Thanks. I’m passingly familiar with Lenin and the New Economic Policy but I’d like to better understand the key differences to Marx’s Communist theory that it had/s. Also, without wanting to be controversial, a good piece about China. Is it Marxist / Communist or not - or is it more complicated than that?
Lenin isn’t a divergence from Marxism, Lenin is an application of Marxism to the era of Imperialism, with more clear analysis of Monopolist syndicates based on empirical evidence. The NEP isn’t a divergence from Marxism. Critically, Marxists believe that Capitalism gives way to Socialism because markets coalesce into Monopolist Syndicates over time, prepping themselves for central planning and public ownership. Russia was underdeveloped, it did not have these monopolist syndicates, the NEP allowed markets under State control to exist and naturally form these syndicates. Arguably, Stalin ended the NEP too early, which is an entirely different nuanced argument.
The PRC is Marxist-Leninist, or more accurately Socialist with Chinese Characteristics. The PRC “traps” its private sector in a birdcage model and, following the previous statements, increases ownership as monopolist syndicates form. Half the economy is publicly owned and centrally planned, with a tenth in the cooperative sector.
Here’s a little “intro to Marxism-Leninism” list I threw together, modified a bit. It’s critically missing Queer Theory, Feminist Theory, and National Liberation theory, so any additions on that matter would be excellent. I am working through intersectional theory right now, which is why it is missing from this present list, the goal is to be as straight to the point as possible.
By far my favorite primer on Dialectical and Historical Materialism. By understanding DiaMat first, you make it easier to understand the rest of Marxism.
Further reading on DiaMat, but crucially introduces the why of Scientific Socialism, essentially explaining how Capitalism itself preps the conditions for public ownership and planning by centralizing itself into monopolist syndicates.
Excellent refutation of revisionists and Social Democrats who think the State can be reformed, and not replaced. Also a good call to action to cap off the intro.
After reading all of this, whoever has completed these works should have a good grasp of the basics of Marxism-Leninism and be equipped to do their own Marxist-Leninist analysis, though tons of excellent and fairly critical works were dropped for the sake of limiting the scope to an intro reading list.
That’s incredible - thanks. The idea of the ultimate endgame of capitalistic monopolies looking suspiciously like communism always confused me as it seemed they were just doing the communist legwork before the state intervenes. I’ll probably have a go at section 2, Engels / DiaMat, fairly soon.
Critically, Revolution is required to achieve Socialism, the Means of Production, once developed, need to be siezed by the Proletariat, and the only way is through struggle. Marx puts it especially well in Manifesto of the Communist Party:
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
I do recommend starting with Politzer, philosophy may seem boring but in AES states they teach Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, because it makes understanding the rest of Marxism far easier. Politzer is clear and extremely easy to understand, and his work is immensely practical, though I won’t decry Engels’ work on Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, it’s in my list for good reason. It’s essential.
Thanks. I’m passingly familiar with Lenin and the New Economic Policy but I’d like to better understand the key differences to Marx’s Communist theory that it had/s. Also, without wanting to be controversial, a good piece about China. Is it Marxist / Communist or not - or is it more complicated than that?
Excellent questions.
Lenin isn’t a divergence from Marxism, Lenin is an application of Marxism to the era of Imperialism, with more clear analysis of Monopolist syndicates based on empirical evidence. The NEP isn’t a divergence from Marxism. Critically, Marxists believe that Capitalism gives way to Socialism because markets coalesce into Monopolist Syndicates over time, prepping themselves for central planning and public ownership. Russia was underdeveloped, it did not have these monopolist syndicates, the NEP allowed markets under State control to exist and naturally form these syndicates. Arguably, Stalin ended the NEP too early, which is an entirely different nuanced argument.
Why Public Property? as well as Productive Forces are two excellent essays on the subject of Scientific Socialism.
The PRC is Marxist-Leninist, or more accurately Socialist with Chinese Characteristics. The PRC “traps” its private sector in a birdcage model and, following the previous statements, increases ownership as monopolist syndicates form. Half the economy is publicly owned and centrally planned, with a tenth in the cooperative sector.
Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism is another fantastic essay on the subject.
Here’s a little “intro to Marxism-Leninism” list I threw together, modified a bit. It’s critically missing Queer Theory, Feminist Theory, and National Liberation theory, so any additions on that matter would be excellent. I am working through intersectional theory right now, which is why it is missing from this present list, the goal is to be as straight to the point as possible.
A good intro for someone with no familiarity is Engels’ Principles of Communism and if you are anti-AES but willing to read I recommend Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds.
From there, it becomes more important to understand that Marxism-Leninism is broken into 3 major components:
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Critique of Capitalism along the lines of Marx’s Law of Value
Advocacy for Revolutionary Socialism
And as such, I recommend, in order:
By far my favorite primer on Dialectical and Historical Materialism. By understanding DiaMat first, you make it easier to understand the rest of Marxism.
Further reading on DiaMat, but crucially introduces the why of Scientific Socialism, essentially explaining how Capitalism itself preps the conditions for public ownership and planning by centralizing itself into monopolist syndicates.
Best taken as a pair, these essays simplify the most important parts of the Law of Value.
Absolutely crucial and the most important work for understanding the modern era and its primary contradictions.
Excellent refutation of revisionists and Social Democrats who think the State can be reformed, and not replaced. Also a good call to action to cap off the intro.
After reading all of this, whoever has completed these works should have a good grasp of the basics of Marxism-Leninism and be equipped to do their own Marxist-Leninist analysis, though tons of excellent and fairly critical works were dropped for the sake of limiting the scope to an intro reading list.
That’s incredible - thanks. The idea of the ultimate endgame of capitalistic monopolies looking suspiciously like communism always confused me as it seemed they were just doing the communist legwork before the state intervenes. I’ll probably have a go at section 2, Engels / DiaMat, fairly soon.
Critically, Revolution is required to achieve Socialism, the Means of Production, once developed, need to be siezed by the Proletariat, and the only way is through struggle. Marx puts it especially well in Manifesto of the Communist Party:
I do recommend starting with Politzer, philosophy may seem boring but in AES states they teach Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, because it makes understanding the rest of Marxism far easier. Politzer is clear and extremely easy to understand, and his work is immensely practical, though I won’t decry Engels’ work on Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, it’s in my list for good reason. It’s essential.
Let me know if you have any questions!
Wow. What a resource. Thanks for putting this together in such a sharable format!
Thanks! I take theory seriously, and if you check my history all I have been doing is trying to lead people to Marxism, haha.
I want to point out that I just modified it, adding The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto.