I thought about this yesterday when I was trying to explain the difference between socialism and communism. Even such a simple question requires so much foundational information. I couldn’t just say they were different stages of society, because communism is really more a vector of transformation for societies, and to even understand how these societies transform you have to understand dialectical and historical materialism. So I’m revising my post to explain what a dialectic is and I realize I’m already in my third paragraph. Not only is no layman going to read this because its just boring philosophy mumbo jumbo, but I’ve wasted the last 20 minutes writing out this thing that I eventually just end up deleting anyway.
What we need is a streamlined way of propagating theory for a new online age. The Communist Manifesto was supposed to be the quick and dirty version of theory to propagate, but people don’t even read 10 pages anymore. What we need are children’s book versions of these ideas, summarized in an easily spreadable copypasta format. Not only do they have to be simple and succinct, but entertaining as well. Getting someone hooked has never been harder, because with so much information at our fingertips, its never been easier to ignore it.
I also think they should be modular, rather than longer masterposts. Someone who asks a simple question shouldn’t have to read an entire essay, but if the question requires it we should be able to plug-and-play with additional information. This is the hard part, having separate copypastas for each topic that can work with each other while still being understandable independently. It’s hard, but I think its necessary in order to bring editing down to a minimum and increase spreadability as much as possible.
Edit: oh cool I got featured lol
but Parenti is right that the process into Capitalism has been long and continuous,
Yes, I agree but I’m going to insist on Lenin’s definition of capitalism if you’re teaching theory. If you’re agitating for trade unions or organizing them, then I think thats a different story. But if you’re trying to teach Marx then its critical for early learners to not confuse capitalism with the other bad -isms. Capitalism is not reducible to just exploitation. Exploitation has existed for a really, really long time all over the globe. It predates capitalism, and feudalism, and goes all the way back to early civilization. Capitalism isn’t also only just unequal or unjust trade relationships, or slavery, or racism, or colonialism – of course it creates or worsens all of the above. All sorts of societies before capitalism had those problems. The problem with capitalism is that that its dynamic simultaneously produces the potential for socialism for the first time in the history of civilization while also preventing workers’ efforts to organize society and production. It is not possible to even conceive of democratically controlled industrial production without first living in the world capitalism creates. It’s not possible for the working class to abolish itself without first coming into existence. That doesn’t mean that capitalism is somehow good, but it means that capitalism presents an opportunity (ie. the potential to build socialism) to workers only if they’re organized enough to do something about it. I think that fussing over the proper definition for capitalism is something that should be sorted out before someone reaches out to complete theory noobs.
Really it comes down to this: what is new and unique under capitalism? Racism? Sexism? Colonialism? Empires? No, it’s the contradiction between industrial forces of production (unleashed by bourgeois social relations) and bourgeois social relations themselves.
