Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

A 1986 book on how Pol Pot was a pseudo-Marxist and how the Vietnamese were right to overthrow him (as well as describing Cambodia's reconstruction afterwards): click.

At 12/6/14 02:09 AM, Hoodie wrote: Marx, Engels, Lenin: On Historical Materialism.

Since I can't edit the original post, turns out someone already scanned this: http://libgen.org/book/index.php?md5=62CCD0E73FA1B890A97093EA0820A135

You're free to make another choice.

First and last bump since this is still a thing.

At 12/5/14 02:58 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Since MLK was not communist at all

There's the short Great Soviet Encyclopedia entry on MLK Jr. written in the 1970s:

"King, Martin Luther, Jr

Born Jan. 15, 1929, in Atlanta, Ga.; died Apr. 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tenn. Figure in the black movement in the US. A leader in the struggle for civil rights for blacks.

King received a Ph.D. degree from Boston University in 1955. He became a Baptist minister in 1954. In 1957 he organized and headed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a black organization. Although at first a bourgeois liberal, in the last years of his life King came to understand the social nature of the race problem and the necessity for social reforms. He called upon blacks to unite their cause with that of white workers. King developed and extensively used the tactic of mass nonviolent acts in the struggle for civil rights. He was the first prominent black leader to oppose US aggression in Vietnam. King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. He was murdered by racists."

The book itself is around 260 pages so it would obviously talk about all this in far more detail.

Normally I would just post in the main topic for books I've scanned, but I figure this is a special occasion.

Someone I know has offered to send me a Soviet book this month (a compilation of Marx and Engels on proletarian revolution) and another the next month. I'd like the second book to be voted on 'cause DEMOCRACY or something.

How it works is simple: you ogle at the list of books below and choose up to three of them you'd like to see scanned. Voting ends on January 1. If the winning book is bought out by some random human being before that date (these are fairly cheap books after all) then the second entry in the list is chosen.

* The Soviet Court (1973)
* Developing Nations at the Turn of Millennium (1987)
* Lenin the Great Theoretician (1970)
* The Races of Mankind (1966)
* Marx, Engels, Lenin: On Historical Materialism (1976, compilation of their writings, 750 pages)
* Mao Tse-Tung: An Ideological and Psychological Portrait (1980)
* The Fundamentals of Political Economy (1983)
* Soviet Financial System (1966)
* Political Economy: Capitalism (1977)
* Political Economy: Socialism (1977)
* Cultural Changes in Developing Countries (1976)
* An ABC of Planning (1982)
* The Soviet Peasantry: An Outline History (1917-1970) (1975)
* The Life and Death of Martin Luther King (1981)
* Logic (1989, on the philosophical concept)
* Essays in Contemporary History, 1946-1990 (1990)
* The Soviet Political System under Developed Socialism (1977)
* Culture and Perestroika (1988)
* Socialist Society: Scientific Principles of Development (1971)
* Manpower Resources and Population Under Socialism (1979)
* The First Soviet Government: The True Story of the Russian Revolution and the Building of Socialism (1982)
* The Soviet Parliament (A Reference Book) (1967)
* History of the Usa Since World War I (1976)
* The Great October Revolution and the Intelligentsia: How the Old Intelligentsia Was Drawn Into the Building of Socialism (1975)
* The Great October Socialist Revolution (1977, official history textbook)
* The Bolshevik Party and the Democratic Revolution in Russia; the First Russian Revolution and the Period of Reaction (1905-1910) (1975)
* The Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies on the Eve of the October Revolution, March-October, 1917 (1971)
* Recent History of the Labor Movement in the United States, 1939-1965 (1979)
* The Overseas Expansion of Capital: Past and Present (1985)
* On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet State (Lenin compilation, 497 pages)
* History of Religion (1989)
* Cities without Crisis (1976, CPUSA journalist reporting on Soviet cities, put out by Soviet publishing house)
* Are our Moscow Reporters Giving Us the Facts About the USSR? (1981, another CPUSA journalist work put out by Soviet publishing house)
* The International Working Class Movement, Problems of History and Theory: Volume 1, The Origins of the Proletariat and Its Evolution as a Revolutionary Class (1980)
* Communist Morality (1962)
* What Is the Working People's Power? (1986, on Soviet government)

A book on the anti-fascist resistance in Albania during WWII: click.

A 1974 book from the DPRK on its agrarian reforms: click.

Marx and Engels on the United States: click.

Two more books I've scanned.

One is on women in the USSR, from 1975 (by the same author who wrote "Soviet But Not Russian"): click.

One is on American history from 1789-1824: click.

At 11/3/14 09:34 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote:

At 11/3/14 09:25 PM, Mrdie wrote: Sources on history, which some people on here may find interesting. More than a few people are interested in the American Revolution, for example, so being able to read books about it online for free can assist them.

interesting is one thing, but it doesnt have much point if they cant apply that knowledge.. reading something just for the hell of it, or even to learn, in itself, solves nothing.

I'm sure they can apply the knowledge when discussing history with others.

In other news, I also scanned "Soviet But Not Russian," which was published in 1985 and discusses the non-Russian nationalities inside the USSR (including Jews and blacks): click.

I received express permission from both the publishers and the author's family to scan it and another book by him, so yeah.

Sources on history, which some people on here may find interesting. More than a few people are interested in the American Revolution, for example, so being able to read books about it online for free can assist them.

At 11/3/14 07:53 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote:

At 11/3/14 07:40 PM, Mrdie wrote: It's just a collection of books that were either published by the USSR or similarly-minded states, or published in the West, all having a broadly leftist view of some sort on whatever subject they're covering.

great, i inferred that much. any purpose it serves?

Historical sources.

It's just a collection of books that were either published by the USSR or similarly-minded states, or published in the West, all having a broadly leftist view of some sort on whatever subject they're covering.

Biography I scanned of the first American Marxist: click.

Two books, neither scanned by me but still of interest.

The first is a history of the Communist Party USA, written in 1952. Even though you'd expect it to begin in 1919, it actually devotes a considerable portion of its contents to the earliest radical democratic and communist forces in US history, including their relationship with the Jeffersonians, the Union side of the Civil War, etc. Click.

Another is a history of the Americas (north and south) from pre-colonial times up to the late 1940s. Click.

At 10/13/14 08:01 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 10/12/14 04:32 PM, Mrdie wrote: You've failed to show that the ANC attacked whites because they were white, rather than because they were advocates or enforcers of Apartheid.

Say that again, I wanna read your idiocy over and over until it makes sense.

Okay, I'll say it again: You've [or rather the poster I was replying to] failed to show that the ANC attacked whites because they were white, rather than because they were advocates or enforcers of Apartheid. Their attacks inside South Africa targeted the Apartheid state apparatus and its accomplices, not whites as a group.

The ANC called for a South Africa in which blacks and whites would exist as fellow citizens. The United Democratic Front brought together black and white students, workers, members of the petty-bourgeoisie, etc. towards this aim, while (again) the ANC and South African Communist Party were close allies, something that got the ANC in trouble from actual black racist groups which argued that Marxism was a "white ideology" and that the ANC was a puppet of "white communists."

if you'd like to argue that the ANC was racist, feel free. So far I haven't seen any evidence in this thread.

At 10/12/14 01:35 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/12/14 01:18 AM, Mrdie wrote: No, but what does that have to do with anything? It was one of the many songs sung during the liberation struggle against Apartheid. "Boer" in this case referred to those who headed the government, not whites as a whole.

Well firstly, Mandela had no problem whatsoever killing innocent white civillians, and secondly, none of the rest of the ANC (or black south africans for that matter) seem to have received that particular memo.

The ANC had no problems killing those who collaborated with Apartheid. The ANC didn't just target whites during the 1960s-80s, it also targeted collaborationist Indians and blacks (especially those who collaborated with bantustan administrations and the like.) You've failed to show that the ANC attacked whites because they were white, rather than because they were advocates or enforcers of Apartheid.

said white communists are about as anti-white as you can get and many of them have openly called for whites to be killed

Give one example.

Also the fact that life in South Africa has deteriorated is not surprising. Mandela's policy of reconciliation involved the creation of a black capitalist class to operate alongside its white counterpart, as I said. The ANC was transformed from a liberation movement dedicated to the transformation of society to a ruling party of a bourgeois state which engages in corruption and works in the interests of both national (whether black or white) and international capital. The SACP is also fully complicit in this process, condemning any working-class action against the ANC and itself enjoying the spoils of participation in the bourgeois government.

In this thread there has been a comparison between Mandela and Mugabe. Mugabe went from heading a liberation movement in the 70s to calling for reconciliation in 1980 and pursuing policies fully in the interests of international capital in the 80s and most of the 90s, from refusing to nationalize a single industry to carrying out "structural adjustment" and austerity programs to the detriment of workers and on behalf of the IMF and other lenders. It was only in the late 90s after years of demands from peasants and war veterans that he began to initiate land reform, and even then a significant portion of the land was appropriated by ZANU-PF functionaries.

One good read on this: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n23/mahmood-mamdani/lessons-of-zimbabwe

No, it's not, especially in the context of the post I was responding to.

Myself and Feroic already noted that your claim about the Union "forcing" people to fight for it is silly in light of how unpopular the Confederate cause was.

At 10/11/14 10:03 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/11/14 06:41 PM, Mrdie wrote: Because he called for the white bourgeoisie to agree to the formation of a black counterpart. Once in office he pursued a commitment to defending private property, throwing aside all the promises the ANC made for social progress in the 1960s-80s. See for instance: http://johnpilger.com/articles/south-africa-20-years-of-apartheid-by-another-name

I'm guessing "kill the boer" is actually zulu for "peace and tolerance", right?

No, but what does that have to do with anything? It was one of the many songs sung during the liberation struggle against Apartheid. "Boer" in this case referred to those who headed the government, not whites as a whole. This is obvious when one remembers that the ANC's closest ally was (and still is) the South African Communist Party, which was headed by a white man (Joe Slovo) and which, because of this alliance, the Pan Africanist Congress and other groups which put race above class accused the ANC of submitting to "white ideology" and being puppets of the "white communists."

The ANC consistently called for the creation of a multiracial society. At no point did it ever preach black supremacy.

I'm sorry, was anybody in this thread calling a confederate leader one of the top political leaders of all time or prasing their moral fortitude?

I'm simply stating one of the basic reasons why the Confederate cause was much less popular among the people of the Confederates states as opposed to the Union cause for the people living in the Union's states. It's silly to lambast Lincoln for "forcing" people to fight against their own will when the amount of resistance to the Union war effort paled in comparison to the amount of resistance on the Confederate side.

At 10/11/14 02:51 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/10/14 11:27 PM, Ranger2 wrote: and pursued reconciliation over revenge.

How can you honestly believe that? lmao

Because he called for the white bourgeoisie to agree to the formation of a black counterpart. Once in office he pursued a commitment to defending private property, throwing aside all the promises the ANC made for social progress in the 1960s-80s. See for instance: http://johnpilger.com/articles/south-africa-20-years-of-apartheid-by-another-name

At 10/10/14 10:36 PM, Mrdie wrote: Desertion was far more common among Confederate troops. By the closing stages of the war discontent was sweeping the Confederacy.

So? Doesn't change my point.

Of course it does. The Union, once it resolved to abolish slavery rather than simply bring the southern states back, waged a revolutionary war to destroy an archaic economic system. This war was broadly popular among practically all strata of society. The opposite was the case in the Confederacy, which represented the interests of an aristocracy backed by British industry (which preferred to keep American industry underdeveloped), the Papacy, and other reactionary forces in the world.

It's like pointing out that there were people disaffected by the policies of the French bourgeoisie in 1789-1794. Obviously yes that was bound to happen, but as compared to the forces of Louis XVI it was clear that the former had incomparably greater support, because they represented the forces of democratic liberties and economic progress against feudal counter-revolution.

At 10/10/14 07:16 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/10/14 04:50 PM, cga-999 wrote:

For others to fight against their will for what he believed in*

Desertion was far more common among Confederate troops. By the closing stages of the war discontent was sweeping the Confederacy. One good book on this is "A History of the Confederate States of America" by William C. Davis.

2. Martin Luther King, Jr.
He was an amazing black activist who put up with discrimination, death threats, and even a bombing of his home. He was the inspiration for the discontinuation of segregation.

He was an academic fraud, a communist and a fundamentalist christian who believed that civil rights would lead to racial equality. What a dumbass lol.

Fundamentalist Christian and Communist are not exactly compatible terms, although both claims are false. Harry Belafonte does note in his autobiography that by the end of his life MLK Jr. was moving to the left, but he was a liberal in the 50s and the first half of the 60s. Being a communist implies adhering to historical and dialectical materialism, both of which a fundamentalist Christian is very unlikely to do.

Scanned a large book titled "Modern History of Korea" from 1979, which can be found in the original link.

At 9/20/14 05:49 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Great, what's the purpose of this? Are you trying to convince us that the US is horrible and that the USSR was great? Or is this food for thought, and what spurred this?

Not every book which is uploaded comes from the USSR or has a positive view of it (e.g. see some of the Albanian books, like "Soviet Revisionism and the Struggle of the PLA to Unmask It"), but the purpose is to note the existence of (generally) book-length works on various historical subjects. For instance there's three books in the first link on early US history, a book on the history of the Americas and Europe from 1640 to 1870, and so on. The latest book I uploaded is about the history of working-class movements up to 1945, which I think many people would find of interest. Obviously these are political subjects, hence this being in the politics forum area.

Added to first link: "International Working-Class and Communist Movement. Historical Record (1830s to mid-1940s)"

At 9/5/14 08:38 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 9/5/14 06:55 PM, Radaketor wrote: Well you're talking in english so i guess it's okay for you to call him Stalin as opposed to how his name is pronounced in Russian.

Stalin wasn't Russian; he was Georgian (not the America kind). But I have no idea why he'd call himself that, I mean Ioseb Besarionis Dze Jugashvili just rolls right off the tongue.

Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Kamenev, Molotov and so on were all pseudonyms adopted when they wanted to write stuff or go to places without using their real names, so that Tsarist authorities couldn't immediately arrest them. Many went through various pseudonyms too, like at one point Lenin used Jacob Richter and Stalin used Koba. Most Bolsheviks though just used pseudonyms during the Tsarist period and after 1917 kept their real names, while others were so closely identified with their pseudonyms that they became their true names for all intents and purposes.

Pol Pot's real name was Saloth Sar, Tito was born Josip Broz, etc.

About a month or two back I made a thread noting that I scanned a bunch of PDFs on early American history from a Marxist perspective. I've actually scanned quite a few works in general, alongside others, so in the future I'll just note them here.

You can find the list of scanned works in the following link: click.

I just scanned a Soviet biography of Engels, which you can find there. You can also find a history of the world from 1640-1870, various compilations of Lenin works, Soviet biographies of Marx and Lenin, etc.

There's also another place with all sorts of Soviet and other PDFs, although I have nothing to do with their scanning: click.

At 8/30/14 10:51 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: With the race riots going on due to what happened to black teens for the past years, lets say if someone decides to have a special screening of an old James Bond movie and "Live and Let Die" was chosen, what reaction do you think would occur?

Just wondering since the movie practically portrayed nearly every single black person as evil villains, gotta love the old fashioned racism.

I think most people would realize someone was doing some real-life trolling, but Live and Let Die is shown regularly on TV, as are movies with far more problematic portrayals of blacks (like Gone with the Wind.)

At 8/18/14 08:30 PM, exudaz wrote:

At 8/18/14 04:34 PM, Xiicubed wrote:

At 8/17/14 08:20 PM, exudaz wrote:

At 8/17/14 07:48 PM, Richard wrote:

At 8/17/14 04:16 PM, Sensationalism wrote:

It's kind of a shame Africa is so shitty.
It has tons of natural resources, beautiful wildlife, and beautiful, vast landscape. But the people fucking ruin it.

And its all the Europeans' fault

No, look at Liberia.
A bunch of African freed slaves wanted land in Africa, so the US gave it to them and helped them start a country.
Look how well it turned out.

Before European colonization, Africans were still a bunch of waring tribes.

So this isn't Europe's fault.

It's important to note what society those American ex-slaves actually created though. It was like a parody of the white, aristocratic slaveowning society they grew up under, and was in fact the only life they knew. That's why they basically enslaved the "native" Africans after a short while.

As for the tribal warfare stuff, a good read on this is "The Graves Are Not Yet Full: Race, Tribe, and Power in the Heart of Africa" which points out how a lot of modern-day conflicts between tribes on the continent are artificially created by the governments in power (in order to retain power via divide and rule.) The colonizing countries, rather than obliterate tribal differences, carefully preserved them in order to "manage" Africans better (i.e. indirectly rule their lives through respected chieftains living on colonial subsidies.) Even in those colonies where there existed small outlets of industry amid a sea of backward peasant agriculture tribalism was still a big deal and still kept alive by the colonial authorities, who were afraid of a united working-class.

And the former colonizing countries still do play a big role in the affairs of their ex-colonies, most notably France which has been behind the overthrow of various governments and has promoted a great many dictators due to their friendliness to French economic and foreign policy interests. The USA has also intervened heavily, claiming the need to oppose "communism" during the Cold War. The present state of many African countries today can be traced back to foreign-backed autocrats.

At 8/17/14 07:48 PM, Richard wrote:

At 8/17/14 04:16 PM, Sensationalism wrote: That whole continent can just sink into the ocean and we'll all be better off.

It's kind of funny that the country that the US formed in Africa so they could repatriate ex slaves....has been a complete shit hole for the past hundred years.

A brief history recap: black ex-slaves in the USA land on a piece of African land already inhabited by native blacks. Black ex-slaves denounce the natives as uncivilized savages and treat them like dirt. The True Whig Party is set up and is basically the only political entity allowed to exist. Black government ministers wear tophats and pride themselves as bringing civilization to ungrateful Africans. The country is relatively stable (although the government is corrupt and slave-like conditions exist well into the 20th Century) until a military coup in 1980 deposes the 102-year rule of the True Whigs and a "native" African named Samuel Doe takes power. He promises political and economic reforms but is actually really corrupt, and the USA continues backing him because of his anti-communism (which he shared with his predecessors.) Doe becomes really unpopular at home, rebels rise up under Charles Taylor, Doe gets killed, country enters into bad straits, Taylor wins election in mid-90s after threatening a continuation of his rebellion, gets rich off of backing rebels in neighboring Sierra Leone (the British version of Liberia) who give him diamonds, and he gets deposed by the USA.

Since then Liberia hasn't been a great place to live still, but it's pretty stable. The only countries in Africa right now that have little control over their own territory are the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and Somalia.

I've now scanned On the United States of America, a compilation of pretty much everything Lenin ever wrote on the USA: click.

At 6/25/14 09:38 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 6/25/14 09:07 AM, Mrdie wrote: I have permission to scan two more books from the same publisher: one covering the period 1789-1824, and another which is a biography of Joseph Weydemeyer, one of the earliest propagators of Marxism in the USA, a colonel in the Union Army during the Civil War, and a friend of Marx and Engels.

Could you do me a favor and drop me a PM with a scan or contact info for said publisher? I'm not saying you're not telling the truth, but we just have to make sure that the site is protected and that we are very much on firm ground that the publisher understands what you're doing and won't seek to come after Tom Fulp for infringement.

PM sent with details. archive.org (where I uploaded the books) allows anyone to view what's on it under the assumption that what is on it (books, music, episodes of random shows) is either done with express permission or is otherwise in the public domain. I received express permission from the publishers to scan the books and to put them on archive.org.