Kasama

All power to the people

  		•



  • Subscribe

  • Categories

  • Comments

    maju00 on Greece: Actually overthrowing …
    jp on Puerto Rico’s Fight for…
    Nasir Mansoor on Mike Ely at Platypus, March 31…
    Red Fly on Greece: Actually overthrowing …
    Red Fly on Did Trayvon fight for his life…
    luxembourg on War Criminal John McCain and t…
    Red Fly on Red Spark: May First events in…
    Terry Townsend on This moment in Greece: Politic…
    Maoist Rebel News on Did Trayvon fight for his life…
    Luis on Puerto Rico’s Fight for…
    jp on Greece: Actually overthrowing …
    jp on Greece: Actually overthrowing …
    jp on Tom Morello in Madison, W…
    Miles Ahead on Did Trayvon fight for his life…
    Hanel cung cấp dịch … on Unofficial Notes: On the RCP…

  • Archives

«
»

A Matter of Method and Content: The Marxist Leninist Study Guide

Posted by Mike E on July 11, 2010

The following is part of Kasama’s beginning discussion of how to study and what to study — for the reconception of communist theory, for the training of new communist activists,  and for the broad preparation of communist revolution.

The following is a rather comprehensive study guide of the inherited communist cannon — and appeared on Josh Syke’s blog The Marxist-Leninist. It was developed according to the political and ideological line of Freedom Road Socialist Organization (ML), and approaches study with an orthodoxy of assumption and content hearkening back to methods promoted during the Stalin-era Comintern (1927-1952). This is in a rather stark contrast to the other approaches advocated in Kasama’s previous threads on communist theory.

Study Guide

This topical study guide is intended for all of those interested in learning about the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism, the science of revolution.

Marxism-Leninism is the synthesis and summation of the historic experiences of the revolutionary struggles of working and oppressed people against capitalism and imperialism for more than 160 years, and as such it is a weapon to be used by working and oppressed people in their struggles for emancipation, liberation, and the building of a new world. As Stalin has said, Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma but a guide to action.

The focus of the study guide is on the classic works of the five principal theoreticians of Marxism-Leninism: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.  Also included are the writings of many other revolutionaries who have creatively applied M-L to the concrete conditions of their countries.

The readings have been divided into distinct topics, with the idea that this study guide will mostly be used by individuals for study on their own in tackling particular, concrete problems. Each topic is then subdivided between basic/essential readings and supplementary readings. The selection here has been made mainly in the interest of finding texts can be grasped quickly and in a practical way.


Overview of Marxism-Leninism

Basic and Essential readings

Supplemental readings


Readings by topic:

Anti-Revisionism

Beginning and Essential readings

Supplemental readings

See also: The Great Debate: Documents of the Sino-Soviet Split (at Marxists.org)

Art, Literature & Culture

Beginning and Essential readings

Supplementary readings

Dialectical & Historical Materialism

Basic and Essential readings

Supplemental readings

Labor Movement & Class Struggle Unionism

Beginning and Essential readings

Supplementary readings

Mass Line

Basic and Essential readings

Supplemental readings

National-Colonial Question

Beginning and Essential readings

Supplemental readings

National Question in the United States

General

African American National Question

Chicano National Question

Indigenous Peoples

Political Economy of Capitalism and Imperialism

Basic and Essential readings

Supplementary readings

Revolutionary Organization

Beginning and Essential readings

Supplemental readings

Socialist Political Economy

Beggining and Essential readings

Supplemental readings

Universal Contributions of Comrade Joseph Stalin

Collected Articles on Stalin’s Contributions

For the full selection of materials.

Here are some articles by various revolutionaries from around the world highlighting Comrade Stalin’s contributions:

Finally, The Marxist-Leninist would like to encourage readers to make use of the resources available from the Stalin Society.

State and Revolution

Beggining and Essential readings

Supplementary readings

“Every Communist must grasp this truth, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’” – Mao Zedong

Against Trotskyism

“It is the duty of the Party to bury Trotskyism as an ideological trend.” – Joseph Stalin

Beginning and Essential readings

Supplemental readings

United Front

Basic and Essential readings

Suplementary readings

Women’s and LGBTQ Liberation

Beginning and Essential readings

Supplementary readings

* * * * * * * *

The best textbook for the study of Marxism-Leninism is, without a doubt, the 1939 Soviet textbook, History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) – Short Course. Written by Joseph Stalin and approved by the Central Committee of the CPSU(B), Mao Zedong said it should be the principal material for the study of Marxism-Leninism and called the book “the best synthesis and summing up of the world communist movement of the past hundred years, a model of the integration of theory and practice.”

This entry was posted on July 11, 2010 at 8:26 am and is filed under Marxist theory, mass line, methodology, study guides. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

20 Responses to “A Matter of Method and Content: The Marxist Leninist Study Guide”

  1. Iris said

    July 12, 2010 at 8:02 am

    wow, thanks for posting this Mike

  2. Andrei Kuznetsov said

    July 12, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    While I agree that rote memorization of the 5 Greats is something we need to break out of, I think that for the most part this study guide is good for what it is. It’s good if you’re looking for specifically for classics about a certain subject as part of broader study of whatever subject one is trying to investigate. I personally like it, although I must emphasize once again it’s good for what it is.

  3. David_D said

    July 12, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    I think it’s a treasury that bestowed on us. It’s a great inheritance (well, most of it – not so much the PRC white paper kind of stuff). But it’s properly a subsumed part of a broader study.

  4. Tell No Lies said

    July 12, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    I think the idea of “classics” here is highly problematic. There is certainly much in this list that might be useful for particular studies and I can certainly see consulting it. But as actual courses of study these is really more about inculcating people into an already established ideology than they are about training people to think critically about these questions. This is most naked in the section entitled “Against Trotskyism.” I’m not particularly sympathetic towards Trotskyism, but its really astounding to see a study on the subject that doesn’t include some selections of writings by Trotsky or at least a defense of Trotskyism by an actual Trotskyist. Even if the intention of the study is to expose Trotskyism, the exclusion of works by Trotsky betrays a bankrupt methodology. No investigation, no right to speak.

  5. b_y said

    July 13, 2010 at 9:53 am

    are we in a world-historical moment where the “universal contributions of comrade joseph stalin” or trotskyism require intensive/consuming inquiry and debate?

    i agree strongly with TNL. i think it would be easy for the comments section to get out of hand with “what about… (insert name of author or essay)…?”s. but the emphasis, repetition of and reliance on very particular revolutionary traditions and in some cases well-worn paths to nowhere, make the manifold exclusions or omissions that much more visible and problematic.

  6. David_D said

    July 13, 2010 at 10:11 am

    B_y: I do think that Stalin merits a lot of study – almost as much as Mao Zedong. Stalin, in practice, made a lot of errors, as did Mao, but I think that the contributions of both to revolutionary theory and worldview are very important. I also think Stalin’s writings are succinct, to the point. Additionally, he was essentially narrating the struggle of the world’s first socialist state of fight for its survival in the face of terrible odds. I don’t particularly think that Trotskyism is a big problem at present. The enemy is really going around waving the red flag at present.

  7. Pink said

    July 15, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    This is most naked in the section entitled “Against Trotskyism.” I’m not particularly sympathetic towards Trotskyism, but its really astounding to see a study on the subject that doesn’t include some selections of writings by Trotsky or at least a defense of Trotskyism by an actual Trotskyist. Even if the intention of the study is to expose Trotskyism, the exclusion of works by Trotsky betrays a bankrupt methodology. No investigation, no right to speak.

    “No investigation, no right to speak”… this is an ironic statement considering that many of those sources contain copious/extensive selections from the writings of Trotsky/Trotskyists. Have you read every single one of them? How do you know they misrepresent what Trotskyism is about? And what kind of an approach to knowledge is this, anyways? Can one never know anything about a subject, for example astrophysics, unless one pores over the notebooks of Niels Bohr? Can I never know what Hitler is all about without reading Mein Kampf? And if you do think this is the case, what hope does your average worker have to know something about anything? Should they have to defer then to those who have the intestinal fortitude to wallow in the jeremiads of the “Old Man”? How shall I break the news to to them that to do otherwise is methodologically “bankrupt”?

    are we in a world-historical moment where the “universal contributions of comrade joseph stalin” or trotskyism require intensive/consuming inquiry and debate?

    Well I would say the benefits of studying Trotsky should be self apparent to any communist engaged in actual practice. The fact is that there are more nominally Trotskyist groups in the US far left scene than not. They might even be greater in numerical terms for that matter. The theoretical debates of the 1920s might be a dead letter to you, but any activist that actually gets out there in the world has to unfortunately get their hands dirty dealing with Trotskyist ideas and Trotskyist practice sooner or later. Why wouldn’t you read about it, for the sake of curiosity if not as a practical matter? Or does every generation have to learn the same things over and over for itself?

  8. Vivid Visionary said

    July 17, 2010 at 10:45 am

    I’m also somewhat appalled by the section labelled “Against Trotskyism.” I certainly am not Trotskyist, but am eager to study his writings if im interested in critiquing and moving beyond his theories and ideologies. I dont think this is positive for Kasama’s character as a site which hopes to develop a critical methodology in reconceiving revolutionary politics. Not only that, but it starts with a quote by none other than Stalin. I mean, come on. Who did this?

  9. Pink said

    July 17, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    So Vivid Visionary is saying that they are not a Trotskyist and thinks Trotsky should be studied.

    On the other hand, this study guide is not Trotskyist (“Against Trotskyism”) and thinks Trotsky should be studied (obviously).

    Naturally, Vivid finds this appalling. Huh?

    Maybe Vivid can explain what kind of “critical methodology” for “reconceiving revolutionary politics” is capable of “critiquing and moving beyond” Trotsky’s theories and ideologies… without actually studying his writings?

  10. Vivid Visionary said

    July 17, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    I misread the introduction to this post, my bad.

    Pink, I dont know what youre saying. Its like youre just repeating me.

  11. Pink said

    July 17, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    The problem is that you implying that these texts are not valid sources for the “theories and ideologies” of Trotskyism without supplying any reasoned argument for why this is so, only your impressionistic feelings about the matter (“Stalin! ZOMG!”). That attitude is not very critical and it is probably insufficient for the rather audacious task of “reconceiving revolutionary politics”.

  12. Vivid Visionary said

    July 17, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    Because if you want to critique Trotskyism, you have to read Trotsky himself, and that isnt provided in this study guide, regardless of how much they intend to engage Trotsky’s writings.

  13. Dave Palmer said

    July 18, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    Pink, would you read Trotsky’s “The Stalin School of Falsification” to get a better understanding of Stalin’s theories and ideologies? I understand that it contains copious/extensive selections from the writings of Stalin.

    Generally, I would not expect that something written by someone’s opponent in the midst of a bitter struggle would always portray that person’s views accurately — even in the midst of a comradely struggle; if you examine the polemics between Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg on nationalism, for example, you will see that both of them misrepresent the other’s position somewhat.

  14. Pink said

    July 18, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    Funny you mention that book, Dave. It was the first book by Trotsky I ever read :-)

    A study guide is by definition a starting point and a summary. How that starting point is arrived at and how it is summarized are choices depending on a particular point of view. Of course, everyone has a point of view. The problem is that folks are dressing up their political differences as methodological quibbles or emotional appeals.

  15. redflags said

    July 19, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Of the various theoretic primers and studies posted so far in this valuable collection of communist teaching — the Sojourner Truth Organization’s “How to Think” is definitely my favorite, and the most useful. A retreating marxism that positions itself as a “stations of the cross” was problematic when it was pervasive, and is actually terrible in our current state. A neo-revisionist and revanchist stalinism is corrosive. It is about thinking in categories, or identities, and not through dialectics, development and innovation.

    Stalinism never led a revolution anywhere. It is, in short, the turning of a scientific method into a doctrine. And in this case, including the writings of Fight Back’s neo-revisionists is useful for understanding the methodological dead-end of “stalinism”.

    When you find yourself supporting the very people who restored capitalism in China, the awful hereditary monarchy of North Korea and misogynist theocratic oil merchants in Iran — you have let the category overdetermine reality. It doesn’t matter what people do, what their capacities are or even the policy and daily life of the masses. Nope. Only that such states are “objectively” in contradiction (for now, this week or next) with aspects of US global imperialism.

    In this way, mechanically, all one needs to do is deduce position for category. Which is to say, oppose Marxism and revolutionary communism in order to move “categories” and “identities” into play.

    I have read many of the readings on this list, and passed on quite a few of them to others. That said — to treat the gospels of the comintern as our starting point is to forget that great revolutions were made largely in OPPOSITION to what stalinist mechanical thinking tried to impose. That was the genius of Mao — to use the mass line and materialist analysis to develop a living program for China’s revolution. If Mao had following the “don’t think” method being promoted here, he would have subsumed the Communist Party behind the nationalists, later gone on to join the capitalist roaders (instead of relying on the masses to challenge that in the cultural revolution) and would now be a corrupt party hack taking payoffs from Nike and Dell computers to get his own kids through private schools.

    Methodologically, categorical thinking is what Marx called “mechanical materialism” — and what Lenin derided as inferior to philosophical idealism that at least had the virtue of dialectics.

    Thanks for including these readings from Fight Back, Mike. People should read this stuff — and far more. But they shouldn’t be confused that Fight Back’s embrace of capitalist police states and Islamic theocracy butchering its own people with their version of Tea Party goons is actually (and obviously) PROFOUNDLY opposed to what has been called “anti-revisionism”. It is revisionism. It’s a vision of socialism as tank driving over “objectively” reactionary people who refuse to be ruled by “self-appointed saviors” and state capitalists.

  16. Harsh Thakor said

    January 24, 2011 at 6:07 am

    A great compilation of writings on the mass line but I wish there were some postings by Indian revolutionary writers on the mass line.In the past 3 decades some of the most important writings were those of the late Com.Harbhajan Singh Sohi,particularly on his criticisms of the Teng-Hua Clique and Enver Hoxha and the line of the R.C.P.U.S.A.He also superbly defends Mao Tse Tung Thought in his 1980 writings in “Proletarian path”In recent yaers he was the greatest polemicst .In the l970′s the Punjab Co-ordination Commitee of Communist Revolutionaries brought out a document on the relationship of mass organisations with the party’,which superbly differentiates the character of a mass organisation with the party and explains the importance of not imposing party politics on them.Earlier the same organisation brought out a document in 1974 refuting the left adventurist Charu Mazumdar line.In the late 1960′s there were similar writings by Tarimala Nagi Reddy and D.V.Rao of the Andhra Pradesh Co-ordination Commitee who refuted left adventurism and stressed on building the agrarian revolutionary movement.The mass line of the Telengana Armed Struggle from 1946-51 in Andhra Pradesh was another significant work of D.V.Rao.Com.Chandra Pulla Reddy also had written extensively on the agrarian revolution.Comrades T.N and D.V made the most significant contribution towrads the building of the mass agarian revolutionary line.

    Also significant writings on the mass line were written in liberation of the ‘Central Team ‘C.P.I(M.L.)formed in 1978 and the earlier issues of Red Star of the C.P.I.(M.L.)Red Flag in the early 1990′s.Another Indian revolutionary Journal ‘The Comrade’ had published outstanding polemical articles in the last 2 decades on the mass line,particulary on agrarian revolution,trade Union Movement and International line.It would be great if some of the excerpts on the massline and theoretical questions could be posted from that journal.A veteran Indian Revolutionary Sunder Navalkar contributed significant writings on ‘Mao Tse Tung Thought’,'Naxalbari’,'Communalism’etc. in a journal ‘Jasood’,the most regular revolutionary political journal in Maharashtra.They are written in Marathi but some of the writings desreve to be translated into English for publication . No work represents the massline in totality and the evaluations may have errors but I feel that such works have immense significance .

    These are my plain suggestions and I do not post this as a supporter of any particular line.The problem of many of the C.P.I.Maoist critiques is their criticisms are from a rightist or ecclectical standpoint.This is exactly what has happened in Indian journals like E.P.W. and Frontier,which have produced some of the most ecclectical standpoints.I feel Charu Mazumdar and Kanhai chaterjee’s writings should also be posted.Charu’s line was left adventurist but it has to be deeply studied as a lesson.

    At an International level I feel Mike,Scott Harrison’s writings on the mass line have great polemic originality and deserve to be published.I really credit his writings on the personality Cult and the mass line.His writings on Socialist China and America illustrate this.

  17. Mike E said

    January 24, 2011 at 8:37 am

    Harsh writes:

    “A great compilation of writings on the mass line but I wish there were some postings by Indian revolutionary writers on the mass line.”

    thanks for sharing these suggestions.

    The whole question of Mass Line is of extreme importance to us — in part because a “renaissance” of that leadership method is so important for any new communist movement in the U.S.

    Please send us the texts of any historical Indian communist articles that you believe will contribute to this discussion.

  18. Harsh Thakor said

    November 22, 2011 at 4:49 am

    Mike,the Tarimela Nagi Reddy foundation has recently published 2 volumes on the History of the polemics of the Indian Communist Movement from the period of 1942-51 and from 1964-1972.These volumes ,particularly the 1964-72 have valuable analysis of the mass line,particularly as advocated by comrades such as Tarimela Nagi Reddy,D.V.Rao,Kanu Sanyal,Gunadar Murmu,Sushital Roy Choudhary etc.,The analysis of the Andra Pradesh Co-ordination commitee has great relevance in light of refuting left adventurism.I am sending you the volumes and I reccomend that you should post the important materials.

    Please confirm your postal adress which I saw earlier,but which is not online now.

  19. Harsh Thakor said

    November 22, 2011 at 5:08 am

    Mike,please use this useful link at http://www.wengewang.org/simple/index.php?t22618.html where there are posted a series of superb documents and articles of historical value .The most important articles are those on the
    1.History of Naxalbari and the aftermath,
    21995 C.P.I.(M.L)-Peoples War conference
    3. the path and programme of the Communist Party-Re-Organisation Centre of India (Marxist -Leninist),where outstanding aspects of the mass line are illustrated.
    This site ‘s articles also describe the struggles of the erstwhile Party Unity,M.C..C.and Peoples War Groups.

  20. Fabian said

    April 4, 2012 at 9:32 am

    This list is wonderful; this is the greatest thing Kasama has ever done! Im going to use this list for future readings in the Marxist Reading Group of Houston. I particularly like the readings from CPGB-ML comrades Harpar Bral and Ella Rule. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

«
»
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 216 other followers