I made a similar thread about it on /his/ but i suppose i could do it here as well.

I'm trying to read up on radical leftist literature, mostly from the 19th century to early 20th (early Bolsheviks before Stalin). But what is off-putting is the jargon used. I can't quite put my finger on what is the issue, but each text of that era seems to be extremely dry word salad that wouldn't be out of place being generated by ChatGPT. It's like an economics textbook on a fantasy world.

Are all leftist books like this?

>>24524683 (OP)
They were pseudointellectual college kids so yes. Try learning to enjoy it, ie, reading Lenin, who is very dry and abstract but often witty and sarcastic. The main leftist I am familiar with who does not write like a poindexter is Howard Zinn, and that's not a style, it's a result of Howard Zinn not being a very smart man.

>>24524828
> it's a result of Howard Zinn not being a very smart man.
Even the stupid ones read like word salad thoughalbeit. Mao's contributions to communist theory are filled with the same jargon even though he was a retard

to the finland station is a good overview of early socialist crapola starting with like babeuf up to lenin returning to russia.

>>24524683 (OP)
>Are all leftist books like this?
Unfortunately, yes, yes they are. Most of the time what's actually being said is either obviously true/tautological or so esoteric as to be of relevance to basically no one, either way delivered in intentionally academic and needlessly difficult style. Right-wing philosophers are frequently wrong or batshit crazy but they're actually fun to read sometimes so I reach for them more often.
Anyway, if you're not from the former USSR, the early 20th century history and lead-up to 1917 is gonna be hard to wrap your head around even with plenty of research. I tried reading one of Lenin's books in a period where I'd been studying Russian language and history nonstop and it was still virtually impenetrable. Probably why an amazing book like Bely's Petersburg is still niche in the West.
Meanwhile the Communist Manifesto is mercifully blunt, short, and important, so you should at least read that no matter what your opinion of the man or his legacy. Wish I had a more concrete direction to point you toward, anon.

>>24524683 (OP)
>Are all leftist books like this?
indeed, even the fiction is like that (Chernyshevsky's "What Is to Be Done?")

only after Stalin's death were some that wrote about stuff that they actually liked (propaganda, but at least readable), plus some theater in the late '10s early '20s (encouraged by Lenin, banned after his death)

anyway that's Russia, I realize there were writing stuff in Germany & France too but they were batshit insane (as usual...)

>>24526353
I'd say that Maoists are the worst. They want to sound exactly like the earlier German dry theorists, but without any of the substance. Mao's "On contradiction" is complete nonsense where he just wants to use the word "Contradiction" because it's Hegelian.

>>24524683 (OP)
Why though?

>>24524683 (OP)
Inspect your apparatus for error.
Zola _Germinal_
Zola _The Drunk Shop_ ("L'Assommoir")
Zola _The Beast in Man_
Zola _Earth_
Zola _Nana_
Zola _Ladies' Paradise_
Zola _The Debacle_
Serge Victory-in-Defeat, Defeat-in-Victory [Series]

>>24527666
>666
lol
>Mao's "On contradiction" is complete nonsense where he just wants to use the word "Contradiction" because it's Hegelian.
based word-fetishist
joke aside, at least he got the format right... but that was at least partially because printing wasn't as cheap in China as it was in Europe

>>24527746
What are you talking about

>>24527666
I have yet to see any firm proof that Mao wasn't just a retarded warlord who used Marxism as a convenient figleaf to gaining hard power. He's never struck me as an intellectual and I think this is backed up by the retarded decisions he made during his reign (Four Pests Campaign, Great Leap Forward, etc.).

Ironically, some of the modern CCP "princes" seem more serious about their Marxism than the CCP's founder. Like, we've all heard the scuttlebutt that Xi is a true believer. He did celebrate Marx's birthday.

>>24524683 (OP)
OP, don't you think you're being a bit hard on the beaver?

>>24528583
he can take it

>>24527666
Hegelian Marxism is seen in Lukacs too

>>24528582
iirc Mao didnt even read Capital
Cant really blame him for that though, the book is a massive clusterfuck

>>24528586
it's seen almost everywhere in any Marxist thought