/reading/ groups Anonymous 12-04-23 10:41:04 No. 13302 [Last 50 Posts]
I'm starting this after asking in reading general because there was some interest shown. A thread for the encouragement, maintenance, and organisation of different reading groups- a regular thread will be maintained in order for reading groups to rhizomatically organise. No specific topic of reading is mandated. I would like to start by organising a group, I have a few texts I would be interested in reading but would like to get any kind of feedback because I don't want to propose we read a book and then have a buncha people be like 'nooo i dont like that book' so here are some initial suggestions for what we could read to begin with:CURRENT BOOK: engels' origin of the family (prehistoric society)
Anonymous 12-04-23 14:53:38 No. 13306
Here is a challenging question:Why organize an online reading group? >In studying the works of Chairman Mao, one should have specific problems in mind, study and apply his works in a creative way, combine study with application, first study what must be urgently applied so as to get quick results, and strive hard to apply what one is studying.
Anonymous 12-04-23 16:50:23 No. 13312
Here are PDFs of a guide on how to do a study course on the first volume of Capital by Paul Mattick (
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/m/a.htm#mattick-paul )
It uses this edition as a reference
https://archive.org/details/capitalcritiqueo01marx/mode/2up Anonymous 12-04-23 18:20:43 No. 13313
>>13305 Literally just finished reading this, really liked it, but would be inclined to read it again in a group.
>>13302 Otherwise, I'd like Boookchin, Guattari, Whitehead (never heard of this one so all the more fine to read it), or Adorno. Also, since it seems to be underread by leftypol, I will recommend Anti-Oedipus.
>>13306 I'm an antisocial, thoroughly-dislikable person irl and no one is inclined to read with me. This is not a complaint, but an observation.
Anonymous 13-04-23 04:21:38 No. 13317
>>13306 >Reading groups ought to be conducted to provide answers to questions you encounter in real life organizing. If you don't do real life organizing, what can you read that provides you with answers? What are you and your comrades going to get out of it? Its just intellectual masturbation. It's not as if you ever truly know whether something you'll read will be useful for the questions you have before you read. Even something intended to be entirely instrumental like an instruction manual may not be useful for you, although it could be useful for others who are trying to do the same thing.
Also, if we're taking an entirely instrumental and pragmatic view, couldn't you reject joining Maoist groups in the West as well? When has a Maoist group successfully brought about revolution in the West? Would joining a Maoist group even help most readers of books like this online in the first place? And, Maoist or not, joining an organization could be a disorienting or alienating experience for some. It isn't something that should be done just for the sake of reading books.
So how would you know whether Spinoza's
Ethics provides answers to concrete problems faced by a cell or organization prior to reading the book? A synopsis wouldn't suggest it, and just skimming through it wouldn't make its import obvious, nor give a way to translate what it's saying into "concrete answers" to such organizational problems. Reading the
Ethics could easily be evaluated pragmatically as useless, yet readings of Spinoza have been theoretically productive on the left.
Hegel describes the underlying issue in the Encyclopedia Logic:
<A main line of argument in the Critical Philosophy bids us pause before proceeding to inquire into God or into the true being of things, and tells us first of all to examine the faculty of cognition and see whether it is equal to such an effort. We ought, says Kant, to become acquainted with the instrument, before we undertake the work for which it is employed; for if the instrument be insufficient, all our trouble will be spent in vain. The plausibility of this suggestion has won for it general assent and admiration; the result of which has been to withdraw cognition from an interest in its objects and absorption in the study of them, and to direct it back upon itself; and so turn it to a question of form. Unless we wish to be deceived by words, it is easy to see what this amounts to. In the case of other instruments, we can try and criticize them in other ways than by setting about the special work for which they are destined. But the examination of knowledge can only be carried out by an act of knowledge. To examine this so-called instrument is the same thing as to know it. But to seek to know before we know is as absurd as the wise resolution of Scholasticus, not to venture into the water until he had learned to swim. By instrumentalizing reading and making it entirely subject to practice, you don't so much arrive at Marx as you return to the problematics of Kant and Fichte, and a form of practice corresponding to it that can't move beyond the immediate "pragmatic" limits imposed by your theory of practice.
Anonymous 13-04-23 06:07:05 No. 13319
>>13317 >couldn't you reject joining Maoist groups in the West as well? Yes. I do. Maoists tatics work in semi feudal societies. Some of their theoretical contributions are useful though.
No, joining an org is your basic task as a marxist. It's a million times more important than reading books. A marxist outside an org is pretty much useless to the communist cause.
Reading books without being in an org to try to apply them to concrete problems you face is guaranteed to be useless.
Sure you could also waste your time reading Gordon Ramsey's cook books, or you could read books which actually suggest they might provide insight into the issue your cell is having. But yes, hypothetically, reading 100 books unrelated to organising and political work might produce some form of insight. But on the other hand, you could just read books written by socialists on specific topics if you don't want to waste your time. Especially when you don't even have a functioning cell.
Blah blah blah. What a load of crap. Knowledge that is not applied can not truly be learned or verified. It's not marxist if it is not tested and verified against reality.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
Reading without use is useless. Theory without practice is intellectual masturbstion, petit bourgoies pretendation. You can not know the world from books, they can only help you understand and guide you through the real experiences you and the people encounter. You roping 3 retarded non marxist idealist philosophers and several big sounding nonse words into the argument just proves that.
Anonymous 13-04-23 08:40:51 No. 13321
>>13319 >No, joining an org is your basic task as a marxist. Without any logic immanent to the situation (or any care for this here), this just makes joining an organization into a Kantian
sollen .
>A marxist outside an org is pretty much useless to the communist cause. Then there's currently no distinction in this respect between being inside or outside an organization for the vast majority of people on this site.
>Reading books without being in an org to try to apply them to concrete problems you face is guaranteed to be useless. I'm assuming you read books by socialists, but there's very little directly "practical content" in theoretical works. Taking up a fairly well-known essay like Lukacs's "Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat" as an example, there's little of "practical" import identifiable. For Adorno and Horkheimer's
Dialectic of Enlightenment , treating the book instrumentally would be missing the point.
You can look for practical content indirectly, but this would be true even of someone like Leibniz. Naturally, you could also reject all of that as nonsense, much like you did the Hegel excerpt, but this would be to demonstrate that the theory of practice you've adopted is fundamentally limited by self-imposed pragmatic constraints.
>But on the other hand, you could just read books written by socialists on specific topics if you don't want to waste your time. Some books written by socialists would be less clear or even inaccessible without having read Spinoza. Whether these books or Spinoza's are worth your time wouldn't be something you'd know before reading them.
>Blah blah blah. What a load of crap. It's bizarre how much anti-intellectualism there is among putative Marxists.
>The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. The two are crucially linked, though. If interpretations of the world are wholly useless, then why did Marx write theoretical works at all?
>Knowledge that is not applied can not truly be learned or verified. Knowledge's application doesn't require a specifically practical character to be learned or verified. It's possible to verify statements in geometry, for example, without applying such statements to any practical problems. If you're going to say "solving mathematical problems is practice" (or "an application") then sure, and we can equally say that thinking about what you've read is practice too, given that I'm working through the problems presented by the book for myself. You're free to make "application" into "practice" and "practice" into "application," then use these terms for mental work, but it's at the expense of losing all particular content for "practice."
>Theory without practice is intellectual masturbstion, petit bourgoies pretendation Then it would be bad if someone merely pretending to be a Marxist can understand the excerpt and its theoretical import on practice while you can only see nonsense, wouldn't it?
>You can not know the world from books So does
Capital not provide knowledge of the world?
>You roping 3 retarded non marxist idealist philosophers and several big sounding nonse words into the argument just proves that. Shouldn't you recognize these "big-sounding nonsense words"? Because I don't see "big words" in anything I wrote that don't often appear in Marxist theory. I used virtually no jargon, so I have no idea what you're talking about unless you're just attacking theory in general.
Anonymous 13-04-23 09:26:32 No. 13323
Posting here since its postmodernist shit, and I guess relevant?
Anonymous 13-04-23 10:59:14 No. 13325
>>13321 If you love reading so much read this instead
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm I know plenty of cunts like you in real life. All you do is talk big words from shit you just heard in philosophy class, because all you want is to sound smart, be the center of attention, yet your types never show up to do the actual work.
An unready activist is worth more than 1000 philosophy students.
Anonymous 13-04-23 14:45:10 No. 13328
>>13325 >I know plenty of cunts like you in real life. Oh, do you really?
>All you do is talk big words from shit you just heard in philosophy class I get this accusation all the time, and I almost always let the accuser "have the win," because I think they've lost regardless when they have to resort to this.
For the first and perhaps only time: no, I'm not a philosophy student. I didn't graduate with such a degree either. I didn't hear any part of what I said in any class I've taken. My educational background is in mathematics and computer science. My formal education in philosophy consists of a single introductory course I took while still in high school. Every job I've held has been technical and has not been in academia.
I read these books because I actually enjoy reading them. No outside force has compelled me. This thread makes reading theory and philosophy sound like drudgery, but I generally find the books stimulating. I like thinking through them, coming up with examples, connections, further questions and ramifications, etc.
>because all you want is to sound smart, be the center of attention I almost never talk about philosophy in real life because some people feel challenged, as if it's a personal affront to their intelligence, and react defensively and negatively. If someone else mentions a philosopher or philosophy, I'll try to talk about it, but this has to be done carefully to avoid explosive reactions like your own here. Even if I wanted to be the center of attention, it doesn't do me any good if people hate me. I'd just as soon let people think I know nothing except math and computers, that I have a naively positive outlook, that I have no faith in my own work, and so on.
>yet your types never show up to do the actual work. I did already imply I was not a member of any organization. If you mean the accusation more generally, though, this isn't true.
I hate dealing in "biography," both because it isn't demonstrable (I could be lying) and it has nothing to do with the argument but instead "who I am" (as if knowing that would undermine the reasoning). Even if your accusation had been correct, you'd still be wrong overall.
Anonymous 13-04-23 14:47:30 No. 13329
>>13315 Harvey is an academic
His guide is geared towards college/uni students who want to avoid Marx's communist politics
Anonymous 13-04-23 15:07:14 No. 13330
>>13328 To add: one reason I haven't bothered joining organizations is that, based on my own experience, I believe I'm going to get the same violent reaction to talking about theory. Abstractly, one might think "Marxists, of all people, wouldn't be opposed to talking about Marxist theory or philosophy," but to the contrary. If anything, the reaction is worse because people attach their ego to this sort of thing, even when they're attacking it (and you).
A few people are enthusiastic and familiar, or at least willing to talk about things like this, but this is just not common. I always try to convey and really do believe that anyone can make sense of so-called high theory and find the import of philosophy to Marxism for themselves, yet the reaction is still often derisive and resentful. Anti-intellectualism is not simply a right-wing phenomenon, and it's a psychological barrier to learning.
Anonymous 13-04-23 18:26:28 No. 13331
So I've seen one person say Althusser, two people say Perlman, one person say Engels. Can we reach a consensus?
>>13306 then dont post on the thread
Anonymous 13-04-23 19:08:20 No. 13337
>>13323 >whole lotta words and names and theories going on and on in a fucking unending circlejerk for over thirty minutes straight to come up with nothing in the end except more speculation and torment Jfc. This video is the embodiment of overthinking then overthinking the overthinking. Its like that wojak with the oversized brain weighing him down.
I think Mao said it best.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm Anonymous 13-04-23 19:37:33 No. 13340
>>13339 >>13339 Spinoza or Origin of Family reading groups would be cool
I won't sign up for Matrix so it might have to be a thread on this site or something
Anonymous 14-04-23 13:47:47 No. 13342
>>13340 it will be via the board yeah
Okay… so we have 1 for spinoza, 2 for engels, 1 for althusser, and 2 for perlman… can the engels people and the perlman people reach a compromise? we can do one and then the other, or we can maybe do both, alternating?
Anonymous 14-04-23 14:50:43 No. 13345
>>13342 I might participate if you do Spinoza. I actually read the
Ethics last year, but I felt like I missed a lot.
Anonymous 14-04-23 15:44:20 No. 13350
>>13343 >>13342 do a runoff
make the althusser and spinoza people pick a second choice between engels and perlman
Anonymous 14-04-23 17:21:36 No. 13351
>>13348 >>13345 >>13346 >>13347 >>13350 good point,
new plan:
everyone order their preferences of the following- also provide a 'yes' for "will participate if this happens", "maybe" for 'maybe will join if this happens' and "no" for 'wont join if this happens" im hoping you guys wont be childish about this and will join regardless!
- Spinoza's Ethics
- Engel's Origin of the Family
- Althusser's On Marx
I'm scatching Perlman bc the anarkiddie went kaczynski on us and people are morre interested in the others it seems For my interests
1. Spinoza, Yes
2. Althusser, Yes
3. Engels, Yes
Anonymous 14-04-23 23:09:39 No. 13359
>>13351 Sure
Yes oh boy is this one fun
Yes
Anonymous 15-04-23 09:16:20 No. 13365
>>13302 >Baruch Spinoza's 'Ethics' A modern materialist, but his isn't dialectical, and therefore ultimately wrong.
>Bookchin; Guattari Kill yourself. Seriously.
>Debord Overrated, irrelevant, designed to be inapplicable. You are wasting people's time.
To anybody reading this: don't waste your time with OP. Read
everything by Lenin and you'll become an invaluable and pragmatic communist in a year. Then move onto Engels, and finally, Marx's mature works.
This is the correct way of avoiding becoming a useless faggot with too much free time on his hand like OP.
Anonymous 15-04-23 09:32:17 No. 13366
>>13302 another reading group? /leftypol/ has more reading groups than visitors.
>Feel free to organise and maintain your own group here! Cool.
PEOPLE'S FICTION READING CLUB (PFRC)
Oh yes. Rest of you can continue reading oven repair manuals from a bygone era, this group is for people who want to read, think
and feel. Not for the faint of heart. All discussion will happen on the board, in a separate thread. If there is a need for instant communication, it'll probably be a temporary channel on EFnet.
I'm choosing the first book because I'm starting the reading club. In the discussion thread for the first book, we'll choose a second.
Arkady & Boris Strugatsky - Roadside Picnic I've never read the book, and I have never watched Stalker (or played the video game), so I have no idea what I am in for. All I know that book has been sitting on my shelf for too long. It is only about 180 pages, so it's short. I have attached the book in PDF and EPUB format.
In TWO WEEKS™, Saturday 29.04. I'll start a discussion thread on the book. Everyone interested in participating should have had read it by then. This reading group won't have daily/weekly meetings and check-ins, this isn't school. Don't read if you don't feel like it, nobody is going to make you feel guilty, you have to do that yourself.
This is the only post on the topic until 29.04.
Anonymous 15-04-23 10:10:20 No. 13372
>>13371 of course but his theory is still halal if a bit naive fine for a short beginer text on a topic
First chapter of Capital is also a great introduction as is the fragment on machines
Anonymous 15-04-23 13:14:10 No. 13374
>>13364 >So I'll ask now if there is anyone who thoroughly objects or won't come if it isn't one of the other choices? I likely wouldn't. I'd read Spinoza or possibly Althusser, though.
>>13365 >A modern materialist, but his isn't dialectical, and therefore ultimately wrong. Almost no one on this site is capable of thinking dialectically. Even with regards to materialism, it's more often naturalism and has little to do with Marx. Frankly, Spinozism would be an advance over the current state of things.
Anonymous 15-04-23 13:41:37 No. 13376
>>13375 *dissemination to
Plus I heard the first chapter of Grundriesse or Capital Vol IV summarised stuff too, at least enough to get moving.
Anonymous 15-04-23 14:15:20 No. 13377
>>13366 it's 145 pages, maybe 2 weeks isn't enough for everyone who wants to?
>>13374 ahhh… that's a shame. to be honest i also prefer spinoza, but next time, perhaps. i dont want ot commit to too much otherwise id do both
Anonymous 16-04-23 04:35:55 No. 13385
>>13382 I think there's way more anons organized than 1%
Plus some people can read it for entertainment if they want
Anonymous 16-04-23 04:39:43 No. 13386
>>13383 If you're not picking up on this, it's litterally petit bourgoies salon philosophy, learning for the sake of having shit to do and impressing other petit bourgoies idiots.
People who read fucktons of books and are useful to orgs like I know are people who delve into historical accounts of previous parties, who do this and come out with conclusions and plans of actions which we can try and apply directly in our modern orgs, or who can pinpoint possible causes of mistakes or previous movements and warm us against them.
It's never people who read kant or Spinoza or anything else. Dont pretend it's anything more than just a hobby. It's no different than learning Minecraft trivia or names of train types.
Anonymous 16-04-23 16:34:06 No. 13393
>>13386 >If you're not picking up on this, it's litterally petit bourgoies salon philosophy, learning for the sake of having shit to do and impressing other petit bourgoies idiots. From experience, it impresses virtually no one. The people who don't know of it have no idea what you're talking about, and the people who do know of it largely haven't read it and will become defensive if you try to talk about it.
People who pride themselves on being "smart" or "knowledgeable" in some way dislike being challenged on this terrain. These are typically the "college educated, petit bourgeois" types you think "philosophy" will impress, and they believe knowing about that sort of thing "ought to impress" others as well, much like you do. And if you want a good example of what actually happens, take a look at your own comments.
If you're wanting to impress people, you'd do better by going to the gym before reading anything. Even joining a socialist party would be a better way of impressing people.
Anonymous 17-04-23 14:17:39 No. 13409
>>13404 I was saying at
>>13393 that reading philosophy impresses no one normally, so the explanation doesn't make sense. I wasn't saying it's bad, but you do have to read philosophy for yourself.
Anonymous 17-04-23 15:50:19 No. 13411
on that note
>>13396 >>13390 >>13379 are also equally 'in le sin' because anyone who loves wisdom would be happy to engage on the point, rather than shaming anti-intellectuals, which in my opinion really plays into valid point they DO have which is that people turn philosophy into a meaningless hobby of 'author collection' and only has the effect of Oedipal repression.
Affirm this life
Anonymous 20-04-23 19:01:45 No. 13416
>>13415 how am I supposed to put it in the op you cant edit this stuff.
It's engels' origin of the family (prehistoric society)
Anonymous 20-04-23 19:26:41 No. 13418
>>13417 We should each pick a flag, name or trip for this thread.
Ideally another thread should be created with the book in the OP.
Anonymous 20-04-23 20:34:13 No. 13420
>>13416 oh i missed this, derp.
no. I did start to re-read against his-story though.
Anonymous 21-04-23 00:13:50 No. 13421
>>13414 If it's that bad, I'll join. I wanted Spinoza, or anything else, but I'm not even that opposed to "The Origin of the Family"; I just wanted to read more books on related topics before approaching it.
Some place to meet off this website should probably be chosen. While I'd prefer that it stay on imageboards in the abstract, it's difficult to organize a book discussion here due to the format, and even more people than usual are going to shirk reading when it's all completely anonymous. Flags would work to mitigate this to an extent, if you're determined not to have the discussion elsewhere.
I also agree with
>>13418 that a new thread should be made for the reading group, with a link to where it'll be discussed (if elsewhere) and, ideally, a schedule.
Anonymous 21-04-23 10:20:29 No. 13422
>>13421 I think we can make it happen I'll be doing the reading each friday after I get off work ready for saturday an offsite thing might be a good adjunct but I won't be participating there only here
If you need a ramp on →
>>13378 is good
>>13416 >how am I supposed to put it in the op you cant edit this stuff. No but the vols can I've asked on
>>>/meta/ @ → >>/meta/26563
Anonymous 22-04-23 17:29:50 No. 13427
>>13425 Well in the meantime let's continue here
To sum the chapter the shift from barbarism to civilization is marked by writing?
Anonymous 23-04-23 15:02:42 No. 13429
>>13417 im gonna force ppl to participate here whether they like it or not
>>13428 READ WITH US READ WITH US
>>13426 READ WIUTH US
>>13427 it was interesting to me some of the developments of like how fishing and pottery play into human development. I didnt realise that yeah humans probably did start by moving across the coasts and fishing
Anonymous 24-04-23 11:15:37 No. 13431
ok. i gave u bitches enuf time to read and discuss. next chapter!!!
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/origin_family.pdf We are on chapter II, the family
Unique IPs: 62