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.
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.
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.
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.