I am quite interested in political-theory and philosophy...

I am quite interested in political-theory and philosophy, regardless of whether I agree with it or not; I was wondering where I should start with Philosopher/Scientist Peter Kropotkin; any suggestions from those who have read his work? I've been meaning to learn about the man and his ideals for awhile now.

I'll probably give him a try too

>anarchism
dont waste your time OP. Read Evola.

Conquest of Bread

tl;dr communism without the state/ rich will be kicked out of large houses which will now accomodate several different families at once/ shared means of production

fack off, /pol/ shill

Don't even bother reading Kropotkin - it's utopian garbage.

Start with Capital by Marx (Yes, START with capital, it isn't a hard book it just takes a while because it's long) and then move on to The German Ideology.

After that you can figure it out for yourself.

Do I sense a communist?
Authoritarians in disguise.

Dude big pro-tip. When you read about politics don't pick authors based on "ideology" like understanding politics means picking through religions

You good

>DUDE AUTHORITARIANISM/LIBERTARIANISM LMAO
Please, I am begging you to take a more empirical look at history and society. I need you to.

Here you go.

>Evola

Don't waste your time with this pseud.

Don't pay attention to this one.


You are interested in politics and phikosophy ?
Start with the basics.
Read :
Pareto - Mind and society
Robert Michels - Sociology of political parties
Jouvenel - On power
Mosca - The ruling class
Burnham - Thé managerial revolution

When this is done, try finding a solid textbook about the history of political thought and read it + read the things that interest you.
If you're interested un Kropotkin I shall suggest Proudhon and Georges Sorel to you. Marx too, but don't forget reading Kolakowski on marxism, and Pareto on socialism.

>Kropotkin
>Marxist
pick one

>you should start with the basics
>a list of literal whos

I've read The Great Leveler, that's as emperical as it gets, most other history is narrative. Well and Peter Turchin with the SESHAT project but that's in its infancy. But I'm curious, what did you have in mind? What historical books? I guess written by Marxists, no?

this is correct if you’re going to be a weakling socialist, you should just read Kapital
and St Petersburg Dialogues, Burke, The City and Man, The Republic, Aristotle's Politics, The Ego and its Own, Imperium, Leviathan, The Social Contract

>t. Doesn't know shit about politics but read a couple of big names so feels like he can dismiss the best of political sociology cause "lol i was never taught about them in POL SCIENCE 101"

Please stop posting btw, I don't want you to embarrass yourself anymore

That person isn't me.
The real reason you should just read Capital is because everything else is just tangential garbage. I shouldn't have to explain to you why recommending Proudhon is garbage, it should be self-evident. The vast majority of sociology works off a bastardization of Marx's project.In order to understand the present state of things, simply read the best work on the present state of things.
Don't waste your time reading people who are standing in the shadows of Marx, read Marx.

I'm not her, he or it. I'm another user.
But you communists are really the offspring of Christian evangalists. The Holy Bible becomes the Holy Capital. Marx as the Lord and Saviour.

Literally no one has ever found the "Marxism is a religion!" trope a unique or compelling argument.
The only damned comparison is that so many people reiterate the importance of having to read Marx, and the need to shut down individuals who claim to be marxists yet have no idea what they're talking about. This appears similar to religion on the surface, but the moment you actually know what the fuck Marx's project was this ceases to be apparent.

So many lazy people start to make up their own bullshit ideas as to what society should be like. Whatever, that's cool, stupid and pointless, but cool. But then they take this stupid ideas and attribute them to Marx. This is where the need for seemingly endless brow-beating has to occur. This becomes even worse when tankies proceed to start brow-beating as well, in spite of being illiterate themselves.

Marx made good diagnosis of the problems at the time. Yet his messianic "solution" is plain garbage, because his system ils flawed from the base.

I sure can rec him, but the works I suggested are a better starting point to understand politics. Op didn't say he wanted to understand what alienation is.

Also, you have to add some other things to Marx, especially about bureaucratization, about technological issues, about the media and about dehumanization.
So I'd suggest Mumford, G. Anders, Charbonneau, Ellul (he's overrated though), Debord, McLuhan and the authors of the Encyclopédie des Nuisances (especially Jaime Semprun and Baudouin de Bodinat), un order to complete that kind of stuff. Also Kaczynski.

As for Proudhon, as is Bakounine, he's flawed, but I like a lot his reactionary stances. He was a strong advocate for good traditions like patriarcal system, which seems bizarre since he's portrayed as an anarchist. Also, his stance on property are interesting.

Capital is just the starting point. If you read Marx but don't continue with Engels, Lenin etc. you're not gonna get much use out of it. All the opposing debates on how to construct socialism in the USSR should also be considered must-reads, you don't want to remain on the level of pure potentialities and we can learn a lot from previous attempts. So no, Capital is not the Bible, but it is a major work that presented a thorough-going critique of classical economics, and it hasn't been presented in a superior manner so that it should be abandoned for some reason.
Free-market capitalists make a far greater fetish out of, say, Smith, than leftists do of Marx. They don't read Smith at all and just ascribe modern libertarianism onto his thought.
I personally don't have such a disparaging view of ancoms and other groups like the other user. Certainly you can supplant your reading of Marxist classics with major anarchist essays and the like, they don't tend to be huge.

> Yet his messianic "solution" is plain garbage
And what, exactly, was his solution?

>Also, you have to add some other things to Marx, especially about bureaucratization, about technological issues, about the media and about dehumanization.
These almost entirely stem from value itself, which is understood in totality from Marx. You can read Capital and think for yourself from there.

I was being polite but fuck off.

>Wow did you just actually ASK me to explain myself? God geez I can't believe that you asshole.
The moment I ask you to elaborate you quit. I'm not surprised.

...

Sure you need a foundation if that's the Capital that's all good. But my experience with communists has always been that they are dogmatic. I had to kek out loud when I found out that leftypol's learning thread about anthropology had Marxist anthropology only.
And then there's historical determinism.

>Don't waste your time reading people who are standing in the shadows of Marx, read Marx.

best advice a "Marxist" has ever given. shut up now pls.

>Hurrrrrr everything is in the Capital, durrrrrr explain to me your thoughts,
>Hurrrr I never read what you talked about but they just copied the Capital so I'll just proceed to tell you to read the Capital for the 10th time

>So many lazy people start to make up their own bullshit ideas as to what society should be like
marx in a nutshell desu

"Marx's analysis was correct, but his solution sucks" is the most normie opinion imaginable, literally every idiot on the street will say this to you, it's annoying as fuck. It doesn't even make any sense, like somehow Marx's writings are divorced from the existing movement of communism which he was taking part in. Clearly, Marx's analysis isn't complete nor sufficient. He didn't anticipate every relevant change in developed capitalism, he didn't really theorise on the possibility of uneven development, modern forms of imperialism or anticipate a form of capitalism where bank capital dominates over competitive industrial capital. These and other things is what Lenin developed, which is why he is essential as well.

The way Marx is de-radicalized by academia and the mainstream is very insidious. They don't even bother with Engels - the common view of liberal academics is that Engels was the real "dogmatic Marxist" who sullied himself by participating in the early Marxist movement. That leaves poor Karl as this free, creative spirit who was merely analysing things without any "totalitarian" pronouncements. This, of course, is ridiculous with only basic research, but I have attended lectures where they try to sell exactly this.

Sometimes normies are right.
Is this thread about MARXISM or about POLITICS btw ?

Neither, it was really about the Russian guy.

Just read the bread book holy shit

>Evola
>pseud
Oh I am laffin

Read guenon instead nigga, starting with evola is a bad idea anyway

Why do American communists always sound so effeminate.

>everyone who isnt a leftist is le /pol/ boogeyman