If I had to choose 10 books to read, that would give me the best understanding of Marxist philosophy...

What does this even mean? Why would you read non-committed drivel? Why does avoiding deliberate distortionists like Harvey and Wolff mean that you have to "stick to it for life"? Why would Marxists recommend Marxist texts if they aren't trying to convince people?

I don't care they aren't "radical," whatever that means. They are totally misleading fabricators and make a joke of Marxism.

Stalin has some very good entry-level texts, Mao is great for understanding what Marxists mean by practice and dialectics.

No he isn't, how fucking arrogant can you be to say "Mao is shit?"

Have you read it? It's a good book, it actually analyses the modern data on imperialism. It's not the final word, but a starting point for a more detailed and grounded theory of imperialism today.

What I was saying is that Harvey and Wolff are good for describing the absolute basics of Marxism to people who don't know shit about it and if said person happens to buy into their more revisionist aspects later on so be it because if they continue with their learning of Marxism they'll probably come to that conclusion on their own

What entry level text does Stalin have? Apart from his criticism of anarchism its mostly shit related to the Soviet Union, which is important for Marxists to know about, but it's not something one would call a "first principle"

Mao is shit btw

They're not though. They don't explain the basics of Marxism, they lie and distort them.

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1929/03/18.htm

And before you flip out, the basics of Marxism are NOT Marxist economics, they are dialectical and historical materialism, and the practical questions of Marxist revolution.

KYS

OP more than likely wanted to know about Marxism in the abstract not necessarily a specific evolution of it.

Mao is shit btw

Not even Marx has that though.

Is there a bigger pseud than Sartre (other than Camus)?

...

for political economy, they're important.

Who are those that are within the realm of Marxian philosophy?

Some time ago, I ran a theory thread and got an opportunity to promote a great number of pieces of both contemporary and classical philosophy within the Marxist canon - this amounts to naught, in mine own opinion; however, I'd like to try, nonetheless, to provide several pieces which could be of particular help!

A great purview into the developmental stages of Marxian thought by enumerating the specific theoretical particularities of the international Marxist movement. Covers a great deal of the Hegelian foundation, whose abstruse nature sometimes acts as an entry barrier, before proceeding into what can be described as the first use of dialectical materialism to access and critique the history and mores of Marxism as a whole. Great historical overview, retains relative ease of understanding without sacrificing the ability to appreciate the complexities and antinomies of the relationship between capitalist idealism and communist realization. Includes a response to the delegates and theoreticians of the Soviet Union and 3rd Internationale.
Has something superseded the critique of Marxism, itself? Nah, fuck that noise. Get ready to approach a concise analysis of the the philosophy of Marxism through its contemporary developments and where it stands in the modern world, unaccompanied, as the pre-eminent emancipatory universalism. All the buzz words aside, short and to the point.
Evincing a sense of reasoned and carefully kept inventory of the conditions prevailing in the modern world, Badiou identifies and dismembers a number of reactionary and reformist trends in philosophy worldwide, while simultaneously rendering just how important philosophical and teleological assumptions are, even today! Philosophy is in everything and all that, basically this one is super short, as it was adapted from a number of lectures
There're a number of editions of this, I would recommend trying to get one with as many of the additional writers, as possible. A scientific reading of the philosophy of Marx from his master oeuvre - a great handle on the idea of aleatory historical analysis, which helps connect to Lacanian as well as innumerable additional schools of Marxist thought.
Did Marx miss something!? The essential character of racial and ethnic antagonisms, perhaps!?!? Nope, as usual the rightists and reactionary deviants demonstrate to what extent they have a vacuity in both understanding their own (non-existent) theory as well as Marxist theory. Marx is examined to reveal that nothing, and certainly not these persistent antagonisms, has escaped interpolation by Mr. Marx.
Put on your boots, we're wading in deep waters. How can the ideology and fickle pragmatisms of capitalism remain in the face of overwhelming evidence of their most reprehensible failures so blatant. False consciousness! Nope…well yes, but get ready to approach the most important and debilitating realization: False consciousness has become indistinguishable from real consciousness - yeah, words and shit, tough. Great read, all the same.
I'd honestly say that choosing from some of the more lengthy and substantive pieces already posted would be decent.

It would important to remember that not everybody is familiar with non-linear and stochastic systems for PoliEcon, and that the work of Farjoun and Machover builds upon even more inaccessible pieces by Krause, amongst others, I believe. OP is asking for pieces that will make understanding and entering Marxist philosophy easier, and, while extremely important, political economy is a worlds difference from philosophy to most people (even if not so much in substance)

True, but it lends a lot of weight to Marxism when you can present actual proof and graphs for some of his basic economic theories. There's a segment of wavering educated workers who won't be convinced by the practical obviousness of the LTV for example, both because of indoctrination and abstraction from production. Some of the papers, essays, and vids of Cockshott are great for that.

Just this one.

In order of reading:

1."Principles of Communism" by Friederich Engels
2."The communist manifesto" by Karl Marx and Engels
3."The 18th brumaire of Louis Bonapart" by Marx
4."Critique of the Gotha programm" by Marx
5."Socialism:Utopian and scientific" by Engels
6."Wage labour and Capital" and "Price profit and value" by Marx (This are two really short complementary works, so I think they count as one)
7."Capital" by Marx
8."The origins of family,state and private property" by Engels
9."State and revolution" by Vladimir Lenin
10."Imperialism the higest stage of capitalism" by Lenin

Also IMO some important works if you want to expand your knoledge, and understand how the Communist movement has been:

"Principles of Leninism" by Joseph Stalin
"Reform or revolution" by Rosa Luxembourg
"What is to be done?" by Lenin
"Towards a new Socialism" by Paul Cockshott

Attached: Karl_Marx.jpg (480x563, 59.8K)

Thinking it better,you can substitute:
3."The 18th brumaire of Louis Bonapart" by Marx
Or:
8."The origins of family,state and private property" by Engels

By "The German ideology" by Marx and Engels, because it is a really impirtant books that basically Eurocommunistw don't want you reading

Attached: Karl_Marx.jpg (480x563, 59.8K)

this

mate you have to keep in my mind this guy is entry level, you can't just bombard him with capital

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (406x600, 487.79K)

That is why I said in reading order

So is Marxism philosophy or politics? How do you govern a country based off of a philosophy?

All politics is subsumed within philosophy and marxism isn't a system of government.

Just read the Talmud instead

Science of Logic
Capital vol 3

Attached: C01DBF03-F9CE-4F3C-AA72-2C10C536B138.png (1280x1483, 40.74K)

Then what is it then?