What's one book every Marxist should read and understand? My answer is the German Ideology.
Basically, most of the people you interact with that are leftist in some sense are also complete blockheads the clocks says the time is to talk about ideology. It is actually really funny, honestly. You get such fantastical, magical thinking. Oh we if just follow this set of instructions and believe it really hard, it will come to fruition! Oh if we just want something to be true and declare it to be so everywhere then it is true. Oh let us play some word games who cares about understanding the material relations of production. Once we have the perfect set of words in perfect order, and once we tell everyone, we will have communism, there is no doubt in my mind.
Yeah, none of the 2nd internationale read this book. Not even Lenin. Stalin was the first man to read this book (and lead a movement) after Marx and Engels and it shows, historically speaking.
The Ego and His Own
So thinking about things accomplishes nothing, yet reading books does?
Capital
>>2886555That's three books mate that's cheating
>>2886557At least vol 1 then
>read the German Ideology
>is still ML
>>2886558Marx nowhere gives "instructions" on anything.
Marx was a critic. A shitposter.
>>2886562Stalin diluted the essence of the dense hegalian philosophy Marx and Engels operate with in German Ideology in the chapter on dialectical and historical materialism in the History of all the all-union party (bolsheviks) and did it such a way millions of people across Asia and Africa understood it and advanced socialist construction in general, everywhere.
>>2886566I'm sorry to hear about your autism diagnosis but while marx doesn't give explicit "instructions" his works are instructive on the nature and use of his dialectical method. Glad to be of service!
It is maddening to try to explain to a western leftist that Marxism isn't just about playing the correct word game but is about actual construction and creation. In the GR ideology Marx and Engels expel the ghosts of idealism from thinking
and from praxis. Stalin is literally the first man to undertake systemic socialist construction precisely because he wasn't playing word games; his head was not spooked; he didn't give a shit about the semantics and semiotics, but went ahead and destroyed the labor market and ushered in prosperity not seen before or since. The western ultra cannot grasp actually changing the relations of production, he can only describe them. Just like a castrated English aristocrat in the XIX century discovering empiricism.
>>2886566>marx was le shitposterThe man founded the Internationale what the fuck are you talking about?
>>2886573So again, thinking is elevated to the highest importance.
>>2886574>Marx founded the InternationalNo he didn't. It was founded by labour movements.
>>2886579>So again, thinking is elevated to the highest importance.Nonsensical non sequitur enjoy your L
>>2886582Why is reading Marx important? Tell me.
As OP says, Lenin never read the German Ideology.
Does that mean those who read the book are more or less effective?
Why people treat Marx as almost religious figure? People treat his books almost like a bible, it's ridiculous.
>>2886585Drafting a document =\= setting up a meeting or organization
>>2886587look you're doing exactly what I am talking about here
>>2886574>It is maddening to try to explain to a western leftist that Marxism isn't just about playing the correct word game but is about actual construction and creation. >>2886587Are you maybe an anarchist? This is the kind of "counterargument" drecky quip only an anarchoid can come up with.
>>2886586They don't. People don't treat his books like religious texts
>>2886587>a documentFOUNDATIONAL document. KYS. Satanist.
>>2886585>>2886595>Reflecting its spontaneous origins, the French workers' leader Benoît Malon stated: "In the same way that it has no masters, the International has no founders; it came into existence… out of the social necessities of our epoch and out of the growing sufferings of the working class." […] Initial contacts between British and French workers' leaders, established during the 1862 London International Exhibition, led to a meeting in London in July 1863 that set the stage for a new international organization. […] On 28 September 1864, a great international meeting was held in St Martin's Hall in London, attended by some 2,000 workers. The event was primarily a joint affair of British and French labor leaders, including Odger and Tolain.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_International<After the speeches, the meeting unanimously adopted a resolution to found an international organisation of the workers. The centre was to be in London. A committee of twenty-one members was elected, and was instructed to draft rules and constitution. Most of the British members of the committee were noted trade-union leaders like Odger, Howell, Osborne, and Lucraft; and among them were sometime Owenites and Chartists. The French members were Denoual, Le Lubez, and Bosquet. Italy was represented by Fontana. Other members were: L. Wolff (Mazzini’s secretary), Eccarius, and occupying a modest position at the foot of the list, “Dr. Marx,” the soul and the future chief of the International.https://www.marxists.org/archive/steklov/history-first-international/ch03.htm the grapes of wrath. it's very on the nose and likely plagiarized, but it does a good job of explaining the irrationality and unsustainability of industrial capitalism in very pragmatic everyday language that is relatable to regular working class people who are not academics and tend to have very pragmatic thinking that deals with immediate real-world concerns rather than abstract scientific theories that can be very elegant but don't really resonate with the common man who is actually out in the field digging the ditch and trying to survive.
>>2886594They do, people treat Marx's work as some holy gospel about anything, I do appreciate Marx for his insight, but I'm know that he's flawed and has problems too, if you ask any modern economist, just under 5% considered Marx's work, the majority doesn't even care for Marx anymore.
>>2886594you just have to look on this site
>>2886609>the majority doesn't even care for Marx anymore.yeah I wonder why bourgeois economists don't care for Marx, it's a real fucking mystery
>>2886609No they don't, they don't treat his works as gospel. Him being flawed is irrelevant, his work and what it can accomplish is what is important. If you ask any modern liberal economist they don't care for marx sure, that doesn't mean anything. They are mostly retarded
>>2886612I don't really see any examples of people treating Marx like a religious figure or his work as a religious text, outside of a few jokes here and there and some ultras
>>2886548>What's one book every Marxist should read and understand? The Very Hungry Caterpillar
Unique IPs: 11