Many comrades know that one of my side projects, is recording audiobooks and putting them on youtube and torrents for all to listen.
Many times when I record a book, its the first-reading, so if it turns out to be a bad book, I can always stop recording, and move on to the next one. Usually this happens early on in the book, as its fairly easy to tell if an author has anything of value to add.
Based on ComradeHakim’s recent book recommendation video, I decided to read something from an author I hadn’t before, Torkil Lauesen’s - The long transition towards socialism and the end of capitalism. PDF here
There were a few red flags early on in the book, that made me suspect that Lauesen was either a Trot or ultra-left (an idealist definition of socialism, a claim that the USSR wasn’t socialist), but it was difficult to discern, because the early part of the book was about early socialist history (the internationals), and didn’t make too many firm judgements.
It took until about 40% of the book was done, probably 7+ hours of recording wasted, until Lauesen shows his ultraleft politics. Chapter 12 is where it really comes out (you can read it in the pdf linked above). Some of his points:
- He denounces the USSR as not socialist, and abandoning Marxism in favor of building a “state bureacracy”.
- Denounces socialism in one country as abandoning internationalism.
- Citing trotskyist writers like Deutscher to claim that Stalin was “authoritarian”, and a “schemer”, and ruthlessly eliminating/purging opponents.
- Stalin is painted in the standard western caricature as a ruthless self-serving bureacrat who subverted socialism to build his own power.
- Groups Lenin and Stalin as the “right-wing” of the bolsheviks while Trotsky represented the “left”.
- Claims the majority of peasants were allied to kulaks in opposing the USSR, industrialization, and collectivization.
- Claims that a priviledged “class” of party leaders lived above the people and lost legitimacy. (Why does a socialist writer not know what class means?)
- Has a weird interpretation of Lenin’s state and revolution, where he thinks a critical point of the book is about abolishing standing armies in favor of a “people in arms”, and the USSR not doing this was a “retreat” from socialism.
- Worst of all, rather than defending the socialist character of the USSR, he repeats the claim of every purity-loving ultra-left, that defending the history of the USSR as a socialist state, damages the “brand” of socialism.
ComradeHakim clearly did not read this book, which is unfortunate since its explicitly in his recommendations.
TL;DR Don’t always trust a comrade’s book recommendations, and always check their views on the USSR and Stalin before diving in.
Ventpost aside, I think as leftists we need to be comfortable reading people with bad takes. Check Lenin’s or Stalin’s or Mao’s libraries, they both read voraciously and critically-- liberals, anarchists, ultras, fascists, idealists. Analytical development comes from analytical practice, not a study of perfect truths.
That being said, the labor to record an audiobook is something else so I understand that frustration. I’ve gotten a lot of value from listening to and sharing your other recordings, and your criticism in this post is also educational.
In this case I’ll take your word for it, from your description it sounds like there isn’t much to be gained by reading a book that rife with disinformation. Your post just reminded me of something that’s been on my mind recently. There’s got to be a balance between not wasting time on nonsense books versus critically investigating things for ourselves to hone our own critical thinking skills.
My comment itself is probably a ventpost from my time trying to get by in a Trot org lol, some of the most anti-intellectual dogmatists I’ve ever had the displeasure of interacting with. Refused to read anything that wasn’t published by their
cultorg, talked like Lenin and Trotsky were divine besties. Some of them bragged about having not read Capital lmao.The problem is that Hakim recommended the book. Like I believe everyone should read opposing side’s work, even b*rdiga, but this is not a book socialists should read to learn about socialism. Its a book people should read to criticize.
The last paragraph about trot cults only telling people to read specific books is too real lmao. I heard it from like 10 people at this point though havent been in a trot cult myself.
denounces the USSR as not socialist, and abandoning Marxism in favor of building a “state bureacracy”.
"Denounces the guerilla as not militant, but abandoning antiimperialist struggle in favor of building “a gun”
Every time with these people
I’ve watched the book launch on Gabriel Rockhill’s Critical Theory Workshop channel and I do remember him making some offhand remark about “stalinist bureaucracy” but I let it slide. Didn’t expect it to be so bad.
I also noticed some other concerning matters in that interview:
- Torkil was very insistent on not calling China socialist, because he considers it a “transitional state” instead (as if that’s not what a socialist state is).
- When pressed about his designation of China by an audience member, he asserts that “the basic difference between capitalism and socialism is the market” and “my definition of socialism is a system without market forces”.
When pressed about his designation of China by an audience member, he asserts that “the basic difference between capitalism and socialism is the market” and “my definition of socialism is a system without market forces”.
In this book, he also doesn’t consider the USSR in its fully non-market, planned form as socialist either. It seems to be the standard ultra-left approach of using an ever-shifting set of conditions to conveniently refuse to endow label of “sufficiently socialist” to any state. In this book he could not define socialism in a clear and concise way either.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
If I’m not mistaken, Hakim mentioned Torkil had cringe takes regarding the USSR in this book. Is the portion of the book on China at least decent, because that was the only part I was interested in reading?
I’ve decided to not read that far. Anyone calling themselves a Marxist, who can’t 1) recognize that the USSR was socialist, and why, and 2) defend AES, isn’t worth reading.
IMO that level of socialist illiteracy throws all their other views into question. If they’re willing to uncritically agree with the standard anti-Stalinist / anti-USSR viewpoint, how deeply do they research anything.
That’s a fair point. I guess the stack of books that I need to read got one smaller.
Hakim generally recommends works if the bulk of the content is useful information, even if the book has some cringe parts in it. He usually mentions if there’s problems with sections though so as not to surprise people.
Nobody’s perfect of course, but IMO there are some things that shouldn’t be ignored. A “socialist” who doesn’t understand why the USSR was socialist, and uncritically believes the things they do above about Stalin, would be like a “physicist” who rejects Newton’s laws.
The entire basis on which they stand is faulty, they don’t know how to do research, and it throws all their other conclusions and other research into question.
weird for iskra to publish since they also publish a full collection of stalin. i kind of trusted iskra to be better
Same, I like most of their publications.
Recording audio is a lot of work. I’m sorry that happened and I appreciate that you do this. If I remember right, it was a recording of yours that got me through Blackshirts and Reds, and that’s a pivotal one for humanizing the USSR and its history.
Nice, glad I could help there.
I saw a fucking youtuber who talked about blacks and reds not as an audiobook but a commentary and he used it to criticize the USSR from a trot perspective. Too many people online banking on people not actually reading.
Communist Noam Chomsky.
I remember side eyeing these parts but I’m more inclined to take the good from the bad and view the totality of the book in relatively favourable terms. I also don’t remember it being quite as bad as this post suggests but I’m happy to concede that as my memory isn’t as fresh as yours!
That’s frustrating. I had been intending on checking that one out, though I saw it first on Iskra Books, not Hakim’s video. Guess I don’t need to now.
As a new marxist who watches Hakim’s videos and listens to The Deprogram I’m now kind of confused if the content I’m following/listening is even correct after this post. I wanted to read this book as well, but am now hesitent to do so. Furthermore I’m now sceptical of any literature being recommended to me that isn’t Marx/Engels/Mao/Lenin which doesn’t seem right?
Or am I being too strict and I should just accept that not all aspects of the material I’m reading are going to be down to the point agreeing with ML thought? I’m just confused tbh.
Its perfectly fine to read anything suggested, we just have to always remain critical.
So how do I then know what I’m reading is true or shouldn’t be critized?
Yeah thats a dangerous mindset- you gotta criticize everybody and never assume one side is correct.
you should approach everything with a critical lens. don’t accept writing as dogma because someone told you its the absolute truth.
Check the sources, and as a basic rule, be extremely wary when an author demonizes AES countries.
nothing shouldn’t be criticized, as marxists we are required to apply an analytical lense to everything, not just accept things on faith
I thought Hakim was cool. He even recommended this book on the deprogram. I have no idea why he would recommend such a book.
Were the 7 hours before worthwhile at least? If so, ignore chapter 12 and any leftcom yapping and take the useful rest.
Not totally worthless, but its mostly covered ground, and nothing that we all don’t know already. Mainly about the history of the european socdem betrayals in the 1800s, nothing new to any of us.
Meh, that’s really frustrating.
I’m pretty astounded that comrade hakim recommended him, and this book explicitly. I’m like 98% sure he recommended the author and his books without reading any of them.
Maybe he read it early in his political development and the glaring flaws were invisible at the time and didn’t stick in his memory.
That wouldn’t make sense though, as the book was just published in November 2024, and Hakim has been a communist for many years.
published in November 2024
There goes that theory. I guess we have no choice but to demand Hakim submit himself to a reeducation session for having anti-communist literature in his reading list.
I think you are ignoring the way more likely option of him having read it all and recommending it despite some of the cringe takes within it.
That option, in and of itself, is already worthy of criticism and does not rely on the more outlandish thought of him recommending books that he hasn’t read imo
I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
