No problem! The linked text by Cornforth is also really good, though to be warned that from time to time Cornforth follows the contemporary soviet line on genetics, following Lysenkoist views, and this is now known to be incorrect and a dogmatic use of dialectics. However, barring those few occasions, it’s an excellent work!

No problem! As always, please feel free to reach out with questions or suggestions!

No problem!

You’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head! Politzer’s flea example is wrong, and we can see examples from Mao that get it right:

Does materialist dialectics exclude external causes? Not at all. It holds that external causes are the condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change, and that external causes become operative through internal causes. In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis. There is constant interaction between the peoples of different countries. In the era of capitalism, and especially in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, the interaction and mutual impact of different countries in the political, economic and cultural spheres are extremely great. The October Socialist Revolution ushered in a new epoch in world history as well as in Russian history. It exerted influence on internal changes in the other countries in the world and, similarly and in a particularly profound way, on internal changes in China. These changes, however, were effected through the inner laws of development of these countries, China included. In battle, one army is victorious and the other is defeated, both the victory and the defeat are determined by internal causes. The one is victorious either because it is strong or because of its competent generalship, the other is vanquished either because it is weak or because of its incompetent generalship; it is through internal causes that external causes become operative.

These mistakes ultimately hold Politzer’s view of change in general back to a vulgarization of dialectics. That’s why I suggested On Contradiction as an antidote to Politzer’s mistakes, as I really do love Politzer’s historic overview of philosophy. That’s also why I ultimately pitched Elementary Principles of Philosophy in favor of other, more correct works to hopefully prevent this mistake from taking root.

No problem!

Thanks for the feedback! You can keep going or pivot to the new list, the new one is shorter and more condensed, IMO, so you’d probably finish it even if you started from scratch with it in a timelier manner. You’re free to do what you want, though, I still stand by the older list!

Good luck with the rest, and thanks for following it!

Awesome! Out of curiosity, are you following this version of the basic guide, or the older one? I removed Politzer’s work due to introducing some flawed ideas of internal contradictions and autodynamism (despite being overall a great work). On Contradiction by Mao is enough to correct the misconceptions Politzer creates, so that’s really what I’m getting at.

Any thoughts on the guide so far?

For the balloon, the quantitative change is an increase in air. The qualitative change is the pop. Addition and subtraction are both quantitative changes that result in qualitative leaps!

No problem!

Yep, it’s super intuitive for people raised on modern science this way. Math also helps, like addition and subtraction! They can each turn into their opposites as well, like adding or subtracting negatives.

Marx scribbling in The German Ideology.

Just backing up a post I made on Lemmy.ml over here. Oversimplified and not a replacement for study.

Regarding your points:

1. The “Black Legend” of Stalin is widely publicized, but this isn’t the actual Stalin. Anyone building socialism and communism will be accused of being a “Stalinist” anyways, so it’s better to destroy that hammer than it is to try to dodge it.

2. Contrary to your belief, rehabilitating Stalin isn’t whitewashing, it’s removing the junk and grime that has been piled onto his name, and the Soviet Union in general. The Stalin that exists in popular notion, the “Black Legend,” is historically inaccurate. We must kill that legend.

3. Raising consciousness is a long and protracted process. Unfortunately, we cannot simply take this question unseriously, cultural hegemony colors how we view the world.

4. It does not, actually. Stalin was legitimately elected, popularly supported, and governance was collective in his era. We can analyze the successes and problems with socialist democracy without letting the “Black Legend” of Stalin persist.

We should not be “preventing Stalin,” we should be preventing Khrushchev and Gorbachev, those who undermine socialism and advance their own careerist aims.

Marxism-Leninism is an evolving science. Theory written in the past holds up, but certainly isn’t all there is, much has been written today and in the last century that goes beyond Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. The CPC for example is learning from the successes and errors of the Soviet Union, including the failure of Stalin to properly line up a successor or prevent a Khrushchev-style figure from instilling a social nihilism.

Contrary to your belief, we should not be learning how to “avoid a Stalin.” We should instead be learning how to avoid a Khrushchev, a Gorbachev. Stalin built up the USSR during its most tumultuous period, it wasn’t him but his successors that ultimately tanked the project. That doesn’t mean Stalin was perfect, but he was good.

The number of “executions” is actually the number of sentencing, and we know people were acquitted of the death penalty on numerous occasions. The purges were a genuine response to real infiltration, and were popularly supported.

Regarding the deaths in prisons, a huge portion came from starvation, during World War II when the Nazis took Ukraine, the soviet breadbasket. The soviets were not oppressing people en masse.

“Dekulakization” was the collectivization of agriculture from the hands of petty bourgeois tyrants that often enslaved the peasantry. This was a necessary step forward, and would have been fully peaceful if the kulaks had allowed it to be.

What you are looking at is bourgeois historiography. In actual fact, Stalin was a more collective leader than his successors, such as Khrushchev. Stalin attempted to resign on no fewer than four occasions, and was denied each time. A cult of personality arose around him against his wishes precisely because he successfully solidified socialism in the USSR and helped defeat the Nazis in World War II.

Stalin was on the whole more good than bad, which is why rehabilitating him is not whitewashing. He made mistakes and there was excess, but this is going to be true regardless of who it is building socialism.