“Without Revolutionary theory, there can be no Revolutionary Movement.”

­— Vladimir Lenin, What is to be Done? | Audiobook

It’s time to read theory, comrades! As Lenin says, “Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle.” Marxism-Leninism is broken into 3 major components, as noted by Lenin in his pamphlet The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism: | Audiobook

  1. Dialectical and Historical Materialism

  2. Critique of Capitalism along the lines of Marx’s Law of Value

  3. Advocacy for Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism

As such, I created the following list to take you from no knowledge whatsoever of Leftist theory, and leave you with a strong understanding of the critical fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism in an order that builds up as you read. Let’s get started!

Section I: Getting Started

What the heck is Communism, anyways? For that matter, what is fascism?

  1. Friedrich Engels’ Principles of Communism | Audiobook

The FAQ of Communism, written by the Luigi of the Marx & Engels duo. Quick to read, and easy to reference, this is the perfect start to your journey.

  1. Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds | Audiobook

Parenti’s characteristic wit is on full display in this historical contextualization and analysis of fascism and Communism. Line after line, Parenti debunks anti-Communist myths. This is also an excellent time to watch the famous “Yellow Parenti” speech.

Section II: Historical and Dialectical Materialism

Ugh, philosophy? Really? YES!

  1. Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy | Audiobook

By understanding Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, you make it easier to understand the rest of Marxism-Leninism. Don’t be intimidated!

  1. Friedrich Engels’ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific | Audiobook

Engels introduces Scientific Socialism, explaining how Capitalism itself prepares the conditions for public ownership and planning by centralizing itself into monopolist syndicates and cartels.

Section III: Political Economy

That’s right, it’s time for the Law of Value and a deep-dive into Imperialism. If we are to defeat Capitalism, we must learn it’s mechanisms, tendencies, contradictions, and laws.

  1. Karl Marx’s Wage Labor and Capital | Audiobook & Wages, Price and Profit | Audiobook

Best taken as a pair, these essays simplify the most important parts of the Law of Value.

  1. Vladimir Lenin’s Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism | Audiobook

The era of Imperialism, which as the primary contradiction cascades downward into all manner of related secondary contradictions.

Section IV: Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism

Can we defeat Capitalism at the ballot box? What about just defeating fascism? What about the role of the state?

  1. Rosa Luxemburg’s Reform or Revolution | Audiobook

If Marxists believed reforming Capitalist society was possible, we would be the first in line for it. Sadly, it isn’t.

  1. Vladimir Lenin’s The State and Revolution | Audiobook

Further analyzes the necessity of Revolution and introduces the economic basis for the withering away of the State.

Section V: National Liberation, De-colonialism, and Solidarity

The revolution will not be fought by individuals, but by an intersectional, international working class movement. Solidarity allows different marginalized groups to work together in collective interest, unifying into a single broad movement. Marxists support the Right of Self-Determination for all peoples and support National Liberation movements against Imperialism.

  1. Vikky Storm & Eme Flores’ The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto | (No Audiobook yet)

Breaks down misogyny, and queerphobia, as well as how to move beyond the base subject of “gender” from a Historical Materialist perspective.

  1. Leslie Feinberg’s Lavender & Red | Audiobook

When different social groups fight for liberation together along intersectional lines, they are emboldened and empowered ever-further.

  1. Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth | Audiobook & Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed | Audiobook

De-colonialism is essential to Marxism. Without having a strong, de-colonial, internationalist stance, we have no path to victory nor justice. These books are best taken as a pair, read in quick succession.

Section VI: Putting it into Practice!

It’s not enough to endlessly read, you must put theory to practice. That is how you can improve yourself and the movements you support. Touch grass!

  1. Mao Tse-Tung’s On Practice & On Contradiction | Audiobook

Mao wrote simply and directly to peasant soldiers during the Revolutionary War in China. This pair of essays equip the reader to apply the analytical tools of Dialectical Materialism to their every day practice.

  1. Vladimir Lenin’s “Left-Wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder | Audiobook

Common among new leftists is dogmatism over pragmatism. Everyone wants perfection, but dogmatic “left” anti-Communists let perfection become the enemy of progress.

  1. Jones Manoel’s Western Marxism Loves Purity and Martyrdom, But Not Real Revolution | (No Audiobook yet)

Common among western leftists is fetishization of Marxism, rather than using it as a tool for analysis and social change. This article helps rectify that.

  1. Liu Shaoqi’s How to be a Good Communist | Audiobook

Organizing is a skill. If we are to be successful, we must work to better ourselves.

Congratulations, you completed your introductory reading course!

With your new understanding and knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, here is a mini What is to be Done? of your own to follow, and take with you as practical advice.

  1. Get organized. The Party for Socialism and Liberation, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, and Red Star Caucus all organize year round, every year, because the battle for progress is a constant struggle. See if there is a chapter near you, or start one!

  2. Read theory. Don’t think that you are done now! Just because you have the basics, doesn’t mean you know more than you do. If you have not investigated a subject, don’t speak on it!

  3. Aggressively combat white supremacy, misogyny, queerphobia, and other attacks on marginalized communities. Cede no ground, let nobody go forgotten.

  4. Be industrious, and self-sufficient. Take up gardening, home repair, tinkering. It is through practice that you elevate your knowledge.

  5. Learn self-defense. Get armed, if practical. Be ready to protect yourself and others.

  6. Be persistent. If you feel like a single water droplet against a mountain, think of canyons and valleys. With consistency, every rock, boulder, mountain, can be drilled through with nothing but water droplets.

“Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.”

­— Mao Tse-Tung

Credits

  • Cowbee [he/they]OP
    4•1 month ago

    Chomsky is a bit of an interesting conundrum. On the one hand, the conclusions and processes laid out in his analysis of Capitalism, especially with respect to the media and how it operates to prep the public for dramatic action and shift narratives is incredibly valuable. However, his analysis of Socialism is unfortunately incredibly anti-Marxist, and this extends to perpetual misanalysis of Socialism as it exists in the real world, often using “State Capitalism” to refer to Socialist States. As a consequence, including his works can backfire if not read with a strong understanding of Socialism beforehand to separate the golden nuggets from the nonsense, so to speak.

    To that end, I actually think Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds does a decent job of pointing out the role the media plays in Capitalist states, and absolutely nails modern Capitalist Imperialism, all while being realistic about AES due to his Marxist leanings. Here’s one of his most famous quotes:

    During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.

    If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

    -Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds

    I appreciate your input, though! What do you think about the list overall?

    • @Keeponstalin
      2•1 month ago

      I think Chomsky’s view is similar to Richard Wolff’s when it comes to concepts like State Capitalism. From what I’ve gathered, it relates to the relationship between the owners and workers. In state capitalism, there is still an authoritarian relationship between the owners or board of directors and the workers. The main difference is that the business is owned by the State, I’ve heard Wolff also call this Authoritarian Socialism. I’ve noticed both Chomsky and Wolff differentiate this from a socialist relationship, where the workers are also the owners in a democratic organization of the business, where this socialist relationship can be in either the Private sector or the State. This differentiates both Private and State Capitalism from Democratic Socialism, where the socialist relationship is present all forms of business both State and Private.

      I don’t think this makes their works anti-marxist. While Chomsky may use a different definition of Socialism as discussed above, he has a very detailed analysis of how Capital Interests, especially since the implementation of neoliberalism, have affected the material conditions of the working class and atomized social organization. I think the main difference is that Chomsky does not see revolution as inevitable, but he still has a focus on how resistance and organization is necessary to overcome the power of global capitalism. I think it’s quite Marxist, but within the framework of the American Empire.

      From that quote it looks look like Blackshirts and Reds does touch on the interplay between media and capital. But I think Manufacturing Consent both goes into much more detail for the whole scope, from Imperialists interests of the State down to individual media consumption, and also much more relevant to the media landscape facing the American and Western public today.

      Marv Waterstone in Consequences of Capitalism does a fantastic job detailing the realities and effects of Global Capitalism in every aspect of today. From how it affects Imperialism on the global scale, to the environment and the Climate Catastrophe, to how it affects and has atomized the everyday worker.

      They give an incredible amount of context about the current state of Capitalism, the current state of the working class, and a framework of organizing and resistance.

      • Cowbee [he/they]OP
        3•1 month ago

        I’m familiar with how Wolff and Chomsky differentiate what they refer to as “authoritarian socialism” or “State Capitalism” and “Democratic Socialism,” but this is a deviation from Marx. Where Wolff and Chomsky define Socialism as “Workplace Democracy,” Socialism in a Marxist sense is more about Public Ownership and Central Planning in the hands of the working class, and dominance over Capital and thus the bourgeoisie. The fact that there are central planners does not mean there are distinct class dynamics, in fact Engels illustrates this quite well in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

        When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away.

        Chomsky and Wolff advocate for a sort of “worker-owned Capitalism.” A form of Market Socialism, if you will. This is again a deviation from Marx. Where there is competition, there is centralization, such a system would regardless trend towards eventual public ownership and central planning. Engels spends the entirety of Anti-Dühring arguing against such a cooperative-focused system as an inevitable return to Capitalism, and therefore an inevitable turn towards Public Ownership and Central Planning anyways.

        Of course, that doesn’t mean a Socialist system would not have Private Property, or Markets, just that the Proletariat would be dominant and by extension the Public Sector would have dominance over the Private, for as long as Markets are still a useful tool for developing these large syndicates ripe for central planning. The Marxist method is Dialectical Materialism, it recognizes that Capitalism itself prepares the way for Socialism, once the Working class is in charge it can gradually wrest from the Bourgeoisie the large business syndicates it creates, but only by the degree to which they have formed. From the Manifesto:

        The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] 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.

        The sort of “Market Socialist” approach is a deviation from Marxism.

        Finally, that also ignores the very real democratic structures in Marxist states. I do recommend you read the essay Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” It’s important to contextualize AES states, their successes and failures, properly. For further reading, Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan is a good historical account of the Soviet Democratic System, warts and all.

        I know this comment was long-winded, but I do hope that encourages you to read the first couple sections at least of my reading guide, if nothing else but to give a different perspective on Socialism.

        • @Keeponstalin
          3•1 month ago

          Ah, I haven’t done much indepth reading of Marx yet so I wasn’t aware those were considered deviations. That makes sense. Overall I still agree with their deviations, I think they are reasonable and applicable to the current situation we’re in. I also agree with you and the works of Engles and Marx that is workplace democracy is not the end-all-be-all solution and that it will inevitably have to change one way or the other, either towards communism or regress back to capitalism.

          I still stand by that Chomsky’s works are worth reading for people who are interested in and learning about socialism. It’s relatively digestible, easy to start, informative about our current situation, and I think the concept of workplace democracy is the most applicable method for people to resist the current state of the world dominated by Capitalism. I also agree with you that it’s best if not taken alone and better paired with the works of Marx, Engles, ect. But I do think it’s a great starting place for most people. Especially since most people still think of capitalism as simply ‘markets’ and ‘free trade’ and socialism/communism as ‘bread lines’ and ‘gulags’ which is of course far removed from the reality.

          • Cowbee [he/they]OP
            3•1 month ago

            I appreciate your input, however I do want to state that I think it’s important for you to also read Marx if you want to stand by the deviations from Marx. The largest economy in the world, for example, is run along Marxist-Leninist analysis and principles, even if you disagree with individual policies the mere fact of the PRC’s unprecedented rapid development due to Socialism can’t be denied nor ignored.

            Workplace Democracy is in no way a bad thing by itself, but is insufficient, and moreover extremely difficult to achieve in a Capitalist system regardless. Revolution remains more practical and more likely as Capitalism and Imperialism continue to crumble and decay.

            I think a great step for you with respect to Marxism is to study the first 2 sections in my reading guide, if nothing else. You don’t have to move beyond it, but specifically the concept of Scientific Socialism, or looking at where Capitalism is naturally going and trying to wrest control of it directly, is a massive step up from your current model of trying to simply resist within the framework of a system that is already heading towards collapse.

            Thanks for your time!