Think Socialist

[Pacifornia]

I used to be a democrat here in the US. I would start with both the Manifesto and Das Kapital. Consider your political spectrum and country. What interests you? Lenin? Tito? Allende? Debs? Castro? Guevara? A lot of exploration is necessary

I have read the manifesto, but not Das Kapital
I am an American and I can safely say that I am a Social Democrat with egalitarian tendencies
I know little about Allende, Debs, or Tito (I have generally been drawn to the idolized revolutionary communists of the past century)

Well take me for example. I'm a democratic socialist (no bloody revolution). I'm not sure if Allende wrote anything but Debs has. I for one support small businesses and the dismantling of large corporations. I'm pretty liberal socially but my economics beliefs tend to go for nationalization of industry(electricity and phone for example) and raw materials. But yes, Gramsci and the Frankfurt school are good starters.

[Blassland]

Worked your way? Shit, that thing is short as fuck.

Trots answered your question pretty well.

Judging from your response "worked my way through" may have put off the wrong impression, I ate the damn thing up pretty quickly and then went through it again taking notes, etc

[The Parkus Empire]

I'm primarily interested in the economic side of things. I've read big works like the Manifesto and Capital, but most of what I know I've learned by debating, watching debates, reading articles and essays by other Marxists and getting their perspective, and self-research into the history of the movement and prominent members. So aside from big works and works from well-known people like Marx, Engles, Lenin, and Trotsky, what other works might you reccomend?

You seem very big into Cultural Marxism, but maybe that was just my perception.

I've found many of the pre-Nazi German socialists to be rather worthwhile, although I admit I've only read articles by them rather than larger works.

[Trotskylvania]

Cultural, I have worked my way through the manifesto (sent me into my most extreme stint of leftism)

Worked your way? Shit, that thing is short as fuck.

Trots answered your question pretty well.

It is, however, incredibly dense for a modern reader, because the context is entirely lost unless you're reading an annotated version.

Section III in particular, because the currents he's polemicizing against, and where a good deal of the substantive organizational theory develops in contrast to, no longer exist, and haven't for over a hundred years.

[Forster Keys]

Worked your way? Shit, that thing is short as fuck.

Trots answered your question pretty well.

It is, however, incredibly dense for a modern reader, because the context is entirely lost unless you're reading an annotated version.

Yeah I noticed that. I had to read a couple of parts aloud.

[Trotskylvania]

I'm primarily interested in the economic side of things. I've read big works like the Manifesto and Capital, but most of what I know I've learned by debating, watching debates, reading articles and essays by other Marxists and getting their perspective, and self-research into the history of the movement and prominent members. So aside from big works and works from well-known people like Marx, Engles, Lenin, and Trotsky, what other works might you reccomend?

Reading Marx's Capital with David Harvey is a good place to start. I find it's always good with works like Capital to read commentaries on, to make sure you really have digested it.

I think Rosa Luxemburg is a good person to read, provided you understand the historical context. Hal Draper is a good Trotskyist source, and probably ultimately more valuable than Trotsky himself (I am of the opinion that if Trotsky hadn't gotten the ice ax treatment, Trotskyism might not have become such a distinct intellectual tradition).

[Vaktrania]

I'm fine with it as long as the head of the country isn't an idiot.

[Common Territories]

[Pacifornia]

Hmm I need some recommendations too. I know Debs has some letters and speeches he made from a democratic socialist standpoint, but what other materials can I find? They don't have to be American btw lol.

[The Parkus Empire]

Worked your way? Shit, that thing is short as fuck.

Trots answered your question pretty well.

It is, however, incredibly dense for a modern reader, because the context is entirely lost unless you're reading an annotated version.

Section III in particular, because the currents he's polemicizing against, and where a good deal of the substantive organizational theory develops in contrast to, no longer exist, and haven't for over a hundred years.

Well I don't read dated non-fiction without annotations (fiction I prefer to read as is first time around, then again while checking the annotations).

Yeah, it's not really what I'd call a good place to start when you're interested in socialism. It's not a scientific study or critical examination, it's essentially just a call to arms which uses a bunch of premises that are established in other works. It's not an organic study like Marxism itself.

[Aurora Novus]

You seem very big into Cultural Marxism, but maybe that was just my perception.

Oh I am, don't get me wrong. But I feel I'm far more adept to argue those things than I am to argue the economic side of things. The first step to wisdom is knowing how much you don't know.

[Pacifornia]

(Image)

If you're not joking, Obama is far from socialist. If you are, funny lol.

[Forster Keys]

I'm fine with it as long as the head of the country isn't an idiot.

I'd be finer a "head of the country" didn't exist I reckon.

[Common Territories]

(Image)

If you're not joking, Obama is far from socialist. If you are, funny lol.

Well... A: It was a joke. I felt like being funny. And B: Im not saying he's entirely socialist but he has done some Socialist things in the past -- so I'd say he at least has some ideals aligning to socialism.

[Forster Keys]

If you're not joking, Obama is far from socialist. If you are, funny lol.

Well... A: It was a joke. I felt like being funny. And B: Im not saying he's entirely socialist but he has done some Socialist things in the past -- so I'd say he at least has some ideals aligning to socialism.

These are?

[Common Territories]

Well... A: It was a joke. I felt like being funny. And B: Im not saying he's entirely socialist but he has done some Socialist things in the past -- so I'd say he at least has some ideals aligning to socialism.

These are?

How about Nanny State, income redistribution, and large government.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Well... A: It was a joke. I felt like being funny. And B: Im not saying he's entirely socialist but he has done some Socialist things in the past -- so I'd say he at least has some ideals aligning to socialism.

These are?

Small business tax cuts?

[Blasveck]

These are?

How about Nanny State, income redistribution, and large government.

So not socialist in any way, shape, or form?

[Common Territories]

How about Nanny State, income redistribution, and large government.

So not socialist in any way, shape, or form?

You must not know what Socialism is good sir. Im not and I know these three are all signs of it.

[Pacifornia]

These are?

Small business tax cuts?

Better than tax cuts for corporations like Monsanto and Walmart.

[The Parkus Empire]

You seem very big into Cultural Marxism, but maybe that was just my perception.

Oh I am, don't get me wrong. But I feel I'm far more adept to argue those things than I am to argue the economic side of things. The first step to wisdom is knowing how much you don't know.

That's a very good point. You should read to be persuaded or enlightened, not to ideologically ejaculate. However, I do think that when you are a proponent of something broad and complex, you should base your support on something beyond "self evident" and "common sense", especially if it's radical; you should be familiar with extensive studies and reflections on the matter, from both sides (where the criticism is constructive and scientific), lest your beliefs become dogma.

[Blasveck]

So not socialist in any way, shape, or form?

You must not know what Socialism is good sir. Im not and I know these three are all signs of it.

Socialism is the worker ownership of the means of production.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
1.
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[Kamchastkia]

So not socialist in any way, shape, or form?

You must not know what Socialism is good sir. Im not and I know these three are all signs of it.

Good Sir, you are misinformed. Please thank your local education center for your incorrect information .

[Forster Keys]

These are?

How about Nanny State, income redistribution, and large government.

Oh dear. I'm going to let the others do their thing now. They can probably sum it up better than I can.

[Pacifornia]

You must not know what Socialism is good sir. Im not and I know these three are all signs of it.

Good Sir, you are misinformed. Please thank your local education center for your incorrect information .

Good thing I was able to learn about socialism by myself and make my own opinions