I've been getting several questions about Marxism and what it actually entails so I decided to gather up some sources concerning the subject and put them together for anyone else who may have the desire to know more. I will break them up into two sections, lectures & readings. If anyone else would like to contribute to this list then please feel free to do so. Some of these works are self-explanatory, for those that are not then I will elaborate on their meaning.
Readings:
Ludwig von Mises - Marxism Unmasked , Socialism, Theory and History
Yuri Maltsev - Requiem for Marx
Bohm-Bawerk - Karl Marx and the Close of His System
Rothbard - History of Economic Thought volume II
Robert C Tucker - Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx [ a technical piece on the philosophical foundations of Marxism, not for beginners ]
Leszek Kolakowski - Main Currents of Marxism [ A three volume history of Marxism, perhaps the definitive work on its history ]
Alexander Gray - The Socialist Tradition, The Development of Economic Doctrine, [ Highly recommended works on the subject ]
James Billington - Fire on the Minds of Men
H.B. Acton [ Not Lord Acton ] - The Illusion of Epoch
Various Authors - A Plea for Liberty . [ A series of papers by various authors critiquing the beginnings of Fabian socialism by author Bernard Shaw, also some basic critiques of socialism in general ]
Hoppe - A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism
Hayek - Intellectuals and Socialism
Gordon - Resurrecting Marx
Lectures:
Williamson Evers - 'Marx and the Organization of Labor Under Socialism'
Richard Ebeling - 'Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk's Critique of Karl Marx'
David Gordon - 'Foundations of Marx's Philosophy and Economics'
Gary North - 'The Marx Nobody Knows'
Hoppe - 'Marxist and Austrian ClassAnalysis'
Ralph Raico - 'Classical-Liberal Roots of Marxist Class Co nflict'
Yuri Maltsev - 'Inflation and the Bolsheviks'
David Osterfeld - 'Marx and Mercantilism'
Robert LeFevre - 'Origins of Socialist Thought', 'The Communist Manifesto'
Rothbard - 'Emergence of Communism'
Jeffrey Herbener - 'The Utopianism of Marx and Keynes' [ This is a rip off of Rothbard's 'Emergence of Communism' ]
Paul Gottfried - 'Bolshevism and Democratic Socialism'
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
So if I read all of the above I'll be able to completely demolish Marxism? Cool.
Sukrit Sabhlok: So if I read all of the above I'll be able to completely demolish Marxism? Cool.
If you read some of them you will be able to demolish it. If you read all of them then you will make a Marxist look like a neophyte.
But if you read all of them AND debate a Marxist from revleft or an anarcho-communist, then I'll send you a flower.
When do I get my flower? That was a fun debate. I like hibiscus by the way.
And of course Mises shortly and sweetly explodes polylogism in chapter 3 of Human Action.
Le Master: And of course Mises shortly and sweetly explodes polylogism in chapter 3 of Human Action.
Ah yes, good contribution. Jeffrey Tucker also has a wonderful piece on Marxism and polylogism found here.
I call this materials list "Marxism without Marx".
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I. Ryan: I call this materials list "Marxism without Marx".
Well I could put up all the works of Marx himself. I just figured people would know to read them.
Laughing Man: I. Ryan: I call this materials list "Marxism without Marx". Well I could put up all the works of Marx himself. I just figured people would know to read them.
I keep trying from time to time and it comes off as psycho-babble. :(
Giant_Joe:I keep trying from time to time and it comes off as psycho-babble. :(
Try reading Hegal. You'll want to commit an atrocity. The 1844 Manuscripts aren't too bad. I think Capital is probably the worst.
Laughing Man:Try reading Hegal. You'll want to commit an atrocity. The 1844 Manuscripts aren't too bad. I think Capital is probably the worst.
Hegel is without a doubt the most difficult philosopher to understand. I literally want to stick needles in my eyes whenever I try reading anything by Hegel. I think it is better to just read other scholars works on Hegel so you can actually understand what it is your reading.
Laughing Man: When do I get my flower? That was a fun debate. I like hibiscus by the way.
You're on RevLeft? I was in there a few months ago. It's like debating with Mr1001Nights, but with less appeals to emotion.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I've spent the last 1+ hour reading that thread and I'm not even halfway done. I've put off a lot of other reading because I've been immersed there. Damn you guys.
Edit: What an abrupt ending. How anticlimactic.
Le Master: I've spent the last 1+ hour reading that thread and I'm not even halfway done. I've put off a lot of other reading because I've been immersed there. Damn you guys. Edit: What an abrupt ending. How anticlimactic.
Well no one was really saying anything of substance.
Laughing Man:Well no one was really saying anything of substance.
You can say that again. There were a few clumps of hair pulled out of my head by the end; those last 2-3 pages especially. Dear God.
Le Master:You can say that again. There were a few clumps of hair pulled out of my head by the end; those last 2-3 pages especially. Dear God.
Remember, it is just the internet.
The Mind and the Market by Jerry Z. Muller
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
This list is rad. I'm booking this for later use.
Thank you, sir!
You observe, but you do not see.
Justin Laws: This list is rad. I'm booking this for later use. Thank you, sir!
Not a problem.
I also thought of another work that I could probably add to this list. It is more of a history of western visitors to Marxist countries but I think it will apply to some degree.
Paul Hollander's Political Pilgrims: Travels of Western Intellectuals to the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba 1928-1978
It's a very interesting book as it concerns intellectuals such as journalists, professors, civil leaders, etc and their journey to socialist countries. People like Lincoln Steffens who announced after his journey to the Soviet Union 'I have seen the future...and it works!'
Laughing Man: If you read some of them you will be able to demolish it. If you read all of them then you will make a Marxist look like a neophyte.
I don't know: Mises himself attacks strawmans and/or ideas that the current flow of Marxists just don't believe in anymore. The problem with reading 'just' the criticisms of Marxism to 'demolish' it, is that you can't know if the author is attacking genuine Marx(ists) ideas, or just a vision of the Marx(ist) idea that he constructed in order to attack Marxism.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
AdrianHealey:Mises himself attacks strawmans and/or ideas that the current flow of Marxists just don't believe in anymore. The problem with reading 'just' the criticisms of Marxism to 'demolish' it, is that you can't know if the author is attacking genuine Marx(ists) ideas, or just a vision of the Marx(ist) idea that he constructed in order to attack Marxism.
The last time Mises seriously addressed Marxism was over 50 years ago in his 1954 lecture which they made into a book Marx Unmasked. Mises gives a nice groundwork for actual Marxist theorists. You would need to read people like Rothbard, Gordon, Robert C Tucker and Hoppe to continue to present day Marxism. There are few actual Marxists left. The socialist movement is really just compromised of social democrats and those who judge justice and morality based on what they feel. I like to call them 'dark matter socialists' because they have no defined creedo or theory. They just make appeals to emotions and think something is unjust based on how hard it tugs their heart strings.
Laughing Man: The last time Mises seriously addressed Marxism was over 50 years ago in his 1954 lecture which they made into a book Marx Unmasked. Mises gives a nice groundwork for actual Marxist theorists. You would need to read people like Rothbard, Gordon, Robert C Tucker and Hoppe to continue to present day Marxism. There are few actual Marxists left. The socialist movement is really just compromised of social democrats and those who judge justice and morality based on what they feel. I like to call them 'dark matter socialists' because they have no defined creedo or theory. They just make appeals to emotions and think something is unjust based on how hard it tugs their heart strings.
Gordon's book attacks a particular brand of Marxism of which there is a certain controversy wether or not it really is 'Marxist' (i.e. the analytical ones).
I don't know of any work of Hoppe or Rothbard in which he seriously adresses Marxism on his own contemporary terms. Attacking Marxist thought from Austrianism is easy (for one: Austrian School is correct and Marxist school is not), but for a Marxist it doesn't do more than scratch the surface. Marxism (in my vision) is a deep entangled web of beliefs, in which there is no real 'going to the core'. If you attack 'just' the labor theory of value, they can 'safe' it by their other ad hoc points of view.
I don't know the Tucker book, but I'll sure look in to it when I have the chance.
AdrianHealey:Gordon's book attacks a particular brand of Marxism of which there is a certain controversy wether or not it really is 'Marxist' (i.e. the analytical ones).
Such is the nature that Marxists must become in order to survive. They can no longer theorize dialectically due to the mistakes of Marx's 'immiseration of the working class' theory
AdrianHealey:I don't know of any work of Hoppe or Rothbard in which he seriously adresses Marxism on his own contemporary terms.
What do you mean by such a statement?
AdrianHealey:Marxism (in my vision) is a deep entangled web of beliefs, in which there is no real 'going to the core'. If you attack 'just' the labor theory of value, they can 'safe' it by their other ad hoc points of view.
Marxism can be boiled down into three categories:
1. Labor theory of value
2. Historical materialism
3. Metaphysical alienation
The first two have been utterly obliterated even by mainstream academia. The third is just silly nonsense that has no meaning without the other two.
Laughing Man: Giant_Joe:I keep trying from time to time and it comes off as psycho-babble. :( Try reading Hegal. You'll want to commit an atrocity. The 1844 Manuscripts aren't too bad. I think Capital is probably the worst.
Hegel is a nightmare. But I think it helps understand how Marxist dialectics evolved.
Kakugo:Hegel is a nightmare. But I think it helps understand how Marxist dialectics evolved.
I see it too though I don't really fully understand Hegelianism. Then again who does?
Laughing Man: Kakugo:Hegel is a nightmare. But I think it helps understand how Marxist dialectics evolved. I see it too though I don't really fully understand Hegelianism. Then again who does?
Back in high school even our professor gave up hope of explaining Hegel. [;)
I'm about to totally get sucked in, but the people on this forum are really smug!
"Oh, and one more thing: As a worker and someone who has lived the class struggle: Fuck You."
And noone else has suffered..
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Libertyandlife: I'm about to totally get sucked in, but the people on this forum are really smug! "Oh, and one more thing: As a worker and someone who has lived the class struggle: Fuck You."
The point is not to understand reality but to change it -marx
Something tells me that they aren't interested in debate.
Laughing Man: Sukrit Sabhlok: So if I read all of the above I'll be able to completely demolish Marxism? Cool. If you read some of them you will be able to demolish it. If you read all of them then you will make a Marxist look like a neophyte.
I actually looked up neophyte. For a person who does not have much time to read EVERYTHING about economics, which would be either the simplest, favorite or best out of personal opinion of those sources?
fakename:The point is not to understand reality but to change it -marx
The people on that forum were indeed collectivists, they can barely defend themselves rationally, but bully, insult, and feel good about themselves through the power of a collective.
The ending of that thread sucked though.
Libertyandlife:For a person who does not have much time to read EVERYTHING about economics, which would be either the simplest, favorite or best out of personal opinion of those sources?
Sir Alexander Gray's work, The Socialist Tradition. I put a link to the online version in my opening post. He is a brilliant stylist and raises timeless arguments against Marx.
hashem: fakename:The point is not to understand reality but to change it -marx
I want that shirt.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Laughing Man: Libertyandlife:For a person who does not have much time to read EVERYTHING about economics, which would be either the simplest, favorite or best out of personal opinion of those sources? Sir Alexander Gray's work, The Socialist Tradition. I put a link to the online version in my opening post. He is a brilliant stylist and raises timeless arguments against Marx.
Would it play well across the board, lets say towards democratic socialists or the "state-less" syndicalist?
Libertyandlife:Would it play well across the board, lets say towards democratic socialists or the "state-less" syndicalist?
Actually...yes because he has a critique in there about Proudhon and also one on Lassalle. It also has a chapter on Syndicalism and communitarian anarchists. He does a lot of critiquing of anarchists but he is referring to the traditional interpretation of collectivist anarchists. He basically covers anyone who is a notable socialist. Be they 'scientific' or utopian. State or stateless.
Laughing Man: Libertyandlife:Would it play well across the board, lets say towards democratic socialists or the "state-less" syndicalist? Actually...yes because he has a critique in there about Proudhon and also one on Lassalle. It also has a chapter on Syndicalism and communitarian anarchists. He does a lot of critiquing of anarchists but he is referring to the traditional interpretation of collectivist anarchists. He basically covers anyone who is a notable socialist. Be they 'scientific' or utopian. State or stateless.
Great! That works. Thanks!
Esuric: hashem: fakename:The point is not to understand reality but to change it -marx I want that shirt.
http://www.zazzle.com/marx_epic_fail_customizable_shirt-235073335593236857
How much should I know about Marx before reading Bohm-Bawerk's Karl Marx and the Close of His System? I've heard it requires some knowledge on what he said in Capital III, but I'm not sure.
My personal Anarcho-Capitalist flag. The symbol in the center stands for "harmony" and "protection"-- I'm hoping to illustrate the bond between order/justice and anarchy.
Beefheart: How much should I know about Marx before reading Bohm-Bawerk's Karl Marx and the Close of His System? I've heard it requires some knowledge on what he said in Capital III, but I'm not sure.
Know this much: Karl Marx was ignorant beyond measurement. The most you ever need to know is how to obliterate his painfully ridiculous claims. Looks like you found the right book.