Educating others is not necessarily hard work, it’s just steady and tedious. Liberals treating theory like it’s fundamentally alien and therefore not worth engaging with is endlessly frustrating, but it’s not an unwinnable battle (not that you made it seem that way).
I think one can grasp socialism in essence in as little as a pamphlet. “Full understanding” on the other hand takes many, many books and practical experience. The floor is actually pretty low, but the ceiling is very high. Bringing that ceiling down to digestable components to bring people above the floor is a core part of educational praxis.
Oh, haven’t seen that one! And yep, a contemporary, clear, sober analysis of the political movement in the imperial core and an exposition on the basics of capitalism, imperialism, settler-colonialism, the struggle for socialism, and how we move forward would be a fantastic bit of agitprop. I know the various parties have their own pamphlets, but I’m curious if the method of distribution needs to be reconsidered. The core is rapidly changing and we can’t fall behind.
Personally I’m starting to think the greater question for communist parties is the question of how to forge quality membership and Cadre. Like this is something I’ve been thinking on for months, prior to the current shake up - in polite words - at PSL. I’m coming to believe the greatest weakness of the western left is our hyper-individualistic petite bourgeois baggage. General growth of the class consciousness of the masses will occur regardless of us handing out pamphlets as the rapid decay of our material conditions radicalizes people out of their slumber.
As far as the PSL is concerned, every member I have met has been extremely principled. Based on what PSL members past and present have stated here, it seems that it is genuinely effective at raising capable cadre. The PSL grew to the point it is today because it actually does have that strength. The current shake-up seems to be primarily driven by the fact that the cadre development is largely effective, while the org itself is facing a conflict between the old and the new.
Where that leaves any org that may be seeking to learn from PSL, it seems that, above all, the cadre are the actual gems of any org. Any effective org needs effective cadre for democratic centralism to properly function, and it must have the democratic means by which to change and adapt to the will of the developed cadre. In the coming weeks and months, we will see if PSL actually does have the democratic institutions required to grow from this shake-up and become a better org, or if this will spell a crisis for the org that cadre alone cannot fix. My hope is obviously for the former.
Creating cadre isn’t as simple as a reading list. It takes practical work and struggle, leadership experience, a flexible org that can adapt, grow, and change, and a tight connection with the masses. The purpose of a pamphlet is to bring the masses towards a more correct understanding of Marxism, not to train cadre. The masses are limited to trade unionism without a party of effective cadre that can bring the local struggles to a connected and interdependent struggle, and the pamphlet is a good vehicle for connecting these points ideologically and in a mass manner.
Might just be the circles I find myself in, but does anyone else know socialists who are actually kinda made uncomfortable by communism? The more time I spend with the DSA, the more skeptical I become
People who call themselves socialists but reject communism are either utopianists, electoralists, or confused social-democrats who reject the historically accomplished and real communist projects in favor of a pure as the driven snow mythical socialism that must be ushered in by the masses legally ascending to power within the bourgeois system. They are haunted by the actions of Leninists under the baggage of petty bourgeoise moralizing brainwashing we all go through in the West to view every success as a failure and every failure as a success, and thusly shrink under the accusations from the enemies of the working class of having association to the Revolutionary Left.
What’s wrong with explaining it in a couple of sentences, like this?
“We live in a society where capitalists, i.e. people who invest their money in various ventures and collect profits from them for a living, run both the economy and the government. Socialism is just about building a society where instead of capitalists making the decisions everywhere, workers do instead.”
Socialism is when the workers control the means of production. Do workers control the means of production in the USA? No. So we aren’t living under socialism. That’ll be five bucks.
”
Educating others is not necessarily hard work, it’s just steady and tedious. Liberals treating theory like it’s fundamentally alien and therefore not worth engaging with is endlessly frustrating, but it’s not an unwinnable battle (not that you made it seem that way).
To be fair you need to read like 2-3 books to fully understand the modern concept of socialism fully.
However in this case even reading a wikipedia article would be a massive improvement
I think one can grasp socialism in essence in as little as a pamphlet. “Full understanding” on the other hand takes many, many books and practical experience. The floor is actually pretty low, but the ceiling is very high. Bringing that ceiling down to digestable components to bring people above the floor is a core part of educational praxis.
All we need is some kind of manifesto, to get the ball rolling. Its a shame no one has ever written one
Rest in peace
https://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/pamphlets/1933/ch01.htm
But updated with more modern lingo.
Oh, haven’t seen that one! And yep, a contemporary, clear, sober analysis of the political movement in the imperial core and an exposition on the basics of capitalism, imperialism, settler-colonialism, the struggle for socialism, and how we move forward would be a fantastic bit of agitprop. I know the various parties have their own pamphlets, but I’m curious if the method of distribution needs to be reconsidered. The core is rapidly changing and we can’t fall behind.
Personally I’m starting to think the greater question for communist parties is the question of how to forge quality membership and Cadre. Like this is something I’ve been thinking on for months, prior to the current shake up - in polite words - at PSL. I’m coming to believe the greatest weakness of the western left is our hyper-individualistic petite bourgeois baggage. General growth of the class consciousness of the masses will occur regardless of us handing out pamphlets as the rapid decay of our material conditions radicalizes people out of their slumber.
As far as the PSL is concerned, every member I have met has been extremely principled. Based on what PSL members past and present have stated here, it seems that it is genuinely effective at raising capable cadre. The PSL grew to the point it is today because it actually does have that strength. The current shake-up seems to be primarily driven by the fact that the cadre development is largely effective, while the org itself is facing a conflict between the old and the new.
Where that leaves any org that may be seeking to learn from PSL, it seems that, above all, the cadre are the actual gems of any org. Any effective org needs effective cadre for democratic centralism to properly function, and it must have the democratic means by which to change and adapt to the will of the developed cadre. In the coming weeks and months, we will see if PSL actually does have the democratic institutions required to grow from this shake-up and become a better org, or if this will spell a crisis for the org that cadre alone cannot fix. My hope is obviously for the former.
Creating cadre isn’t as simple as a reading list. It takes practical work and struggle, leadership experience, a flexible org that can adapt, grow, and change, and a tight connection with the masses. The purpose of a pamphlet is to bring the masses towards a more correct understanding of Marxism, not to train cadre. The masses are limited to trade unionism without a party of effective cadre that can bring the local struggles to a connected and interdependent struggle, and the pamphlet is a good vehicle for connecting these points ideologically and in a mass manner.
Ah fuck it says “communism”
Might just be the circles I find myself in, but does anyone else know socialists who are actually kinda made uncomfortable by communism? The more time I spend with the DSA, the more skeptical I become
People who call themselves socialists but reject communism are either utopianists, electoralists, or confused social-democrats who reject the historically accomplished and real communist projects in favor of a pure as the driven snow mythical socialism that must be ushered in by the masses legally ascending to power within the bourgeois system. They are haunted by the actions of Leninists under the baggage of petty bourgeoise moralizing brainwashing we all go through in the West to view every success as a failure and every failure as a success, and thusly shrink under the accusations from the enemies of the working class of having association to the Revolutionary Left.
What’s wrong with explaining it in a couple of sentences, like this?
“We live in a society where capitalists, i.e. people who invest their money in various ventures and collect profits from them for a living, run both the economy and the government. Socialism is just about building a society where instead of capitalists making the decisions everywhere, workers do instead.”
Socialism is when the workers control the means of production. Do workers control the means of production in the USA? No. So we aren’t living under socialism. That’ll be five bucks.