Hey Zig Forums...

Hey Zig Forums, I just received $150 from my grandmother for my birthday and am planning on purchasing these books in order to become an intellectualfag (for the record, I've already read all of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Che, Zizek, and Stalin). Now I want to hit the big stuff which you need a grad school degree to understand.

As such, I would like to know your opinion on each of these books and their respected authors. Yes, some of them are anthologies.

If you think all of these books are shit, please enlighten me on what I should read instead.

Attached: leftypolbooks.png (983x982, 1.09M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Fv5VMf-RJx4)
sumatrapdfreader.org/
libgen.io/
reddit.com/r/LeftistHotTakes/comments/8wloo6/leftypol_is_triggered_by_comrades_reading/
boards.4chan.org/lit/thread/11419504
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Download the PDFs of those you can find online, then spend the money on obscure books.
Here's a free Bataille to get you started with. Also good taste

There are enough intellectual fags in the world, we dont need another one. I recommend you either put it towards organizing something in your community, or donating it.

I can't read PDFs plus I'm always going to the beach this summer so I'd prefer hard copies.

Charity doesn't solve shit though, and $150 bucks is barely enough to keep a space open.

Id argue id does a hell of a lot more than books. Maybe use the money as travel expenses to and from places (if you havent given in to wageslavery yet) and volunteer your time at a foodbank/soupkitchen etc

While books will help you, you can help others.

I'm only intimately familiar with the first two pieces (top left, top middle). The former is an excellent theoretical and historical account of the economic expression of Marxian thought, and the latter is an excellent dereliction of monistic thought or analytic tendencies in post-Hegel studies and developments of dialectical theory. (post being a purely horological category, not a theoretical one). My own inclinations would steer me away from Guattari and Deleuze, whom I identify more with transcendental philosophy (or anti-philosophy, if one were to ask Badiou).

I'd rather be reading. Theory IS practice after all.

ITT: Zig Forums is triggered by a comrade READING

What's anti-philosophy?

Lmao no ones triggered, im just letting the guy know theres more to be done than just reading the same old theorists and talking points

You can't build a revolution without theory.

we have abundance of theory and building a revolution that requires it to be read to practise isnt a revolution at all, its a think tank

Again, I'd rather read and learn theory. Helping out at a soup kitchen won't do shit for my brain.


Thanks this helps.

Badiou created a categorical distinction in a work on Wittgenstein, which has become the basis for a new appraisal of a number of philosophical traditions: Antiphilosophy, which was meant as a critique of those tendencies which eschewed the philosophical process to confirm some monistic/absolute/essential/compartmentalizing axiom. This is, of course, not limited to the analytic philosophers, but is equally levied against the post-modernists and reactionaries, all those whom would effectively formalize logic and philosophy, as a whole. It is meant as a cogent defense of communist universalism against the particularizing of its revisionists, as well as a case for the emancipatory capacity of philosophy. I'd recommend listening to his joint lecture with Zizek, which is a fairly intricate account of not only the place of anti-philosophy within the contemporary canon, but also a decent purview of a number of influential theoreticians and their relations to the concept (youtube.com/watch?v=Fv5VMf-RJx4)

I see.

Jokes on you, the only authors who are anywhere close to comprehensible are Mandel and Anderson. Even Poulantzas loves making word salads.

Get this: sumatrapdfreader.org/
Then go to libgen.io/ to download books.
Comrade, come the fuck on.

how long did that take you?

What's wrong with reading at the beach?

I just turned 23. I've been a Marxist since I was 16. Take a guess.

Embarrassing.

There are occasions, as with Judith Butler and the like, where this is a totally fair accusation; however, throwing Adorno and a number of philosophers in there without affording them the benefit of the doubt in philosophy makes us look like Zig Forumsyps who are wailing and crying, "Wah wah, words are oppressing me"

What did you do for your uni study?

doubt.png

You can read anywhere. I don't know where you're going/who you're going with, but generally going to the beach is an excuse to hang out with friends, swim in the ocean, and get fucked up.

like the beach

How difficult are Adorno, Poulantzas, and Deleuze/Guattari exactly? Do I need an extensive background on Kant and Hegel in order to understand them?

Politics and history with a minor in philosophy.

For Adorno, it would be help to be familiar with Hegel and Kant, as well as some pre-Kantian figures (Spinoza, Jacobi, etc.) - German idealists would also be good (Fichte, Schelling.). Poulantzas requires Althusser, as an excellent background in the basis for structural Marxism and philosophy, not all too sure beyond this. Deleuze and Guattari should go alongside Foucault, and come after reading Lacan, Althusser, Jacques Alain-Miller, Badiou, amongst a vast milieu of others (here you can kinda pick and choose, as otherwise you'll be stuck reading base material for longer than its worth doing to understand FG&GD)

Don't fall for the French theory meme, OP. Stick to Germans and Anglos.

I'd add, if you want to learn Bataille, you HAVE to know Nietzsche as well as Hegel, Marx, and Freud.

Because it's not for your brain, it's to help people.
Why do you read leftist books if you don't give a shit about people? If you've really read Mao you should know that we need to keep in touch with the masses.

Why is charity work more important than developing intellect?

I'm not saying is more important, I'm saying that you should not read theory only to please your intellect. Theory is important only if it's useful to help people, otherwise it's just a hobby.
Also, not keeping in touch with masses might turn you in some elitist who will start to despise the masses.

AKA leftcom

False dichotomy. You can read theory AND work with the masses.

Bataille is the best in that picture. He was a huge influence on many of the typical "postmodern" philosophers like Foucault and Derrida, but his radicalism is much clearer and he wasn't afraid to be objective about Stalinist years. The best combination of Marx and Nietzsche watering down neither and far more honest than everybody who attempted the combination later. He also can be read by anybody, contrary to other guy I don't think you have to have read Nietzsche or Marx to get it.

That's exactly what I'm saying, how do you personally work with the masses?

So why are you discouraging me from reading theory? FFS this board is worse than /lit/.

Because you have already read a shitload of theory and you want to read another shitload of theory.
As it seems you do not work with the masses, I advise you to do it, you can also read a bit of theory if you want.

Attached: e95768a5e22654c222c1101e810c2afa5991df6fd4abf0545a300ba333335793.jpg (850x400, 52.38K)

How do you know I'm not active? FFS you are being overly stupid.

Woops wrong flag.

I've asked you how you are active
But you did not respond.

Jesus fucking christ, why is everyone in this thread just gaslighting OP for wanting to fucking read?

Here OP. Let me go over each author with you:

- Mandel: great overview of Marxist economics. 7/10
- Adorno: Scathing critique of German idealism; where the whole "Hegel leads to fash" meme comes. 6/10 because he is VERY convoluted and just plain wrong in some regards.
- Bataille: literally the XXXTentacion of French philosophy. Nietzschean edgelord af. 6/10
- Poulantzas: updated Gramsci, only disciple of Althusser who didn't go full PoMo (he did, unfortunately, go full EuroComm). Great stuff, 8/10
- Anderson: Brilliant historian, wonderful if you're into historical materialism. 9/10
- Deleuze and Guattari: full PoMo on steroids. Worth reading only to understand their influence on the left for the past 35+ years, including the Zapatistas, anti-globalization, Indignados, Occupy, etc. 5/10

Reading theory is about a million times more important than ladling out beet water to derelicts. That fag just wants to pretend that his "charity" work isn't an embarrassing waste of time.

What does Adorno get wrong about Hegel?

...

Read Towards a New Socialism by Paul Cockshott about economic planning involving Cybernetics
And also just read everything by Althusser

I'm sick of the Cockshott meme. I want something more in-depth and theoretical.

Then read Classical Econophysics and Computation and Its Limits, both share Cockshott as an author. You could also pick up Introduction to Cybernetics by Viktor Glushkov, or Essays In Optimal Planning by Leonid Kantorovich. If you've any inkling to learn the intricacies and particularities of economic optimality and computational logistics, then these could really help.

Stafford Beer's Designing Freedom is also good if you want to see cybernetics in action.

I don't know if you're well-versed in philosophy but if you're not I don't think you're going to get much tbh. Adorno and Bataille at the very least need Nietzsche and Freud. Poulantzas needs Althusser who in turn needs Freud, Lacan, De Saussure and Levi-Strauss. Deleuze needs like the whole western canon up until French post-structuralism. Props for not putting on any meme shit, though where does the hate for Debord come from?

Well I really suggest you read it, it gives a good insight of how we could plan nowadays a socialist economy, critizising how planning ocurred in the USSR but without falling into the "not real socialism".
Analizing what went wrong, and overall how could it be improved, especially having the technology we do have know.
I think it is a really good book as Cockshott gives good explanations with simple mathematic models, as well as taking a scientific approach to it.
No utopianism,o self-delusion about past socialist states.
Also the book introduces some really interesting ideas about democracy (In chapter 13 if I recall correctly),and how could it be implemented as well within planning.
As well as touching on how communes could be organized comparing them with maoist China (I must say here I do not agree with what Cockshott proposes but it is still interesting)
I know it has become some kind of meme (I'm partially responsible of it) but still "Towards a New socialism" is a fantastic book, and you should read it.

100% of the scum who say this are not theoretically developed. As if theory ever ends and it's not something that needs continued development as the world unfols, considering recent developments worldwide nd the lack of a strong left I'd say we need theory more than ever.

Lol not who you are replying to but what is this fucking fetish with almost nonsensical theoretical texts? As you say the left is not strong at all, so your solution is to read more fucking dense theory? As if understanding the immanent critique of the dialectical method ever helped a god damn soul other then inflate middle class "leftist" intellectuals and their bullshit. If you want to do something, fucking go out and build the movement. Reading about Hegels master slave dialectic or the ramblings of literally petty-bourgeois individuals describe how jazz is fascist due to their ahistorical drug induced thoughts has not helped anyone. We need to stop repeating Zizeks or Lenin's "durr learn learn learn" and realize there really isn't that much more to fucking learn - anti-capitalism is pretty simple and the everyday experiences of normal people make it that much easier to get them on board cause the system sucks and everybody understands it yet the left can't get its head out of its ass (ironically) while history moves past it cause it can't actually keep up with history and learn that to get shit done you need to move from the realm of theory to the real world. And let me quote Marx here before you autists bring up your normal armchair defense arguements.

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."

Why the hell do you read Marx? Don't you know that theory is outdated and the all the cool kids nowadays just go out on street and do stuff?

I already said I don't give a shit about Cockshit. I want something new.

Save your money for a strap and just read the pdfs at whatever time and place you're posting to leftypol from.

I'm very active on telling people on twitter that they don't need to read theory desu

Like I said I want to read on the beach. What's wrong with that?

I assumed this board had a hard-on for Zizek.

just buy a kindle

and if you have any cash left go to the nearest antique book store and buy some rare tomes about random shit.

Attached: e40.png (640x640, 474.79K)

This is how I know you don't read.

Anderson and Poulantzas are the only two worth reading TBH.

Overrated.

He has a personality cult on this board just like Zizek and Bookchin.

Ebooks aren't free either.

Well, while I discourage such flat rejection just because one book has been memed so much, the latter two are still good. You could also read Krauses Money and Abstract Labor, which is an excellent mathematical analysis and explanation of Marxist econ, or Laws of Chaos… by Farjoun, which is a foundational piece in modern computational economics.

Why is it so crucial to read Cockshott? This sounds like Personality Cult 101.

Any E-reader is Ok, but please no Kindle.

Crucial, no - hardly. Not every person need be intimately acquainted with the structure and particularities of computational optimality; however, if one were to express interest, then Cockshott (amongst the many others I've mentioned) is a contemporary professional working in the pertinent field. Read if you'd like, and don't if it does not suit your interest.
As I afford above, there is definitely some similar sentiment around Cockshott and similar authors, with some (as is my wont in the case Cockshott and Zizek) who genuinely interest themselves in the material. I don't go around posting "READ COCKSHOTT, TANS IS UTOPIA" because these pieces in continental philosophy (Zizek) and computation (Paul) just don't evoke any particular feeling or interest in some people. But the OP had asked after statistical polieconomics works that were more theoretical and in-depth, of which, Cockshott (et. al) have several of definite note (besides TANS). Read if you'd like, but this is the stuff I research for my work, so I don't recommend it for meme value

That's mostly a Zig Forums thing now.

Libgen.io

reddit.com/r/LeftistHotTakes/comments/8wloo6/leftypol_is_triggered_by_comrades_reading/

Attached: 1424991401624.png (240x232, 41.91K)

You can't shoot people with a book on the seaside.

OP didn't have to go cry to mommy Reddit like that. Especially when the first pinned thread on this board is called Zig Forums reading list.

You pathetic fuck

Attached: 1521094903736.jpg (1000x1000, 186.7K)

reddit can't read either, so they select the autism and ignore the actual suggestions

you don't need money for books

Reddit in it's finest.

Attached: reddit.PNG (1117x135, 20.73K)

(OP)
OP's 4chan /lit/ thread for those who want to laugh :
boards.4chan.org/lit/thread/11419504

And what have you read of Cockshott? Let me guess: Absolutely nothing, but your trannie 24/7 online friends hate him.

All the books listed in the post you reply to are either have Cockshott as just one author among several or are written in their entirety by a different person.

They are sitting there crying about us telling him not to spend money on a book he could get for free. Because funding porky is lifestylist while screaming about pronouns to a college professor is peak dialectics.

SJWfags have no self-awareness it's hilarious.

Attached: Porky reddit.png (800x566, 316.9K)

I don't get why "fag" is such a sinful word for these people. I don't think they've thought about it for a single instant.

For them, it's a word solely and explicitly meaning "homosexual" to the exclusion of all else, despite the fact that fag and faggot have spread to other modern uses, not all of which are necessarily derogatory.

By establishing that "faggot" is essentially derogatory, and also essentially a descriptor for homosexuals, they're asserting that all homosexuals are essentially faggots, or possessing inherently the negative quality of "faggotry." Instead of protecting homosexuals from derogatory words, they're tacitly admitting that homosexuals are faggots, and that the only way to deal with this is just to prohibit anyone from mentioning it.

Attached: 0rLMdNQ.jpg (1200x1200, 238.83K)

This is the tactic I've been seeing on tumblr. They'll cut out bits and pieces of posts that on their own are disagreeable, and then treat that like the sum of the discussion. They're fucking idiots.

OP in that thread is a woman I believe.

Both of these authors will make you slit your wrists.

Attached: doghead edakefoafea.jpg (240x250, 7.95K)

Genuine question: can I effectively learn theory thru lectures and audiobooks if I am shit at reading?

Audiobooks, usually. Lectures, depends on who is giving them.

we're all fags here anyways lol

Stfu and go back to Zig Forums, faggot

Bordiga
armchairman
B O R D I G A

Torrent the books and spend the money on something else.

What if I want physical copies? What's wrong with that?

Definitely you should read Perry Anderson. And, yes, buy physical copies if you want, pdfs are soulless when comes to classic books.

Yeah, that's why we also say nigger, now go back to reddit, nigger.

On a scale of 1-10 (1 being fluff, 10 being intellectual powerhouse) how good is Anderson?

Literally commodity fetishism.