Flexible left unity

I am sympathetic to most forms of far leftism, and really I think that which one I would support the most would depend on the country it is being carried out in. can see anarchism being viable in western countries where everyone is on board and there is already a surplus of most material goods, however in a third world country I can see MLMs being far more successful in bringing about communism, as the organisation of the rapid industrialisation would need centralised bodies. Is this a widely thought idea that I haven't seen people talk about or am I fucking retarded?

Attached: leftunity.png (304x166, 3.5K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/anarchism/index.htm
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

You aren't retarded, you simply don't understand how society works. Read in the following order:

the Greeks
Kant
Fichte
Schelling
Hegel
(Optional) Feuerbach
(Optional) Proudhon
Smith and gang
French enlightnmentfags
Marx-Engels-Lenin
(Optional) Soviet psychologists
Ilyenkov
Vaziulin

Once you understand how the process of the way we study history and society developed from the ancient dialectic of the greeks to Marx's dialectic, you will understand why most branches of marxism are dogmatic and why anarchism is essentially utopian socialism, aka metaphysical in nature

Can you recommend me some Soviet psychologists
The ones we mention here are like Leontiev, Luria and Vygotsky

I'm only familiar with Vygotsky and Luria, but there are some greek psychiatrists who are building on their works, I know one is writing a book (don't know if it's out yet) about Activity Theory (something akin to what Vaziulin did on Marx's work, trying to extract the methodology or "logic" within it in order to expand it so that it can explain modern circumstances in a proper marxist scientific and dialectical way). Don't know if and when it will be translated to English however. Unfortunately, much of the forefront stuff theory-wise is written either in Russian or in Greek/German, most of the English stuff coming from the western academics is post-modernist garbage.

Should add Spinoza, Schelling I think is optional, definitely should add Ricardo, I'd also add Althusser.

I did include Ricardo in that smith et al bundle. As for Spinoza, I don't think he contributed much to the development of philosophical methodology in order to qualify as necessary studying for a marxist. Scheeling was a benchmark in the development of dialectics, he introduced many key concepts of the dialectic process and his career also servers as a good example of how systemic academics are used to dampen the spread of revolutionary theory. If you don't have time to study him, you should definitely at least watch some lectures on him from some serious scholar or read some soviet research on his work, and it's the same for all the idealists really. It would be good if we had time to study them all, but many of us don't have that possibility (my post was a semi-joke format). I'd seriously reccomend everything after Hegel in that order though, and if not the bare minimum is everything after Marx.

As for Althusser, he didn't even read Marx to begin with. Nothing more than a postmodernist hack.

Schelling*

Your flair is pretty accurate

Lol. Read Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution.

read marx