First time Marx

>Do you guys even know what a reader is?

Yes I do, but I know that some editors (especially with foreign works) tend to take liberties with the original prose, especially with tracts of such a political nature.

I had an English literature book that was stacked to the top with stories that essentially made it "white guilt: the book" rather than anything of literary merit (the stories themselves were badly written).

I would trust Project Gutenberg more than any compilation or reader on this subject or any other subject that is economical, philosophical, or political in nature.

>full range of (ideologically pruned) works
It's ideology. The seminal work of Marx is Das Kapital Vol 1, in it's entirety.

Ok, this is tinfoil level. A reader compiles works. Every change is accounted for. The editor is one of the biggest Marx experts of the 20th century. I am also quite sure he didn't make any translations himself for the book since that would be really uncommon.
I mean as a historian I sure as hell go the for sources first but discarding readers as such is simply not an option.
It's not his most famous work (which would be the Manifest), it's not the one that is the best example for his philosophy (because it's not dedicated to philosophy) and it's certainly not the one that played the biggest role for, let's say, Lenin (that would be Critique of the Gotha Program). And implying that one can read The Kapital without prior knowledge of Marx or political economy is pretentious and preposterous.

>Robert C. Tucker is professor of politics emeritus at Princeton University and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies.
This can't possibly be pure ideology.

You are just buzzwording. No college course anywhere(not even in the GDR) started with a lecture of the Kapital. It being the seminal work doesn't change that. The goal is to understand it and implying one could do that without reading prior Marx works is retarded.

Good people, calm down. I'm looking for a general overview on Marx. Even though I don't want to read a Marx for Dummies, I don't want to get into Stirner and Smith just yet. I'm working my way through Kant and Hegel and all that's next including Das Kapital will come in due time.
My interest in Marx for now is mainly to enjoy 19th century history and Russian Revolution. Calm your tits my negros.

The contents can be seen here user. I don't paste it because it's really long:

busin.biz/library/marx/The Marx-Engels Reader.pdf

>It's not his most famous work (which would be the Manifest)
Which is shit, literally propaganda (it was meant as a brochure), it dumbs down socialism to retarded levels, which was loved by both the Americans because how easy it was to make it seem shallow, and by the Soviets because of how shallow it was they could brainwash people with it.

>it's not the one that is the best example for his philosophy (because it's not dedicated to philosophy)
It's like you don't even know about Marx's materialism. It's absolutely vital to his political philosophy.

>it's certainly not the one that played the biggest role for, let's say, Lenin (that would be Critique of the Gotha Program)
Which was given to you as recommended reading, but it does not stand on it's own in the slightest. It just compliments Kapital.

>And implying that one can read The Kapital without prior knowledge of Marx or political economy is pretentious and preposterous.
You don't need to know shit about Marx. You were given the bare minimum of required reading to give you context for Kapital. It sounds like you have absolutely no interest in studying Marxism, and only see Marx as a historical figure to be studied himself.

Read your fucking reader and think you're getting the full and real Marx while you fucking ignore Das Kapital because it's too long and hard for you.

You don't need anything from young Marx to understand anything late Marx. It's not required at all. They're related, but they could just as easily stand alone.

Then you're limiting yourself to young Marx. Don't say you want to read about Marxism when you actually just want to read about Marx.

If you've never studied economics you won't understand anything from Das Kapital or the Wealth of Nations

>If you've never studied economics you won't understand anything from ... the Wealth of Nations
u srs?

Thank you. Didn't see you posted the link already.

Ok then, it seems I was mistaken. Why don't you get off your high horse and try to be more helpful? Or you just want to anonymously show how much you know about the subjects?
Now then, it's obvious I'm new to this and that's why I'm asking for an overview. You have a link to the contents of the reader. Is that limiting myself to young Marx? And if the answer is yes, why?
I don't want to study this in depth because I'm studying other things right now, and that's why I'll leave Smith and Stirner for a future time.
Are you saying that I can't have a good general grasp on Marxism if I don't read them?

>Ok then, it seems I was mistaken. Why don't you get off your high horse and try to be more helpful?
Because you've been on your high horse the entire time and mad that no one is telling you the reader is a good idea, and all you've been doing is trying to argue why your edited selection of readings that you haven't even read is better. It's because you said Marxism. If you said you wanted to study Marxist sociology or something, that would be different.

>Are you saying that I can't have a good general grasp on Marxism if I don't read them?
You can not have a good grasp on late Marx without Smith or Stirner. These are the people that made late Marx into late Marx. You could read more classical economics, like Ricardo, but Marx deviates considerably, and the minimum you need to know is Smith. So yes, by not reading them, you really do limit yourself to young Marx, or a gross misinterpretation of late Marx. It's not even worth reading late Marx if you can't even read about Smith and Stirner.

Jesua christ man, don't you realize I'm op and not the one discussing with you and defending the reader? I'm and and that's it. At least pay attention if you're going to be this aggressive.

>Smith and Stirner are mandatory even for a general grasp
Ok then. Wouldn't Stirner for example require Hegel?

>Ok then. Wouldn't Stirner for example require Hegel?

Stirner mostly rejects Hegel, and what he retains doesn't need much explanation. I personally don't think Stirner is required to grasp Marx, but it is handy if you want to understand the catalyst behind the shift from young to old Marx.

Not defending the reader

(you)

>Ok then. Wouldn't Stirner for example require Hegel?
If you wanted to understand Stirner in his entirety, yes. It would help immensely for studying Marx as well. It's not required for Marx though, and the parts of Stirner required for Marx don't require Hegel to understand Marx. You were given some bare minimums, and you refuse to read them, and you want something even more minimal. Stop with your slippery slopism.

t. hippie and/or tankie

You're an insufferable person user. Thank you for your help.

Learn German and read the original text.

That sounds practical.

I read das kapital during high school without any real background knowledge. I was confused as fuck but i understood it eventually (after re-reading the first chapters of kapital tome I a million times, i didn't even know what the ltov was before reading it). Pretty good experience, but i would recommend having at least some knowledge of classical economics first.
I agree with the user that said that you can skip young marx and the communist manifesto.

>he read Das Kapital without having read Adam Smith, Hegel, or Kant

Look at this buffoon.

>caring about the cancerous hegelian aspects of marxist thought

What works from Marx are relevant to understanding the Russian revolution and Bolshevik ideology for example?

leszek kolakowski - main currents of marxism vol. 1, 2, 3
bhikhu parekh - marx's theory of ideology

all of those are available on library genesis

Someone answer this please

Yeah, this reader is good. Truth be told to really get Marx you should read Wealth of Nations first to understand what he's responding to. I would say read in this order: The German Ideology -> Letters on Historical Materialism -> Socialism: Scientific and Utopian -> Capital (Vol 1) -> Communist Manifesto

None. You're looking for Marxism-Leninism, which is different.

But you have to understand Marxism to understand Marxism-Leninism, don't you? And anyway isn't Marxism-Leninism from the 20s? How is that relevant to the previous revolution?

Lenin died in 1924. Just because the term was coined after he died doesn't mean it wasn't there. No, you don't need to understand Marxism to understand Marxism-Leninism, unless you want to understand why Marxism-Leninism is wrong.

I don't get it. What are the ideologies relevant to understanding the Russian revolution? You said Marxism-Leninism but everywhere I look that's posterior to the revolution.

Do you not know who Lenin is or something?

Yeah, that black guy from the Conan talk show.
Ok so after the revolutionaries overthrew the tzar and the Bolsheviks seized power, was Marxism-Leninism their ideology?

>The Bolsheviks, founded by Vladimir Lenin
Please stop being retarded.

Oh, Leninism then! Isn't that something like Lenin's interpretation of Marxism? Because if that's the case, please explain to me why the fuck you said "none" when I asked what works by Marx are relevant to understanding Bolshevik ideology, aka Leninism.

>Marxism-Leninism
>Leninism
Hurrrrrrrrrrrrr. Yes, there's a technical difference, yes you only need Leninism if you you have no intention of studying the USSR, and are only interested in the revolutionary period. Marxism-Leninism is inclusive of Leninism. You don't need to read Marx because Lenin's own writings are about his interpretation of Marx, as well as his deviations from Marx. Orthodox Marxism itself doesn't have much of an effect on Russia, short of the effect it had on Lenin. But you can read Lenin's brand of Marxism from his own writings.

Now this is clear user. Can you recommend Lenin's writings or maybe a good compendium?

read lenin's what is to be done? and his work on imperialism, not marx, to understand bolshevik ideology. you'd be better off reading a history book on the period though.

Got it