/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Try /edu/. But the books I see talked about a lot for economy are:
>capital vol 1
>capital vol 2
>capital vol 3
>theory of surplus value
>towards a new socialism
>people's republic of walmart

>>1596089
I literally said no Marx.

>>1596091
To bad faggot. Read the fucking books and then I’ll consider you to be a true commie

Bertell Ollmen for dialectics and alienation

Dialectics:
Dance of the Dialectic - Bertell Ollmen

Psychology:
Alienation - Bertell Ollmen

Historical Materialism:
How the World Works - Paul Cockshott

Economics
Marxist Economic Theory - Ernest Mandel


>Six books
Oh wait it's a troll …

>>1596098
Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for.

>>1596098
Six is a good number if you’re making a “curriculum”.

>>1596082
Economics: Anwar Shaikh's capitalism book (and accompanying YouTube lectures), Kicking away the ladder. If you want to get more balls deep into Marxian economics I can't help you there but definitely look into people like Safra, Keynes, Kalecki.
History: Losurdo's Liberalism, Parenti's Blackshirts & Reds, Prashad's Washington Bullets, Bevin's Jakarta Method, Blum's Killing Hope, Galeano's Venas Abiertas.
Psychology: the only one I can think of is this Fromm and critical theorists. You can check this out: https://www.marxists.org/subject/psychology/marxists.htm
Books on "philosophy" from a Marxist perspective is a loaded question or the wrong question, but I'll interpret it how I think you meant it: I know you said no Marx or Engels but German Ideology is a must! Thesis of Feuerbach too, super short. Hegel's Science of Logic, Phenomenology, and History. You can also read Politzer's book on the topic. I have issues with it but whatever. Secondary literature on Hegel I haven't found anything I recommend. I can anti-recommend some though lol. I know he's a scary figure but Stalin has some good stuff. Again, Engel's Anti-Dühring is a must.

What type of books are you interested in?

>>1596101
Thanks

>>1596104
I see the other post now. These books are not for beginners. I do not recommend going this route.

>>1596082
>six books on history from a Marxist perspective?
Hobsbawm's four-volume history of the modern world. "War and Revolution" by Losurdo. And then a sixth one about your particular country… if in the U.S., something by Philip Foner (although I think his 11-volume history of the labor movement exceeds the limit here).

>>1596109
Losurdo is so good.

>>1596082
People aren't paying attention to OP.
>So, what would you recommend if I were to ask you for six books on philosophy from a Marxist perspective, six books on economics from a Marxist perspective, six books on psychology from a Marxist perspective, and six books on history from a Marxist perspective?

thats too many books.

another good one:
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES of PHILOSOPHY by Georges Politzer

Marxist legal theory:
The General Theory of Law and Marxism by Evgeny Pashukanis

Materialism:
The Materialist Conception of History by Plekanov

Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution by Hal Draper (Draper was a trot, but still pretty good)

Cornforth is acknowledged to be a pretty good philosopher with regards to classical dialectical materialism.

Maurice Cornforth:
Readers' Guide to the Marxist Classics
- Vol. 1: Dialectical Materialism Materialism & the Dialectical Method
- Vol. 2: Dialectical Materialism Historical Materialism
- Vol 3: Dialectical Materialism Theory of Knowledge

Economics:

How hardcore do you want to be? You probably need a linear algebra background before you can get into hardcore marxist economics beyond the basic level.

>>1596115
Another resource is autonomist-marxist Harry cleaver's "Study Guide to Capital (volume 1)". This is by far the best guide on actually understanding volume 1 I've come across, much better than David Harvey.

https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/357k/357ksg.html

>>1596101
>You can also read Politzer's book on the topic.
I meant this one: >>1596115
>ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES of PHILOSOPHY by Georges Politzer
It's good/ok. Our org uses chapters of it for study.
>>1596117
> This is by far the best guide on actually understanding volume 1 I've come across, much better than David Harvey.
I 100% agree.

>>1596082
>Hard mode: NO Marx and Engels, Lenin, or any of the “classics” but more secondary sources by scholars in the Marxist tradition.
imagine almost graduating from college and thinking this is a good thing to ask for

Philosophy:

- Dialectical Logic by Ilyenkov
- On the Reproduction of Capital by Althusser

Economics:

- Divided World Divided Class by Zak Cope

Psychology:

- Wretched of the Earth by Fanon (is this psychology or philosophy? IDK)

History:

- Ten Days That Shook the World

>>1596089
>>1596093
>implying anyone on this board or most communists have read the 10,000 pages of Theory of Surplus Value.
Stop LARPing. Only academics have time for this shit, as interesting as it might be.

>>1596101
Did Sraffa debunk Marx?

>>1596190
Surprised you didn’t include Settlers for history.

>>1596098
Ollmen sucks. Read Marx’s Scientific Dialectics instead.

History:

>Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism, Perry Anderson
>Peasant-Citizen and Slave, Ellen Meiksins Wood
>Africa's World War, Gerard Prunier
>Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis

just great ones off the top of my head

"A History of Psychology" by Mikhail Yaroshevsky and I second the rec for "How the World Works".

>>1596645
Not really, no. More like builds on Marx and maybe disagrees on minor points, as far as I understood from someone who read Saffra.
>>1596794
By whom? Why does the other one suck?

>>1596101
>Losurdo's Liberalism
Based.

Are there any other critiques of liberalism from a leftist perspective that aren't just "hurr durr liberalism doesn't prioritize MY identity group"?

>>1596082
>College senior here
It's too late.
You embarked on bourgeois academia.
Your mind has already been riddled with liberal brain worms and this is your future

>>1602111
Bourgeois academia is toxic because Marxism has been replaced entirely by postmodernism. All the people teaching "Marxism" are either psychoanalysts or cultural theorists. You rarely ever see genuine Marxism taught in a philosophy or economics course anymore.

Academia won't make you a "better activist" because unlike traditional Marxism, PoMo has zero solutions within it and its entire crux is specifically to not provide solutions. You're supposed to become skeptical of the entire notion of revolution to begin with, and the only "solution" thereby becomes "treating social outsiders better in your day-to-day life", which is useless.

>>1602416
>taught in a philosophy or economics course anymore.
>anymore
uygha when was real marxism actually taught in western universities, ESPECIALLY burgerland? Never, thats when

>>1596794
Marx’s Scientific Dialectics by Paul B. Paolucci?

I've been bad with reading, (doesn't help I'm a cs graduate looking for a work), so here's some I can think of:

Philosophy
>Elementary Principles of Philosophy - Georges Politzer
>The Fascist Offensive Unity of the Working Class – George Dimitrov
<It's flawed though, so read critically, maybe research the guy before reading the book.
>Quotations from Chairman Mao – Mao Tse-tung
>Their Morals and Ours – Trotsky L., Dewey J., Novack G., Serge V.
<You could probably skip this. Helped me get over objective morality.
>The Approaching Obsolescence of Housework: A Working-Class Perspective – Angela Davis
<Only read this because I wanted to read some works of her before going to a musem exhibit of her.
<It was the only thing on her on ima. Probably because of copywrite laws or somthn.
>Reform or Revolution – Luxemburg
>Pedagogy of the Oppressed – Freire, Paulo
<Didn't finish since of being busy, but was still great.

Economics
>No comment, can't remember.
>Barely read economics since I haven't read volume 2 and 3 of capital.

Psychology
<No comment.
<Abit confused on how important it is to study so you can become a great communist.

History
>Anti-Dimitrov 1935-1985 - Half a century of revolutionary defeats - Francisco Martins Rodrigues
<(only read the first two chapters since the rest of the book/series of articles were written in Portuguese).

There were some books I've read that I couldn't include since the authors weren't marxists ("Ego and it's own" for one), or were terrible (Louis Althussers 6 essays collection).
Nor am I recommending books I haven't touched. Other wise it's easy an grabbing marxistsBooksAboutXcollection.png , and posting books found within that.

>>1596093
Lol, imagine being mean and hostile over a little challenge.

>>1602465
Psychology is highly reactionary because it focuses entirely on the self.

>>1602571
>mutualist flag
>is a complete and utter moron
checks out

READ UYGHA READ !
https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/index.htm

https://www.marxists.org/subject/psychology/index.htm

>>1602967
To be fair, Fromm was a shit Marxist.

>>1596082
anon just read what you're interested in
not all disciplines have good stuff from a marxist perspective either, psychology is a good example of this, lots of "marxist" psychologists are bourgeois socialists and their "theories" are highly unscientific

I would start with philosophy since it includes epistemology, which will be necessary when dealing with every single other discipline. Marxism encompasses a revolution in epistemology so I'd read Ilyenkov's works (Dialectical Logic is good for a history of philosophy included, from a Marxist pov, and Intelligent Materialism is good for explaining diamat) and then (sorry for not playing along) Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. International Marxist Tendency, while sucking on organizational tasks, they have a good grasp of marxist philosophy it seems like, and they have some books and articles that are good.

On history, I'd look for critical histories, "people's history"s, histories of social movements and civil rights movements, revolutions, and so on. This way you get to the underbelly of what really was going on - at the very least you'll have something to complement the pop history you'll pick up from school and elsewhere.

For economics and history at the same time, Radhika Desai has a good book Geopolitical Economics (sadly it's only about the USA), but it's an economic history from a marxist pov. That's another thing that I'd look for in your shoes, is economic histories, histories of wars, etc. It's a higher level overview that gives an idea of what in general was happening, when, and where, and that will help you understand the social movements happening in those times and places (it will also help you to counter the impact of cherrypicking used to further a liberal, pro-imperialist narrative, because you can realize what you're not being told and not buy the narrative they're drawing, while taking the facts presented).

For a history of US imperialism, William Blum has good books. If you havent been exposed to this kind of history much, you'll find a lot of good stuff from progressive academics when it comes to colonization and neo-colonialism, it's a hot topic and you can't really go wrong, you don't need a marxist specifically, just so long as the account is highly concrete (or else its a waste of time).

Overall I look for books jam packed with as much well-cited knowledge as possible.

For economics there's also a benefit of having economic histories under your belt, because you can sift through ahistoric bullshit - so much economics is wishful thinking plus mathematics. Learn about the main schools of economics and their claims, and I'd start with diving into the constitutive arguments. BTW for marxism, you'll still want to read Marx. Read Capital.

Any books on psychology from a Marxist perspective that aren't "muh alienation"?

Book knowledge without exprience will get you nowhere, you will be good "marxist" in the same sense you are good philosopher.

>>1604722
Marxism forces you to be a scholar.

Xi and the CPC will issue some new policy, it will get out to all the Marxist parties in the world. Little normie ML has to interpret that policy within the past 180 years of Marxist dogma. How do you accurately interpret which policies of the CPC or any socialist state are in-line with Marxism-Leninism vs. which ones are revisionism/right-deviationism?

"Waa waa waa you anarchists have no concrete theory you can't agree on anything" – yet Marxism doesn't get away from the same problems it chastises anarchists for allegedly having. I can go to a standard ML party, a Trotskyist party, or a Maoist party and they're all going to be entirely different despite all claiming to be the "true Marxists". Who's praxis is correct?

>>1604739
>Who's praxis is correct?
The one that’s proven to work. Pragmatism fixes exactly what you’re complaining about.

>>1596398
not true. I go to the gym 3 times a week, and that's when I listen to theories as audiobook (also cooking, doing laundry, feeding my infant). then I go back and skim read parts I had trouble understanding, or look for graphs/images that couldn't be represented in audio. there are ways to make time.

>>1606173
Marxism is anti-pragmaticism and "what works" is a vague and shitty standard for distinguishing between the revolutionary line and the revisionist line (since revisionism always claims itself to be practical and the only way forward).

>>1604739
PRC is not socialist. Hope that helps with the conundrum.

>>1606541
So why are XI and the CPC toted as the "pope" of Marxism then?

>>1606539
Correct, but that still doesn't solve the problem. Who determines what's revisionist and what isn't?

>>1602967
Frankfurt School weren't Marxists, dipshit.

>>1596190
Does anyone still defend Althusser?

what does /leftypol/ think of Michäel Löwy?

>>1606579
His books on Judaism? Ecology? LatAm politics?

>>1596398
The three volumes don't add up to 10,000, wtf. Don't berate others for reading something ""impossible"" when you so obviously haven't even looked at it for 20 seconds.

If you’re wealthy enough to go to college for some frivolous degree then you have no busines Ms calling yourself a Marxist

>>1607878
That's an anarchist attitude you have there

>>1607780
>>1607780
>what is an hyperbole?
Sorry, Theories of Surplus Value is only 1,605 pages long. If you add the three volumes of Capital, it's just a meager sum of 4,500 pages. I'm sure most self-described communists here have read all of this, and paid special attention to the nitty-gritty of Marx's anaylsis of Adam Smith, Malthus, David Hume, Ricardo and the physiocrats' theories of political economy, otherwise they can be safely dismissed as fake communists.

>>1607878
Anti-intellectual "Marxists" never cease to amaze me. You do realize Marx was an academic right? Instead of studying law to have a "useful job", he got a frivolous PhD in philosophy.

>>1607937
>back when actual subjects were taught
Ah yes, actual subjects like phrenology, and classics courses about how the Roman Empire was the perfect civilization (slavery is part of the natural order anyway). Ruling class indoctrination was always a part of higher education.

>>1607937
The indoctrination back then was of a monarchist nature, and students like Marx who thought liberalism or socialism would be a progress over monarchism were spied upon by Prussian moles and agents.

Also OP hasn't indicated if they are in "gender studies" or anything whatsoever, you are just parrotting FOX News shit like a /pol/tard, fuck off.

>>1607916
You're acting as if you're not gaining immense value from those pages.
Its 1500+ pages ANALYZING THE ENTIRETY OF PRECEDING ECONOMIC THOUGHT ON THE NATURE OF SURPLUS VALUE AND THEIR CLASS ORIGINS, with complete with elements of Marx's own economic and philosophical worldview.
Do you expect such a massive undertaking to be less than 200 pages? Do you think that dogshit like Debord is more "worth reading" just because its thinner? I'd rather read one longer book by Marx rather than 30 shorter books by most other authors.

How does knowing human psychology enhance Marxism?

>>1606561
Bruh.
>>1596117
>>1596115
I'd love to collate this into a nice chart divided by topic and sorted by length*difficulty.