Here’s Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber, I believe this is what you’re referencing. Capital isn’t too difficult, IMO. It’s long, but the first 3 chapters are the most complex, after that it’s fairly smooth sailing, and Marx is actually a pretty witty writer. Just in case anyone was too scared by its reputation to read it!
It’s not that its hard, but Marx–while capable of very good and engaging writing–was trying to be a respectable 19th century intellectual for that one, so it’s kind of a painfully dry slog. That was the style at the time.
I’d actually say that applies more to volume 2 than it does 1. 1 has lots of literary references, metaphors, and fiery writing, while volume 2 is far more straight and academic. Lenin on the other hand was always spicy with his writing, haha.
Can’t agree with Lenin slander, he’s one of the greatest heroes the working class has ever had and one of the greatest theoreticians of all time. That being said, at least we can agree that he was a hell of a writer!
I think even among ML’s there are better candidates for all that. Castro’s entire set, for one.
I think he absolutely meant it and was a gifted administrator(putting aside killing all the other communists for a moment), but he made the same mistake all the French revolutionaries made–centralized power too much taking it from the soviets, so it fell apart when anyone less capable of filling those extremely large shoes stepped in.
He made the classic ‘great man’ mistake, and didn’t trust the people he meant to save, so his success began to die the moment he did. It’s hard to blame him personally, but god dammit he could have done so much better with a little sacrifice in initial efficiency to help the people be a bigger part of the revolution.
That’s not really an accurate view of the Soviet Union. Lenin didn’t take power away from the soviets, they were still the driving force of decision-making. Thanks to achieving a socialist system, life expectancies doubled, literacy rates tripled, healthcare and education were free and high quality, working hours lowered, vacation days increased, housing and employment were full or nearly full, and they went from feudalism to space in half a century.
Lenin didn’t “kill all of the other communists.” The vast majority sided with the bolsheviks, and others fought against them and lost in the civil war. It wasn’t like Lenin pushed a “kill everyone who disagrees with me” button, there was an active civil war with people killing bolsheviks and the Red Army as well.
The Soviet Union also didn’t really fall apart simply due to Khrushchev, Gorbachev, or Yeltsin alone. They contributed by undermining the socialist system and introducing parts of government meant to work against each other, but the soviet union still functioned well until it was illegally dissolved.
All in all, you have a very inaccurate view of Lenin and the Soviet Union, I’d say. It was the single most progressive force in the world throughout its existence, and figures that you list like Castro directly owe at least some of their success to Lenin and the Soviet Union.
Lenin was one of the earliest theorists, organizers, and eventually the leader of the first explicitly Marxist revolution in world history. Any one of these accomplishments would make him one of the most important and admirable Marxists ever, but all three?
Lenin’s worst mistake was giving too much of his health to his nation. Sorry, but your reading is not supported by the historical data, even though it is so often repeated by the western left.
David graeber has some good stuff on the nature of money and debt, if you want something a little easier than Marx’s ‘capital’.
Here’s Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber, I believe this is what you’re referencing. Capital isn’t too difficult, IMO. It’s long, but the first 3 chapters are the most complex, after that it’s fairly smooth sailing, and Marx is actually a pretty witty writer. Just in case anyone was too scared by its reputation to read it!
It’s not that its hard, but Marx–while capable of very good and engaging writing–was trying to be a respectable 19th century intellectual for that one, so it’s kind of a painfully dry slog. That was the style at the time.
I’d actually say that applies more to volume 2 than it does 1. 1 has lots of literary references, metaphors, and fiery writing, while volume 2 is far more straight and academic. Lenin on the other hand was always spicy with his writing, haha.
Fuck that guy–but anyone who says he couldn’t write clearly doesn’t know how to read.
Can’t agree with Lenin slander, he’s one of the greatest heroes the working class has ever had and one of the greatest theoreticians of all time. That being said, at least we can agree that he was a hell of a writer!
I think even among ML’s there are better candidates for all that. Castro’s entire set, for one.
I think he absolutely meant it and was a gifted administrator(putting aside killing all the other communists for a moment), but he made the same mistake all the French revolutionaries made–centralized power too much taking it from the soviets, so it fell apart when anyone less capable of filling those extremely large shoes stepped in.
He made the classic ‘great man’ mistake, and didn’t trust the people he meant to save, so his success began to die the moment he did. It’s hard to blame him personally, but god dammit he could have done so much better with a little sacrifice in initial efficiency to help the people be a bigger part of the revolution.
That’s not really an accurate view of the Soviet Union. Lenin didn’t take power away from the soviets, they were still the driving force of decision-making. Thanks to achieving a socialist system, life expectancies doubled, literacy rates tripled, healthcare and education were free and high quality, working hours lowered, vacation days increased, housing and employment were full or nearly full, and they went from feudalism to space in half a century.
Lenin didn’t “kill all of the other communists.” The vast majority sided with the bolsheviks, and others fought against them and lost in the civil war. It wasn’t like Lenin pushed a “kill everyone who disagrees with me” button, there was an active civil war with people killing bolsheviks and the Red Army as well.
The Soviet Union also didn’t really fall apart simply due to Khrushchev, Gorbachev, or Yeltsin alone. They contributed by undermining the socialist system and introducing parts of government meant to work against each other, but the soviet union still functioned well until it was illegally dissolved.
All in all, you have a very inaccurate view of Lenin and the Soviet Union, I’d say. It was the single most progressive force in the world throughout its existence, and figures that you list like Castro directly owe at least some of their success to Lenin and the Soviet Union.
Lenin was one of the earliest theorists, organizers, and eventually the leader of the first explicitly Marxist revolution in world history. Any one of these accomplishments would make him one of the most important and admirable Marxists ever, but all three?
Lenin’s worst mistake was giving too much of his health to his nation. Sorry, but your reading is not supported by the historical data, even though it is so often repeated by the western left.