this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
15 points (100.0% liked)
marxism
3652 readers
1 users here now
For the study of Marxism, and all the tendencies that fall beneath it.
Read Lenin.
Resources below are from r/communism101. Post suggestions for better resources and we'll update them.
Study Guides
- Basic Marxism-Leninism Study Plan
- Debunking Anti-Communism Masterpost
- Beginner's Guide to Marxism (marxists.org)
- A Reading Guide (marx2mao.com) (mirror)
- Topical Study Guide (marxistleninist.wordpress.com)
Explanations
- Kapitalism 101 on political economy
- Marxist Philosophy understanding DiaMat
- Reading Marx's Capital with David Harvey
Libraries
- Marxists.org largest Marxist library
- Red Stars Publishers Library specialized on Marxist-Leninist literature. Book titles are links to free PDF copies
- Marx2Mao.com another popular library (mirror)
- BannedThought.net collection of revolutionary publications
- The Collected Works of Marx and Engels torrentable file of all known writings of Marx and Engels
- The Prolewiki library a collection of revolutionary publications
- Comrades Library has a small but growing collection of rare sovietology books
Bookstores
Book PDFs
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ian Paul Wright is a rehashing of Ian Steedman, who himself is a neo-Ricardian and should be ignored on that basis. This version of the transformation problem is a problem with their neo-Ricardian theory, not Marx.
One rebuttal to this sort of thinking was offered by Alan Freeman in Marx after Marx after Sraffa. Freeman is co-author of the temporal single-system interpretation of Marx, and also happens to be the spouse of fellow Marxist Radhika Desai.
Interesting. Thanks for the link I'll give that a read. Didn't know that about Wright.
Very cool. That also explains why I've heard her rant about neo-ricardians too lol
it’s just my opinion of course. I was very interested in the Wright paper a while back. It made me question my “faith” in Marx, but in the end deepened my understanding. So I only put it so strongly because in the first place I found it to be a compelling argument against Marx, secondly because I think it’s important to conclusively deconstruct that line of thinking altogether, due to its potential to mislead Marxist thought. So thanks for posting, it’s a good thing to be reading even with a critical eye