It depends on what you mean by "introduction to Marx". The best introduction to his theories in Das Kapital that i have read was done by Marx himself tho. You can find it here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch01.htm#c1
Good, simple introduction to Marx?
Karl Korsch's book is quite good: http://www.marx.org/archive/korsch/1938/karl-marx/index.htm
Communist Manifesto, its all you need to know. Its written by Marx, and is a little strenuous to get through, but it is the best intro to his ideas, reasons, and evidence. Itl make you well rounded in Marx theory.
This is a good, simple introduction to Marx, off Monthly Review Press, in mostly his own words and stresses continuity between the young and old Marx .
"Midwest Book Review
Over the last 150 years, Karl Marx has been invoked in connection with everything from unemployment insurance to Hollywood to guerrilla wars. Any number of international movements have claimed his teachings as their inspiration. Time after time, authorities have proclaimed the death of Marx's theories while new and old audiences continue to draw vital insight from the works of one of the most important and controversial philosophers and economists of the industrial era. How To Read Karl Marx is one of the best introductions to the writings of Karl Marx currently available to the non-specialist general reader. It includes a biographical chronology, extracts from the major works of Marx, and "Marx's Method" (a valuable essay by political economist Paul M. Sweezy. How To Read Karl Marx is a highly recommended addition to school and community library collections.
Product Description
A brief, clear, and faithful exposition of Marx's major premises, with particular attention to historical context."
Check out the T.O.C. here:
OliverTwister wrote:
Quote:
a valuable essay by political economist Paul M. Sweezy.I haven't read that book, but i'd be wary on that basis alone.
didn't read that essay, its in the appendix.. it looked wack.. just skip it. the original book was written in the 60's or early 70's, the essay came in '96 for the monthly review reprint (i assume).
the book is no big deal.. but its "simple and good".. its about half quotes directly from the gamut of marx's own writing, emphasizing grundrisse, capital and econo-philo manuscripts. the elaboration that this guy fischer offers is mostly in regards to dispelling stereotypes of marx. he was a member of the austrian CP and expelled for dissenting.. but was no bordiga. (more info on him here http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/136-7-71.shtml)
I'm sure that the SPGB would have a good version, as they seem to be the only actual Marxists around these days. Most people who claim to be Marxists differ quite fundamentally from Marx and Engels, particularly the Leninists and those influenced by Lenin. Somewhat ironically, the typical "Marxist" is close to Bakunin on numerous issues -- but they shoehorn whatever valid positions they have into a statist/vanguardist ideology...
Section H of "An Anarchist FAQ" may be worth a read, though. Although I am in the process of revising it -- the core arguments will be the same, just supplemented by more quotes and other evidence.
Marx for Beginners (Paperback) by Rius
[url=]http://www.amazon.com/Marx-Beginners-Rius/dp/0375714618]http://www.amazon.com/Marx-Beginners-Rius/dp/0375714618[/url]
We really need more comic books on these kinds of subjects.
I'd go for "value, price, profit" The SPGB has a good study guide to it:
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/vpp.html
In response to anarcho, socialists including Marx and the SPGB, oppose state capitalism. Anarchists just ignore the state!
darren poynton wrote:
In response to anarcho, socialists including Marx and the SPGB, oppose state capitalism. Anarchists just ignore the state!
I think you will discover that anarchists do not "ignore" the state. Regardless of what marxists assert, we aim to see it destroyed and combat it by direct action until that can happen.
As for state capitalism, I would say that the SPGB oppose it but Marx is more problematic. At times he is aware of the need for workers self-management, at others he advocates nationalisation (the taking over of capital by the state). As such, Lenin was building on certain aspects of Marx's work -- particularly as popularised by Engels.
Oh, and anarchists are socialists too. I'm not one to let Marxists monopolise that particular description (particularly as Proudhon's work was important be making Marx a socialist).
Ignore Anarcho's attempt to make every thread into a stupid sectarian war between "anarchists" and "Marxists". The guy clearly has his chip on his shoulder.
Anyway, I'm going to go with Dave C and say read Karl Korsch's book. Ignore everyone else's recommendations, Karl Korsch's book is far and away the best intro to Marx.
(And it's even more impressive to me given that Korsch didn't agree with very much Marx at that point in his life. But he did a very good job in describing Marx's theories, in as favorable a light as possible.)
Quote:
Marx for Beginners (Paperback) by Rius
[url=]http://www.amazon.com/Marx-Beginners-Rius/dp/0375714618]http://www.amazon.com/Marx-Beginners-Rius/dp/0375714618[/url]
We really need more comic books on these kinds of subjects.
While this does have cartoons and stuff, it is Stalinist and distorts Marx in that sort of direction.
mikus wrote:
Ignore Anarcho's attempt to make every thread into a stupid sectarian war between "anarchists" and "Marxists". The guy clearly has his chip on his shoulder.Anyway, I'm going to go with Dave C and say read Karl Korsch's book. Ignore everyone else's recommendations, Karl Korsch's book is far and away the best intro to Marx.
(And it's even more impressive to me given that Korsch didn't agree with very much Marx at that point in his life. But he did a very good job in describing Marx's theories, in as favorable a light as possible.)
Well darren's was a bit sectarian too, no?
mikus wrote:
Ignore Anarcho's attempt to make every thread into a stupid sectarian war between "anarchists" and "Marxists".
Heaven forbid that someone actually mentions what Marx and Engels actually advocated and compares that to what "Marxists" advocate! Particularly in a thread which asks for a good introduction to Marx's ideas...
Still, why would anyone interested in Marx actually care what he argued -- we have various "marxists" to do that for us...
mikus wrote:
The guy clearly has his chip on his shoulder.
Yes, I admit to being sick to death of "Marxists" making inaccurate assertions about anarchism (although as that started with Marx and Engels, I'm not that surprised). I'm also pretty tired of "Marxists" denying what Marx and Engels actually wrote.
Which suggests that when someone asks for a good introduction to Marx, I would recommend a source (the SPGB) which actually follow the ideas advocated by Marx and Engels. And I would also note that most "Marxists" hold ideas significantly at odds with them. Someone which many "Marxists" also argue (i.e., I'm sure most "Marxists" here would say that Leninism was not Marxist).
And, somewhat ironically, I did note that most "Marxists" hold positions closer to Bakunin than Marx on quite a few issues.
mikus wrote:
Anyway, I'm going to go with Dave C and say read Karl Korsch's book. Ignore everyone else's recommendations, Karl Korsch's book is far and away the best intro to Marx.
Or I would suggest reading Marx himself, say the Communist Manifesto. Also, Marx, Engels and liberal democracy by Michael Levin (Macmillan, 1988) is a good overview of Marx and Engels ideas on democratic politics and their numerous arguments in favour of what could be termed a "social democratic" approach to social change.
it's very intersting, in a psychological point of view....
divide revolutionaries in 2 teams, stress differences, reject similarities, potray the "others" like evil enemies and start the fight with random quotes, saying everything and nothing. It's like war time propaganda.
when he found a similarity, he's disappointed instead of being happy....so he hides it.... he doesn't care if many marxists are NOT social democrats or stalinists.... he wants to believe that Marx was a very bad guy. People like Pannekoek, Gorter, Mattick, Dauve, Debord...they didn't understand Marx as Anarcho did...Marx was bad! 
why? he doesn't care too much about "revolution", he cares about his very personal identity, of wich his ideology has an important role...and he's scared to death to find out that marxism, his ultimate enemy, could be a good revolutionary point of view, even better than its... that's why, for him, marxists are the SPGB and not the dutch/german ultraleft, for example. The enemy MUST be weak, evil and clearly wrong... so he will be forever sure to be in the right side.
Communard wrote:
it's very intersting, in a psychological point of view....
divide revolutionaries in 2 teams, stress differences, reject similarities, potray the "others" like evil enemies and start the fight with random quotes, saying everything and nothing. It's like war time propaganda.when he found a similarity, he's disappointed instead of being happy....so he hides it.... he doesn't care if many marxists are NOT social democrats or stalinists.... he wants to believe that Marx was a very bad guy. People like Pannekoek, Gorter, Mattick, Dauve, Debord...they didn't understand Marx as Anarcho did...Marx was bad!
why? he doesn't care too much about "revolution", he cares about his very personal identity, of wich his ideology has an important role...and he's scared to death to find out that marxism, his ultimate enemy, could be a good revolutionary point of view, even better than its... that's why, for him, marxists are the SPGB and not the dutch/german ultraleft, for example. The enemy MUST be weak, evil and clearly wrong... so he will be forever sure to be in the right side.
Well you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. If he wanted to show 'weak, evil, and clearly wrong' marxists, he could do a lot better than the SPGB (well, they aren't evil at least).
I don't think Anarcho dismisses Marx as being simply "bad!" I think he's consistently said that people ought to read marx, and not just skip over the embarassing social-democratic bullshit to concentrate on the very useful critiques of political economy.
"evil" was ironic...
Marxism should not be a religion, Marx was not the Prophet who gave us the Holy Words... he's a human, like us.
We materialists call ourself "marxists", but we are not all Believers of the Faith. I don't think Marx was always right, his thought was constantly changing, evolving......and marxism today is changed too.
Anarcho consider Marx as a Prophet or someting similar... and we are the "believers" not aware of his "mistakes"...
Anarcho, be happy if we're not like your vision of Marx!
OliverTwister wrote:
mikus wrote:
Ignore Anarcho's attempt to make every thread into a stupid sectarian war between "anarchists" and "Marxists". The guy clearly has his chip on his shoulder.Anyway, I'm going to go with Dave C and say read Karl Korsch's book. Ignore everyone else's recommendations, Karl Korsch's book is far and away the best intro to Marx.
(And it's even more impressive to me given that Korsch didn't agree with very much Marx at that point in his life. But he did a very good job in describing Marx's theories, in as favorable a light as possible.)
Well darren's was a bit sectarian too, no?
I disagree with what darren said, but he doesn't go around polluting every thread with sectarian comments like that. Anarcho, on the other hand, does. It's even worse than the ICC towards anarchism.
Anarcho wrote:
mikus wrote:
Ignore Anarcho's attempt to make every thread into a stupid sectarian war between "anarchists" and "Marxists".Heaven forbid that someone actually mentions what Marx and Engels actually advocated and compares that to what "Marxists" advocate! Particularly in a thread which asks for a good introduction to Marx's ideas...
Still, why would anyone interested in Marx actually care what he argued -- we have various "marxists" to do that for us...
mikus wrote:
The guy clearly has his chip on his shoulder.Yes, I admit to being sick to death of "Marxists" making inaccurate assertions about anarchism (although as that started with Marx and Engels, I'm not that surprised). I'm also pretty tired of "Marxists" denying what Marx and Engels actually wrote.
Which suggests that when someone asks for a good introduction to Marx, I would recommend a source (the SPGB) which actually follow the ideas advocated by Marx and Engels. And I would also note that most "Marxists" hold ideas significantly at odds with them. Someone which many "Marxists" also argue (i.e., I'm sure most "Marxists" here would say that Leninism was not Marxist).
And, somewhat ironically, I did note that most "Marxists" hold positions closer to Bakunin than Marx on quite a few issues.
mikus wrote:
Anyway, I'm going to go with Dave C and say read Karl Korsch's book. Ignore everyone else's recommendations, Karl Korsch's book is far and away the best intro to Marx.Or I would suggest reading Marx himself, say the Communist Manifesto. Also, Marx, Engels and liberal democracy by Michael Levin (Macmillan, 1988) is a good overview of Marx and Engels ideas on democratic politics and their numerous arguments in favour of what could be termed a "social democratic" approach to social change.
So finally, after a number of posts, you get around to answering the original question rather than spewing forth sectarian nonsense? Don't try and play innocent, you clearly enjoy hijacking every possible thread in order to fulfill your strange vendetta against Marxists. Was your alcoholic stepdaddy a Marxist or something?
mikus wrote:
So finally, after a number of posts, you get around to answering the original question rather than spewing forth sectarian nonsense?
I think you will notice that the first thing I did was to recommend the SPGB, as they are the only people around who subscribe to Marx's actual politics. As the request was for an introduction to MARX, rather than "Marxism", that seemed like a sensible thing to do...
mikus wrote:
Don't try and play innocent, you clearly enjoy hijacking every possible thread in order to fulfill your strange vendetta against Marxists. Was your alcoholic stepdaddy a Marxist or something?
Actually, I think you will discover that I contribue to debates usually to correct "Marxist" distortions of anarchism as well as providing numerous facts and quotes exposing claims made about Marx and Lenin.
I'm sorry that people think that providing the actual views of Marx and Engels is considered so terrible. Next time someone says something inaccurate about them, I guess I had best be quiet and not disturb the "Marxists" with the actual opinions of Marx and Engels...
mikus wrote:
I disagree with what darren said, but he doesn't go around polluting every thread with sectarian comments like that. Anarcho, on the other hand, does. It's even worse than the ICC towards anarchism.
What, suggesting that few "Marxists" these days actually subscribe to the notion that universal suffrage equals the political rule of the working class? Is that "sectarian"? I fail to see why, unless the opinions of Marx is actually irrelevant to "Marxism"? As for my comments on state capitalism, it is prefectly obvious that Marx advocated, at times, nationalisation (not to mention "labour armies"). That is state capitalism. And as I noted, at other times, he took a socialist position.
I'm guessing that "sectarian comments" actually mean "accurate comments"? Or, again, do the opinions of Marx really are irrelevant in a thread on introductions to Marx?
Communard wrote:
it's very intersting, in a psychological point of view....
divide revolutionaries in 2 teams, stress differences, reject similarities, potray the "others" like evil enemies and start the fight with random quotes, saying everything and nothing. It's like war time propaganda.
Sounds like most Marxists I have come across. Still, given that I noted that there were state capitalist elements to Marx as well as genuinely socialist ones, I'm not sure how that applies to me. Particularly as I noted that most Marxists hold positions closer to anarchism than Marx did these days...
Communard wrote:
when he found a similarity, he's disappointed instead of being happy....so he hides it.... he doesn't care if many marxists are NOT social democrats or stalinists.... he wants to believe that Marx was a very bad guy. People like Pannekoek, Gorter, Mattick, Dauve, Debord...they didn't understand Marx as Anarcho did...Marx was bad! :)
Oh, right. This is now a thread on introductions to MARXISM, rather than MARX? Nice to know...
And I should note that Pannekoek, Gorter, Mattick and Debord are great revolutionaries and thinkers. Their Marxism is so close to anarchism that I fail to understand why they bothered with the Marxist label... particularly as Marx spent a great deal of time attacking revolutionaries who held positions close to them.
Communard wrote:
why? he doesn't care too much about "revolution", he cares about his very personal identity, of wich his ideology has an important role...and he's scared to death to find out that marxism, his ultimate enemy, could be a good revolutionary point of view, even better than its...
ROTFL! Really, this is getting funny.
Communard wrote:
that's why, for him, marxists are the SPGB and not the dutch/german ultraleft, for example. The enemy MUST be weak, evil and clearly wrong... so he will be forever sure to be in the right side.
So, the dutch/german ultraleft would agree that universal suffrage is the political power of the working class? That we should take part in elections in order to take political power, which will then be used to "refashion" the old state? They argue that the republic is the "specific form" of the proletarian dictatorship? Really? I doubt it, for some reason...
Not sure about the "weak, evil" part but surely it is a striking admission that the SPGB are "clearly wrong" when, in fact, they are expounding the ideas Marx and Engels advocated...
Apparently, bringing up the actual politics of Marx on a thread about introductions to Marx is not the done thing. I'm very sorry. Next time someone asks me about Marx, I will tell them what Pannekoek wrote decades after his death. That makes sense...
But, as I'm noted already, most "Marxists" are actually closer to Bakunin these days. That would suggest that I've stressed "similarities" -- shame that most "Marxists" seem keen to ignore this...
Communard wrote:
Marxism should not be a religion, Marx was not the Prophet who gave us the Holy Words... he's a human, like us.
So best not mention how wrong he was? Are we to forget about those bits? Even when someone asks for an introduction to Marx? Is it really a case that Marx is simply the bits you happen to agree with, and all the other bits were written by... someone else?
Communard wrote:
We materialists call ourself "marxists", but we are not all Believers of the Faith. I don't think Marx was always right, his thought was constantly changing, evolving......and marxism today is changed too.
The tread is about MARX, not MARXISM. Sorry for keeping to the subject of the thread...
Communard wrote:
Anarcho consider Marx as a Prophet or someting similar... and we are the "believers" not aware of his "mistakes"...
Not at all, although apparently you simply do not want anyone mentioning them. Or pointing out the obvious fact that the SPGB are the only people around who subscribe to the stated political ideas of Marx and Engels.
Communard wrote:
Anarcho, be happy if we're not like your vision of Marx!
Marx is dead. But surely if someone asks for an introduction to MARX you suggest sources which reflect his actual ideas rather than the various ideologies which take the label "Marxism".
So, just to get this right, when we discuss an introduction to MARX we must provide references to his ideas which do not mention the "mistakes"? That provide interpretations of his ideas which are clearly at odds with his own stated politics? Nice to know.
Now, if this thread had been called introductions to Marxism I would have a few good texts to recommend from different versions of "Marxism" -- council communism, autonomism, situationism, and so on. But that was not what was asked. Any decent introduction to Marx has to reflect his actual views, not the ideologically correct ones whatever specific sub-group of his followers happen to prefer...
But apparently, to be accurate is to be sectarian...
OliverTwister wrote:
Well you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. If he wanted to show 'weak, evil, and clearly wrong' marxists, he could do a lot better than the SPGB (well, they aren't evil at least).I don't think Anarcho dismisses Marx as being simply "bad!" I think he's consistently said that people ought to read marx, and not just skip over the embarassing social-democratic bullshit to concentrate on the very useful critiques of political economy.
Well said! Precisely the case...
mikus wrote:
"The SPGB" is not an introduction to Marx.
I think you will discover that I suggested that the SPGB would be a good group to ask for such an introduction, given that they are following Marx's actual political ideas. However embrassassing that may be to libertarian Marxists today...
I also provided a link which evaluates Marx's ideas, as well as their legacy both positive (in the form of council communism, etc.) as well as negative (in the form of social democracy and Leninism). It does concentrate on the latter, as (sadly) that has always been the majority form of "Marxism". So, rather than think Marx is "evil" (or the SPGB!), I provided a link which notes that there are libertarian AND authoritarian elements in his work (alternatively, there are communist AND state capitalist elements).
Those Marxists who build on the former are acknowledged as genuine socialists and close to anarchism (so much for demonising the other "camp"!). Whether that can still be called "Marxism" is debatable -- unsurprisingly, both Kautsky and Lenin called Pannekoek (or those close to him) an anarchist. As I have stressed, in terms of actual politics these tendencies are closer to Bakunin than Marx on numerous issues.
Still, why bother with all that when you can get into a nice little freezy and assume the worse? Really, as bad as the ICC? At least I have a grasp of the facts of a subject before discussing it....
As far as I understand it Anarchism is based on simple dualism's - "freedom" versus "authority, "individual" versus "society" etc.
"Marxism" is based on method, eg historical materialism - an understanding of society and history not as fixed catergories but as a dynamic process.
Of course there is a version of "Marxism" which sees everything that Marx (or Lenin) wrote as gospel, though this is counter to the former..
There are state capitalist Marxists and there are indiviudualistic Anarchists...
The real problem isn't "Anarchists" versus "Marxists" but Communist theory versus Capitalist Ideology.
I think it is counterproductive to label oneself as "Anarchist" or "Marxist"
I feel like this question has been asked a million times on these forums, but I need a good intro to Marx. It does not have to be by Marx specifically. Ideally, I'm looking for a short article directed at someone who is not especially politicized but has an open mind. Any suggestions?