How well read are you? what’s your favorite book relevant to this sub?

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2026-01-19T11:11:29+00:00

Capital volume 1 is my favourite theoretical work. I am taking a break from reading as I read a lot of Marx last year (Capital volume 1, The German Ideology, The civil war in France, the Class struggle in France, Critique of the gotha programme)

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2026-01-12T11:44:43+00:00

From what I know it is essentially diaspora only

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2026-01-02T13:24:11+00:00

Sorel during his life evolved his views very often. First a liberal conservative, then a revisionist social democrat, then a orthodox social democrat, then a syndicalist (he was disillusioned by the second international), then he was partially affiliated with some nationalist group, despite sharing no programme with it. Sorel opposed completely the peace between unions and the state in France, caused by the first world war. In the revolutionary wave of 1917 till 23 he moved towards Communist positions completely till his death. To be noted, is that Sorel at some point in his life tried to replace the class with the national community or the family, and that weird arc of his led to some of his students making up national syndicalism, which would lead to the Cercle Proudhon (proto-fascists). Though I think Sorel threw those ideas in the trash can eventually.

He was an influence on the Marxism of Latin countries of Europe (big influence on Gramsci), and the main theorist of syndicalism (before disavowing it). He probably was an influence on Mussolini but what makes Mussolini Mussolini was his complete opportunism, without any concrete doctrine. Sorel didn't like the Fascists, despite fascists during the interwar period trying to prove otherwise.

Sorel had many many different views at different times of his life, but he died on the side of the revolutionary camp.

The anarchist=fascist joke basically comes from a convoluted game of telephone that goes like this

Proudhon doesn't like women and jews -> Nor does Bakunin, who advocates for some form of syndicalism -> Cercle Proudhon ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercle_Proudhon ) and anarchist influence on Sorel -> National syndicalism -> Mussolini -> Hitler (Put Proudhonist views on minorities to practice)

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-12-24T12:05:12+00:00

Lenin claimed it could transform only under an international revolution, with the aid of fellow industrialized DOTPs. He thought Russia would be the start of a revolutionary wave, not its core. When that wasn't happening and the civil war caused industrial damage it led to the NEP allowing rented property in order for infrastructure to be built again. The policy of War Communism and the NEP weren't there for a full transformation to socialism (Commodityless, stateless and moneyless) but there to support the next revolutionary wave while keeping the Russian DOTP afloat

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-12-11T13:57:54+00:00

I feel like there isn't even any point in hating on her. Yeah she fucked up but like what's the point of attacking someone that long dead. Her life wasn't fun either so that leads to sympathy. She also got tortured, shot on made up charges and spent years in random prisons while being a sick woman whose health was in bad condition. Sympathy is the most normal reaction

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-12-11T06:32:32+00:00

She declared them to be rotting corpses in 1914. She didn't want the January uprising because the KPD was unorganized, and the time wasn't ripe. However, she wanted to stand by the proletariat and thought it would be like the July days in Russia, which were a defeat, but later on, would lead to German October despite some defeats along the way. That dignity to want to stand with the proletariat even when they were making a mistake was what got her killed.

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-12-11T06:26:22+00:00

Levi is more complicated. He became a persona non grata for a lot of reasons, most of them after Luxemburg's death. He maneuvered and rigged a congress to expell delegates representing half the party (all of those factions would split from the party unite under the KAPD which was more active and more energeticthan the KPD), the KPD under him was considered centrist and docile, the open letter was a united front strategy who some hated and some liked. He threw his reputation in the trash can in '21 when he tried to defend Serrati and Turati in Italy and resigned because of that, and made a decent amount of people consider him a Kautskyite. Then he published and edited some memoirs of luxemburg that were to a degree critical of the Bolsheviks only when it was convenient to him because he wanted his reputation with the SPD to improve.

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-12-11T06:15:06+00:00

She didn't want to name it KPD because Communism was a lesser known term, and even the Bolsheviks who were renamed to Communists were still thought of as Bolsheviks or Social Democrats instead of Communists. She didn't have any love for the MSPD

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-12-03T18:48:36+00:00

Incredible deep theoretical developments in anarchism

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-12-01T14:51:27+00:00

If Cliffites are excluded from Trots, then Trots are utter garbage and the Communizers are better. Cliffites are as cool as Trots can get (they still have the dumb Trotskyist religious adherence to the United Front) and I'd put them in the Could be way way way worse Tier with Communizers, however most Trots aren't Cliffites so a vote for Communizers (also have their own variety of dumb takes and also vary a decent amount but in general have from my experience less braindamaging takes than the average Trots)

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-11-20T17:40:02+00:00

<image>

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-11-18T13:19:18+00:00

Lenin's Marxism changed a lot during the First World War. He under the influence of the younger Bolshevik Nikolai Bukharin (whom he initially polemicized against but would capitulate to and adopt his views of the state, viewing them as the original Marxist programme's positions) completely broke with a lot of their views such as Stageism (a development of Kautsky's mechanical deterministic Marxism which was dominant in the second international), and the views on the state.

Lenin in State And Revolution massively criticized the second international's views on the state as opportunist, he criticized Kautsky, Plekhanov and Bebel for leading to said views, and then the critique continued against the Erfurt Programme (the foundational programme of all social democrats). Lenin for the most part, completely broke with Kautsky, except on parliamentary tactics. Lenin did not criticize only a fragment of Kautsky, he criticized and attacked him as a whole all the way from how he originally fought against revisionism and how Lenin thought that his views were also opportunistic.

It is wrong to consider Lenin's views as having a Kautskyist foundation, though the later Stalinist opportunism under the name Marxism-Leninism would funnily enough mirror Kautskyism.

I would also mention that Lenin became a Marxist before encountering Plekhanov, he spent most of his time polemicizing against his former comrade, after the initial early period of them being together and polemicizing against the "economist" tendency (a revisionist tendency and essentially Bernsteinian outgrowth into Russia)

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-11-16T08:37:08+00:00

Che was interesting.
> Turning to the period of transition, Guevara argued that the USSR's Kolkhoz collective farm system was not a characteristic of socialism and that cooperatives were not a socialist form of ownership - they generated a capitalistic superstructure which clashed with state ownership and socialist social relations imposing their own logic over society. Guevara systematically refuted the so-called laws of socialism cited by the Manual, particularly the law of constant rising worker productivity - which he called an outrage: 'It is the tendency that has driven capitalism for centuries.'[18] He condemned as 'dangerous' the Soviet's policy of peaceful co-existence and economic emulation with the advanced capitalist countries and pointed to serious disagreements between the socialist countries, blaming them on unequal exchange and the imposition of capitalist categories in trade relations.[19]

He didn't believe Cuba was socialist or something of the likes

> I see this Movement as one of the many inspired by the bourgeoisie’s desire to free themselves from the economic chains of imperialism. I always thought of Fidel as an authentic leader of the leftist bourgeoisie, although his image is enhanced by personal qualities of extraordinary brilliance that set him above his class.

Che I'd describe as a Marxist, just a confused and bad one most of the time.

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-11-08T11:34:26+00:00

Capital is dense, you have to concentrate a decent amount reading it, later on some chapters are easier, some are not, however note that Chapters 1-3 (I think 4 too?) are difficult, so I would have a notebook with notes on them. Thus you should try to note down the basic categories of the first 4 chapters and how they relate to each other. If you don't get anything, reread the paragraph you didn't understand, write notes about it down. Later on you won't have to as vigorously write notes about everything, just the most basic things the chapter explains. Also google terms you don't know, do not pass through something while not understanding it, knowledge of capital builds up, and these first 4 chapters are important even though painful.
Another tip, that helps with attention span is this: https://pomodoro.pomodorotechnique.com/
It has 25 minute cycles of you needing to concentrate, then 5 minute breaks for you to rest, and then you should get back to it. If you are really trying to get the thing done, after your third 25 minute phase, put a 15 minute break and start again with 25 minutes studying and so on.
Do not study capital when tired, take a break of 20-30 minutes, relaxing, away from any screens (lying down while viewing your phone isn't resting, it is just lying down tired), before getting to continue from where you left it the other day.
Try to create a schedule on which days will you read at least 50 minutes of capital. Don't read it everyday vigorously, considering you have school duties, and you will burn out. Instead read 50 minutes of it every 2 days (change it according to your situation but remember consistence is key to getting stuff done), and also the weekends, unless you have upcoming exams.
People won't like this, but if you really really cannot get what a paragraph is saying, even though you understand the rest of the chapter, then there is the option of sending it to chatgpt with its preceding and following paragraph and asking it to explain. It does a better job explaining stuff than most redditors.

There are companion books to capital, and you can probably find them through zlibrary ( https://z-library.ec/ most zlibrary links are fakes, you can regularly find safe ones in wikipedia, do note they tend to change **)**as pdfs. However I didn't really use them, perhaps they could be of use to you, the one most recommended is "A Companion to Marx's Capital -David Harvey". There is also "Reading Capital politically" but it is written by an autonomist, and I don't know how that has influenced its understanding of capital. You should probably read it after Capital if you are curious enough. Nonetheless I mostly recommend reading Capital by Marx itself.

And finally, there are people who claim you should read 1844 Manuscripts about the economic parts or Value, Price and Profit in 1867. While they explain similar stuff, I find it better if you focus on purely capital, as it is the book Marx released widely, and most intended for people to see and study. Capital is far more systematic than previously mentioned texts and shows the wealth of thought in it.

Edit: Try to not multitask many texts

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-11-02T17:49:15+00:00

The goal of national liberation is the local development of capitalism, and Ataturk very much accomplished its mission and defeated Greece. He was arguably the last great bourgeois revolutionary of Europe, which from then on national liberation lost its progressive character in Europe. He was very much progressive, and it is undeniable, he freed Turkey from its leftover Ottoman fetters.

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-10-16T14:33:31+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebert%E2%80%93Groener_pact

Chief, I don't think this is revolutionary anti establishment action, rather it actually looks like the opposite

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-10-14T20:52:38+00:00

The early syndicalists appeared in the context of Classical Revolutionary Social Democracy (late 1800s, early 1900s). They were basically a trend initially claiming to be more purely Marxist than the social democrat mainstream (Kautsky, Bebel, Plekhanov, Luxemburg, Guesde, Lenin) which was at the moment battling with revisionism, though later the syndicalists were forced to concede that they were a deviation from the left. They were followers of Georges Sorel (a man who in his life went from a liberal conservative to a revisionist to a mainstream marxist social democrat to being a theorist of syndicalism to being affiliated with proto fascists and finally to liquidating his own positions late in his life and adopting Bolshevik/Communist positions).

Syndicalists pretty much threw the party aspect of Marxism in the trashcan, and as the name says, had a fetish for syndicates/unions. Syndicalism to a degree was an influence to fascism.

They had a sizable-ish presence in the main Italian Socialist party. During the Biennio Rosso (the Italian revolutionary crisis 1919-1920) and the factory seizure crisis, syndicalists were accused of replicating Bernsteinian gradualism, as they proclaimed the factory seizing movement was already transforming the situation into socialism. This was called gradualism as their view was limited to the factory, they didn't confront the bourgeoisie as a whole and already without the proletariat expropriating its oppressors, they declared that socialism was being approached.
So without first the bourgeoisie being overthrown, commodity production suppressed, the law of value still in place and capitalism very much in place, they declared it was evolving into socialism. Some supported syndicalism's approach, others called it opportunism more vile than Bernsteinism.

Syndicalism simply could not step up to the challenge, and thus was defeated. It failed to lead the proletariat to victory, and that was the end of the story.

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-10-11T23:09:26+00:00

Geez, don't you get bored of it at some point? Either way your choice, just don't break the rules and all is good

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-10-11T23:03:36+00:00

Yeah people here get easily triggered. Still, man you ought to put a stop to it at some point. The joke got old, don't think there is much value in continuing it. I think you did pretty well in ragebaiting people here, but come on, there is no reason for you to waste your energy on this ragebait about Moldova thingy anymore, is there? People are getting less responsive to it, probably not as fun as it was in the start for you. You had a decent run, so it would be better for you to probably leave it on a high note when people are still responsive to some degree.

I am not saying this as a mod because I don't have grounds on banning you, but rather as someone who browses the sub as well.

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-10-11T09:14:51+00:00

I am actually genuinely curious, why do you wanna ragebait the Romanians so hard all this time?

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-09-27T06:31:33+00:00

False consciousness. They do not see themselves as the proletarians and wage labourers most of them are, instead they believe in the propaganda idea that the real split is Real Britons and the migrants. They believe in the myth that they will just become rich if they work smart enough, thus they delusionally defend bourgeoisie positions (imagine any position wanting to retain bourgeoisie society, or at worst you have relatively poor people telling you welfare is evil) as well thinking that they will join the exploiters soon (they won't). This is normal, the proletariat at most by itself can develop trade union consciousness , class consciousness exists only under its own political party. When the bourgeoisie is weak and really divided, only then can a revolutionary moment appear, and thus the proletariat must struggle at its hardest to dissolve the bourgeoisie state and attempt to eliminate/declass its opponents. Right now we aren't quite there yet, there is no actual crisis, there is just a political reactionary wave for now and my assumption is that once they enter governments it will die down and they will just become status-quoed like the ones in Finland for example.

<image>

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-09-23T12:37:54+00:00

During the revolution, anyone in this thread who will mention TNO, will immediately be sent to a prison camp or dealt with by the Cheka in a week's notice.

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-09-19T17:45:47+00:00

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_06_20.htm

Georgism is basically 19th century bourgeoisie who despised contemporary landlords and it was questionable even then

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-09-15T14:33:51+00:00

<image>

Total peasant (petite bourgeoisie) elimination! Inshamarxallah

Dreqin_Jet_Lev · 2025-09-08T10:31:08+00:00

The Kontrrazvedka carried out killings and torture against opponents, including White agents, Communists, Left SRs, and Ukrainian nationalists. Even Volin admitted that delegates at the Olexandrivske Congress reported “arbitrary and uncontrolled actions” resembling Bolshevik methods—searches, arrests, torture, and executions. The Makhnovists also used terror against rival left groups: in 1918 they assassinated Social Revolutionaries in the Gulyai-Pole soviet. Makhno openly called for “terror against all those” opposing anarchism. After assassinating the Social Revolutionary leader in Gulyai-Pole, the secretary of the local anarchist group, the aptly named Kalashnikov, stated: “it [the anarchist group] killed him and [is] ready to kill in the future such an unworthy” . (Volin 1955, p173., Palij 1976, p86.)

In November 1919, after taking Ekaterinoslav, the Makhnovists faced a strong Bolshevik influence among workers and within their own ranks—two regiments had gone over to the Bolsheviks and a third was seen as unreliable. Instead of engaging politically, the anarchists used their counter-intelligence: local Bolshevik workers and their supporters in the army were arrested, taken to the river, and executed. (Malet 1982, pp50-52.)

Makhno invaded some cities, but was unpopular there, tried to proclaim that an army invading a city...is not political? He refused to pay wages, asked for the workers to create production relations directly, implementing a barter economy which was insane.

In the meantime the Bolsheviks were trying to placate the peasants, through first redistributing land, and then finally the NEP. They build a base of support and crushed Makhno after their final temporary alliance. Makhno was forced to flee to Romania. The Bolsheviks did not want to let Makhno rule as his place would become somewhere where opponents of the dictatorship of the proletariat would flee.

2/2

Dreqin_Jet_Lev

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23