In the past, when I first started reading Marxist-Leninist works, I naively thought I should read them in chronological order, first reading Marx, then Lenin, believing that if I didn’t read the earlier works, I wouldn’t understand the later ones. But later I realized this was not correct. I changed my approach and decided to first study materialism and socialism before studying political economy, so I deliberately avoided political economy when learning Marxism-Leninism. However, when I read later, I found that this was also not right because these concepts are not strictly separated but are organic and interconnected. Therefore, I created this post for two reasons: one, because my past reading habits were poor—I didn’t like taking notes and thought books were enough, so I want to encourage myself to take notes; two, because I genuinely have some issues that I must bring up, even if they are messy. If I just skim over certain problems or explain them carelessly, it would be like planting a time bomb on my path of learning theory.
Political economy is very interesting because it is closely connected to the struggles of reality. Mastering political economy allows you to see why capitalism is inevitably heading towards demise, and how socialism should be established. The deeper your study, the more social phenomena you can explain, and thus your confidence in the inevitable victory of Marxism and communism will grow stronger. You will be less likely to be confused by some bourgeois scholars who use “new materials of economic development” to think that capitalism has regained vitality. You can think more about the ideological issues that hinder your theoretical learning, and consider the purpose of your study. Only then can you truly learn well.
What order does Qian Ren plan to study in? Is he looking at the recommended must-read books?
No, I prefer to read the original text and use the recommended must-reads as assistance.
What does reading the original mean? Is it the original work of the instructor? If that’s the case, I think it’s not very good, because if you don’t understand some basic concepts, reading the original work will only give you a partial understanding and won’t get to the core. This is inefficient and counterproductive.
Yes, I read a copy of “Antidühring” and I am so sleepy.
Question:
- Does human behavior reflect human thoughts, or do human thoughts reflect human behavior? For example, in general, if I kill people and commit arson, one can see that this behavior reflects my thoughts, but for me, is it because I have extremely individualistic thoughts that I do this?
- “Everything that exists must perish.” Then, within a very narrow scope, such as pure mathematics, within the range of 1+1=2, the sum of two equal twos has always equaled twice a quantity, for thousands of years it has not changed, and it has not “perished.” How to explain? Is this an absolute truth?
- Are different categories associated with different natures?
- “The belief that humanity (at least at present) as a whole is moving in a direction of progress is absolutely irrelevant to both materialism and idealism.” (Engels) What does this sentence mean? Does it mean that I believe humanity must develop forward, and this does not belong to the realm of materialism, nor to the realm of idealism?