Communism

Chomsky is a bit of an interesting conundrum. On the one hand, the conclusions and processes laid out in his analysis of Capitalism, especially with respect to the media and how it operates to prep the public for dramatic action and shift narratives is incredibly valuable. However, his analysis of Socialism is unfortunately incredibly anti-Marxist, and this extends to perpetual misanalysis of Socialism as it exists in the real world, often using "State Capitalism" to refer to Socialist States. As a consequence, including his works can backfire if not read with a strong understanding of Socialism beforehand to separate the golden nuggets from the nonsense, so to speak.

To that end, I actually think Michael Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds does a decent job of pointing out the role the media plays in Capitalist states, and absolutely nails modern Capitalist Imperialism, all while being realistic about AES due to his Marxist leanings. Here's one of his most famous quotes:

During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.

If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

-Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds

I appreciate your input, though! What do you think about the list overall?

Thank you for checking it out! Now more than ever is a great opportunity for reading theory and radicalization, so I've been sharing it when I can.

The proletarian frees himself by abolishing competition, private property and all class differences.

I wonder how many people today who call themselves "Communist" would actually be fine with that.
It's our car now, comrade.

Communists seek the abolishment of private property — property owned by capitalists used to extract surplus value from workers, like real estate, corporations, IPs, etc. Not personal property which is property you use yourself, like your house (even if it's rented from a capitalist; they should not own your house as private property in the first place) or your car.

• You Don't Own Anything Under Capitalism

• No, Socialists Don't Want Your Toothbrush
  ‎

It's all explained in the books listed.

Good questions!

1. Yes and no. This is class reductionism, a dogmatic approach to Class distinctions, however you are getting to where the Petite Bourgeoisie and Proletariat start to solidify. The Proletariat must labor to live, the Petite Bourgeoisie must labor to live too, but work using Capital they own. ie, workers vs small business owners. Having some 401k investments does not make you petite bourgeoisie, you still fund your livelihood off of your labor and your labor alone. There are elements of Labor Aristocracy and other, more complicated parts of class dynamics, especially with respect to Imperialism, but that concept can be shelved for now. You'll come to it later if you stick with this list, and it will make more sense then.

2. Class dynamics are still relevant today. The proletariat includes office workers, but also still includes the factory workers overseas who still produce everything! The Global North didn't move beyond factories, but exported most of them to Global South countries the Global North can exploit even more. Parenti makes his case for this in the last section of Blackshirts, the next book on the list.

3. Every Communist accepts abolition of Private Property. A fully socialized economy is publicly owned and centrally planned. This means no private property. No, Communists are not saying you can't have a toothbrush or gaming PC of your own, that's why they distinguish between Private, Public, and Personal property. There are many Communists that want all or almost all transportation to be publicly owned, yes, but that comes with proper city planning and infrastructure to allow for it to be practical.

Hope that helps!

If by "post economic" you mean the abolishment of money, communism is supposed to be that: a stateless, classless, moneyless society (see: primitive communism)

In practice, the new relations of production post-capitalism may give rise to entirely new class divisions instead — similar to prior changes in modes of production throughout history — but we'll see that when we get there.

First of all, what do you mean by a "Post-Economic Society?" I am not sure I understand the context of your question. Chiefly, Communism is just the phase in Mode of Production Communists believe will be after Socialism, that doesn't mean it's the end of historical movement.

State and Revolution was what convinced me of communism. Black shirts and Reds radicalized me but State and Revolution educated me and convinced me of the necessity of revolution. I straight up could not define what a state was before I read that 💀

No problem! Wanted to have something of my own to share any time I think it might be wanted, plus with the aftermath of the US election many US liberals are more open to radicalization.

Fully agree on Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and State and Rev, both are some of the most useful for understanding Scientific Socialism and the necessity of revolution.

Thanks for your input!

It's me, please do it... 🥺

Love the content of that list, hate that it uses Google Analytics. I used to share that list around too, but after a comrade pointed it out I've refrained for OPSEC reasons. If you are okay with it, I can personally back it up as a good list even if I made my own list based on my own overall preferences. That's part of why I am making my own list instead!

Thanks for sharing!

I'm not aware of any better orgs in the US - do you have a recommendation?