In the past, when I first started reading Marxist-Leninist works, I naively thought I should read them in chronological order, first reading Marx, then Lenin, believing that if I didn’t read the earlier works, I wouldn’t understand the later ones. But later I realized this was not correct. I changed my approach and decided to first study materialism and socialism before studying political economy, so I deliberately avoided political economy when learning Marxism-Leninism. However, when I read later, I found that this was also not right because these concepts are not strictly separated but are organic and interconnected. Therefore, I created this post for two reasons: one, because my past reading habits were poor—I didn’t like taking notes and thought books were enough, so I want to encourage myself to take notes; two, because I genuinely have some issues that I must bring up, even if they are messy. If I just skim over certain problems or explain them carelessly, it would be like planting a time bomb on my path of learning theory.
Political economy is very interesting because it is closely connected to the struggles of reality. Mastering political economy allows you to see why capitalism is inevitably heading towards demise, and how socialism should be established. The deeper your study, the more social phenomena you can explain, and thus your confidence in the inevitable victory of Marxism and communism will grow stronger. You will be less likely to be confused by some bourgeois scholars who use “new materials of economic development” to think that capitalism has regained vitality. You can think more about the ideological issues that hinder your theoretical learning, and consider the purpose of your study. Only then can you truly learn well.
What order does Qian Ren plan to study in? Is he looking at the recommended must-read books?
No, I prefer to read the original text and use the recommended must-reads as assistance.
What does reading the original mean? Is it the original work of the instructor? If that’s the case, I think it’s not very good, because if you don’t understand some basic concepts, reading the original work will only give you a partial understanding and won’t get to the core. This is inefficient and counterproductive.
Yes, I read a copy of “Antidühring” and I am so sleepy.
问题：
1，是人的行为反映人的思想还是人的思想反映人的行为？比如，就一般而言，我杀人放火，可以看出这个行为反映了我的思想，但是对于我来说，是不是因为我有极端个人主义的思想才这么做？
2，“凡是现存的，都是应该灭亡的”。那么，在一个非常狭义的范围内，比如纯数学的范围内，1+1=2，一直以来运算范围内相等的两个两的和等于一个量的两倍，几千年来都没变，也没有“灭亡过”。怎么解释？这是不是绝对真理？
3，不同的范畴的是不是不同的质？
4.“认为人类（至少在现时）总的来说是沿着进步方向运动的这种信念，是同唯物主义和唯心主义的对立绝对不相干的。”（恩格斯）这句话什么意思？是不是说我认为人类一定要向前发展，既不属于唯物主义的范畴，也不是唯心主义的范畴？