Phenomenal text, really helped convert me from an anarchist to a Marxist-Leninist. I consider it to be critical reading.
16
baffled_and_aghast - 2mon
One of the greatest texts in the canon. Part 3 is the best introduction to the Marxist view of history and materialism. I always recommend newbies start there. Draws together and synthesizes so much. The concept of anarchy of production is a great companion to Marx's section on commodity fetishism in Capital.
13
ArcticFoxSmiles - 2mon
This is a very good book. Very easy to understand and is really good at showing the different between utopian and scientific socialism.
"Thus it comes about, to quote Marx, that machinery becomes the most powerful weapon in the war of capital against the working-class; that the instruments of labor constantly tear the means of subsistence out of the hands of the laborer; that the very product of the worker is turned into an instrument for his subjugation."
"And to expect any other division of the products from the capitalist mode of production is the same as expecting the electrodes of a battery not to decompose acidulated water, not to liberate oxygen at the positive, hydrogen at the negative pole, so long as they are connected with the battery."
"But,with the taking over by society of the productive forces, the social character of the means of production and of the products will be utilized by the producers with a perfect understanding of its nature, and instead of being a source of disturbance and periodical collapse, will become the most powerful lever of production itself."
7
sunbleachedfly - 2mon
I read this not too long ago. Posting some highlights:
"Now, the owner of the instruments of labor always appropriated to himself the product, although it was no longer his product but exclusively the product of the labor of others. Thus, the products now produced socially were not appropriated by those who had actually set in motion the means of production and actually produced the commodities, but by the capitalists. The means of production, and production itself, had become in essence socialized. But they were subjected to a form of appropriation which presupposes the private production of individuals, under which, therefore, every one owns his own product and brings it to market. The mode of production is subjected to this form of appropriation, although it abolishes the conditions upon which the latter rests."
"This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its capitalistic character, contains the germ of the whole of the social antagonisms of today. The greater the mastery obtained by the new mode of production over all important fields of production and in all manufacturing countries, the more it reduced individual production to an insignificant residuum, the more clearly was brought out the incompatibility of socialized production with capitalistic appropriation."
5
Commiejones - 2mon
As is well-known, we Germans are of a terribly ponderous Grundlichkeit, radical profundity or profound radicality, whatever you may like to call it.
Very funny line.
Its been a while since I last read this and I have read a lot of history in the mean time and it makes things make more sense.
4
honeyontoast - 2mon
So I literally just finished reading this for the first time today, and there are many salient points that others have shared, but I also found it a little hard to understand fully. Maybe that's to be expected on the first read, but I didn't really get anything out of it that I hadn't already understood from the likes of The Communist Manifesto or The Principles of Communism.
I'll probably give it a week to sink in, then read it again.
4
Commiejones - 2mon
After studying the french revolution and the british "revolution" in more detail this book made way more sense to me. (also this book makes that history make way more sense because most of the writing on them was done by idiot idealists and bourgeoisie.)
5
surjomukhi - 2mon
I am struggling with the text as well, and yah the reason for me is to not have enough knowledge about the bourgeoisie revolutions
3
Commiejones - 2mon
I found this podcast as a really good primer. Specifically episodes 11a,b,c,d for the french revolution and episode 16 for the British transfer to a bourgeois state. But that is like 6 and a half hours of podcast.
4
surjomukhi - 2mon
thank you
3
Cowbee [he/they] - 2mon
Personally, the biggest takeaways are the actual explanations behind dialectical and historical materialism, as well as the basis of scientific socialism. The manifesto briefly touches on them the same way someone would at a rally, and Principles never goes beyond an FAQ, but Socialism: Utopian and Scientific makes scientific socialism real. As an example, the nature of centralization in capital giving way to planned collectivized production rather than just trying to force whatever cool idea in our heads into reality is hugely significant, and was key in moving me from an anarchist to a Marxist-Leninist.
3
☭ 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗘𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 ☭ - 2mon
Are there any particular points you're confused about?
3
honeyontoast - 2mon
Not really, his explanation of utopian socialism and why it's not going to work made perfect sense and was a good summary.
It was the reasoning behind scientific socialism that didn't jump out at me. Perhaps it's the language used where I might understand the sentence, but miss a deeper meaning.
As for the dialectics he discussed, I have read other articles and guides on dialectical materialism, so maybe if I didn't and this was the first time I'd heard about dialectics it would have made a bigger impact.
But like I say I'll take a short break then read it again, I think it's going to be one of those books that takes a few iterations to properly sink in.
GrainEater in theory
Engels's "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" | Theory Discussion Group, Week 40 of 2025
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Socialism:_utopian_and_scientificYou can read the text here.
You can post questions or share your thoughts at any time, even after we've moved on to a new text.
Suggest upcoming texts here.
::: spoiler Previous texts
Phenomenal text, really helped convert me from an anarchist to a Marxist-Leninist. I consider it to be critical reading.
One of the greatest texts in the canon. Part 3 is the best introduction to the Marxist view of history and materialism. I always recommend newbies start there. Draws together and synthesizes so much. The concept of anarchy of production is a great companion to Marx's section on commodity fetishism in Capital.
This is a very good book. Very easy to understand and is really good at showing the different between utopian and scientific socialism.
::: spoiler Notifications
/u/Atomicus@lemmygrad.ml /u/bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml /u/Conselheiro@lemmygrad.ml /u/Cowbee@lemmygrad.ml /u/dosuno@lemmygrad.ml /u/rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml /u/Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml /u/steakboi@lemmygrad.ml /u/Tofutefisk@lemmygrad.ml /u/uncanny@lemmygrad.ml /u/UntitledTankie@lemmygrad.ml /u/o_d@lemmygrad.ml /u/AngeryProle@lemmygrad.ml /u/egs81t@lemmygrad.ml /u/blobii@lemmygrad.ml
:::
Thank you!!!!
"Thus it comes about, to quote Marx, that machinery becomes the most powerful weapon in the war of capital against the working-class; that the instruments of labor constantly tear the means of subsistence out of the hands of the laborer; that the very product of the worker is turned into an instrument for his subjugation."
"And to expect any other division of the products from the capitalist mode of production is the same as expecting the electrodes of a battery not to decompose acidulated water, not to liberate oxygen at the positive, hydrogen at the negative pole, so long as they are connected with the battery."
"But,with the taking over by society of the productive forces, the social character of the means of production and of the products will be utilized by the producers with a perfect understanding of its nature, and instead of being a source of disturbance and periodical collapse, will become the most powerful lever of production itself."
I read this not too long ago. Posting some highlights:
"Now, the owner of the instruments of labor always appropriated to himself the product, although it was no longer his product but exclusively the product of the labor of others. Thus, the products now produced socially were not appropriated by those who had actually set in motion the means of production and actually produced the commodities, but by the capitalists. The means of production, and production itself, had become in essence socialized. But they were subjected to a form of appropriation which presupposes the private production of individuals, under which, therefore, every one owns his own product and brings it to market. The mode of production is subjected to this form of appropriation, although it abolishes the conditions upon which the latter rests."
"This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its capitalistic character, contains the germ of the whole of the social antagonisms of today. The greater the mastery obtained by the new mode of production over all important fields of production and in all manufacturing countries, the more it reduced individual production to an insignificant residuum, the more clearly was brought out the incompatibility of socialized production with capitalistic appropriation."
Very funny line.
Its been a while since I last read this and I have read a lot of history in the mean time and it makes things make more sense.
So I literally just finished reading this for the first time today, and there are many salient points that others have shared, but I also found it a little hard to understand fully. Maybe that's to be expected on the first read, but I didn't really get anything out of it that I hadn't already understood from the likes of The Communist Manifesto or The Principles of Communism.
I'll probably give it a week to sink in, then read it again.
After studying the french revolution and the british "revolution" in more detail this book made way more sense to me. (also this book makes that history make way more sense because most of the writing on them was done by idiot idealists and bourgeoisie.)
I am struggling with the text as well, and yah the reason for me is to not have enough knowledge about the bourgeoisie revolutions
I found this podcast as a really good primer. Specifically episodes 11a,b,c,d for the french revolution and episode 16 for the British transfer to a bourgeois state. But that is like 6 and a half hours of podcast.
thank you
Personally, the biggest takeaways are the actual explanations behind dialectical and historical materialism, as well as the basis of scientific socialism. The manifesto briefly touches on them the same way someone would at a rally, and Principles never goes beyond an FAQ, but Socialism: Utopian and Scientific makes scientific socialism real. As an example, the nature of centralization in capital giving way to planned collectivized production rather than just trying to force whatever cool idea in our heads into reality is hugely significant, and was key in moving me from an anarchist to a Marxist-Leninist.
Are there any particular points you're confused about?
Not really, his explanation of utopian socialism and why it's not going to work made perfect sense and was a good summary.
It was the reasoning behind scientific socialism that didn't jump out at me. Perhaps it's the language used where I might understand the sentence, but miss a deeper meaning.
As for the dialectics he discussed, I have read other articles and guides on dialectical materialism, so maybe if I didn't and this was the first time I'd heard about dialectics it would have made a bigger impact.
But like I say I'll take a short break then read it again, I think it's going to be one of those books that takes a few iterations to properly sink in.
Oh, I like this one.