answer. That led to more neutral/unsure answers than I would have preferred.
Same
so you’re a centrist marxist?
I would say I’m uneducated first and foremost.
“Inefficiency and bureaucracy are inherent in a centrally planned economy.”
I mean… I’m pretty sure inefficiency and bureaucracy are inherent in any system that includes human beings with free will, so…
Another “Eco-Marxist” reporting for duty 🫡
Fair enough, some of the questions were kind of ambiguous tho
We have nearly the same stats
And yet your closest match shows you are a different kind of leftist so I must hate you 😔
/s
Yeah, some of them I would give totally different answers if imagining the question as applying to billionaires vs. workers, developed vs. developing countries, today versus a long-term objective, etc.
In the end it labeled me an eco-anarchist which I’m not mad at.
Some people were right, apparently I am indeed a council communist.
Idc thou I am a still communist at the end
no link, no good
i just added the link
Too many questions for me :) I don’t know much about socialism, but if anything I am a market socialist, social democracy fan and can only support “social ownership of the means of production” in the most narrow sense.
I am a fan of “everybody who can has to work” (i.e. against carrying poor people who could contribute and against people so rich they don’t need to work). I am a fan of supporting those who can’t work. I am a fan of people being able to make an obscene amount of money through their work and dedication. I am not a fan of people making a lot of money through money (though this is sadly necessary in the current capitalistic system) or through inheritance.
The biggest problem I have with establishing this is how such a system is able to compete with other countries and prevent external companies offering more money or buying companies, but through extreme regulation.
are you a left-libertarian?
there have been times where I would have agreed with that assessment, but who knows.
No surprises here, just about where I was last time iirc
so you’re an eco-marxist?
That’s what it placed me as yeah. While I agree that I am a marxist who has a focus on ecology it specifies “orthodox marxist” which I am not
I’m a vegan anarchist so this is pretty accurate.
Woo-hoo! A kindred spirit. Let’s team up on terms of local autonomy, self-sufficiency, and mutual benefit!
The quiz nailed the fact that I’m an anarcho-communist. I think my numbers “suffered” a bit because there are questions where I personally hold beliefs about which choices are easiest to implement, but I also believe that a collective of reasonable people could make some other choice and implement it in a liberatory way. In particular, I’m not against planning certain segments of the economy (e.g. electrical power distribution) as long as we do it with the continuous consent of the people and we don’t kill people/collectives who go their own way. Similarly, I’m pretty staunchly anti-markets, but I’m not closed to the idea that reasonable people could live happy lives under genuinely anarchistic market socialism if for some reason a community chooses to continuously consent to that mode of living.
Funny, I wouldn’t consider myself an “Orthodox Marxist,” I’d say that my positions have been influenced more by Lenin, if anything I tend to view Marx as somewhat dated and inaccessible. I just mean to say, a lot has happened since Marx was alive and it’s important to look at what has been tried and what has succeeded and failed rather than rigidly adhering to, well, “Orthodox” Marxism.
so you’re a simple leninist?
I would still call myself a Marxist-Leninist. Lenin was obviously heavily influenced by Marx, and it’s not like I have a particular problem with Marx. And I would say that Lenin is also a little dated, less so than Marx, but no matter who you’re talking about, they existed in specific material conditions and their ideas do not necessarily apply to all times and places - that’s a big part of what Marxism-Leninism is all about, adapting policy to specific material conditions, and not adhering rigidly to theory.
Really, the specific label is not that important. An ideological label is only a rough descriptor of a person’s views, and there can be a lot of differences between people who use the same label, because it is not trivial to figure out how to adapt their ideas to the modern day. Marxism-Leninism gives people the gist, without worrying about the obscure nuances of terms like “Orthodox Marxism” or “Centrist Marxism” that most people won’t be familiar with.
do you have any videos on marxist theory that i can watch without losing focus quickly?
i went with the shorter 10-minute one (with subway surfers), and i think michael parenti has a point: if you look past the authoritarianism of countries such as cuba, china, vietnam, laos or north korea, you’d find that there’s much more to these countries than their government; pyongyang is a pretty interesting city - it had an unfinished hotel that looks pretty cool, some of the apartment buildings reminds me of those eastern kentucky university dorm buildings in richmond, ky, and mount paektu is beautiful. cuba, china, vietnam, laos also have beautiful sceneries.
one thing you have to know that you DON’T see anyone begging for money or runaway people asking for sex because socialism helps solve economic inequalities by giving production to the people. seriously!
just started but man I find the questions already a bit wierd. “has no right to” with options that are neutral agree/disagree and strong version. Its hard to answer that without it being extreme due to phrasing. if the instead said like shouldn’t then you could click agree without it sounding like there are no exceptions. no right to makes the stronly options sorta pointless.
It’s a poor quiz, I agree (and elaborated on why here).
yeah the link does not apparently send me to the area where you elaborate. I gave up at a certain point. Using group names and such when it should be more generically phrased just makes it wierd. Environmental concerns are not something about being socialist, its about seeing whats happening and having some intelligence. I don’t view socialism and capitalism the way these are like im much more of a spectrum person with socialism/capitalism and democracy/authoritarianism.
Socialism and capitalism aren’t really a spectrum, if anything they are bimodal. Socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state, capitalism is where private ownership is the principle aspect and capitalists in charge. Democracy and authority aren’t contrary to each other, what matters is which class holds that authority, the working classes or capitalist class.
yeah see all that is exactly why these things don’t jive with me. Its like you have to buy in to the definitions of things in a very specific way. basically for me socialism is a spectrum of social democracy where maybe the far end is what socialists call socialism and capitalism is along the same spectrum. Then for me democracy is about each individual having an equal hold to authority to another. This actually is one thing about communities. So few define themselves in the sidebar and two communities could have the same name but the makers/moderators could be viewing what it should be like very differently. I wish more would spend some time to figure out what will go there before they even make the community.
People value and use definitions that accurately describe reality and its relation. Democracy is quite literally rule by the majority, and it isn’t counterposed to the working classes forcibly nationalizing industry held by capitalists. Such an action is “authoritarian” yet absolutely democratic. Socialism and capitalism aren’t a spectrum, because you can’t have classes sharing power over the state equally. As such, either public or private ownership will be principle, either the bourgeoisie or proletariat will be in control of the state. There’s variance in socialization, but fundamentally the “centerpoint” doesn’t exist.
A democracy deciding to nationalize an industry is not authoritarian to me. I do believe in individual rights and such but that again has to be determined in a democractic process. So any restriction to democracy must come from a democratic process. We are just going to disagree on the spectrum thing because we define them differently.
It’s absolutely authoritarian, but that doesn’t make it bad or not democratic. Authority is using the power of the state to certain ends.
i’m actually non-binary, and i prefer gender-neutral and feminine terms. seriously!
Here’s mine.
Eco anarchism I think isn’t quite right, I’d actually identify as an anarcho-communist, maybe anarcho-syndicalist. I do love communism and it’s literature but I think history teaches us that central authority is simply too easily abused. I’m still reading and learning though, anyone wanna shill their views to me? Maybe share a book?I’d argue history proves the necessity of socialist countries to adopt a state and a centrally planned economy to protect against outside terrorism. The USSR was invaded by over a dozen capitalist countries right as it was being formed, that shaped their defenses and structures going forward. If you or anyone else wants to get started on reading Marxist-Leninist theory, I made an introductory reading list.
Without coming to blows arguing historical fact I just can’t swing ML. I’ve read Marx (or better yet, continuing to read Marx) and the man spits straight fire, so does Lenin, hell even stalin at times. But! I’m too disgusted by the atrocities wrought in their names, intended or not it’s just too many dead for me. I’m much more interested in how ML can evolve and change into something that’s much more adaptable to outside pressure without falling victim to the corruption of centralised power. Keen to know your thoughts.
What specifically are you referring to as “the atrocities wrought in their names?” Who are these “too many dead?” Capitalists love framing Nazis killed by the Red Army and the like as “victims of communism,” or deaths from famines that were primarily driven by forces outside communist control like adverse weather conditions. I’m not saying no excess has ever happened under communists, but I am saying that westerners distort it to a cartoonish degree in order to maintain cultural hegemony.
Hard agree capitalists and westerners hold more fear over communism than Nazism/fascism and that the truth of their history is often distorted however after reading Ivan’s War I’ve become a lot more critical of how communism was executed in Russia. Additionally, there were a few extremely rotten individuals that were allowed to rise to prominence within the communist party that I think undermined its efforts. People like Beria and Lysenko terrify me and reveal how the wrong people in the wrong place can cause mass death in an authoritarian system.
It’s important to recognize that works like Ivan’s War are common in the west, and often exaggerate or even fabricate narratives about the soviets. I’m not sure what the author said in that book, or with what evidence, but it sounds like the author repeats “human wave” myths. Good resources on the Red Army include books like The Soviets Expected It by Anna Louise Strong, who actually lived in and reported on the soviet union. There’s a lot of bias going on that you would do well to work through.
Catherine merridale uses accounts from red army veterans and personal accounts of those who worked in the work houses as the foundation of her book. I find it insightful despite present biases. And of course, identifying biases is inherent to good research which is why I’m aware that communist literature has its very own to be wary of. Thank you for the book recommendation! Keen to get through it
i prefer de leonism, council communism and other stuff like that because those forms of communism are more libertarian than marxism-leninism or maoism and such.
the althistory story “reds! a revolutionary timeline” would probably give you an idea on what a de leonist government would be like. seriously!
Ooh wonderful thanks for the recommendation! De leonism is entirely new to me.
basically, de leonism is like what if the parties work with unions, NOT the state?
