The Principles of Communism is really a nice intro to communist theory, I have it as the first work read in the introductory Marxist-Leninist reading guide I made. That being said, it likely isn't creating a communist yet, just planting the seeds for one. Education doesn't have to just take the form of telling others to read theory, explaining concepts also helps, like imperialism.

[–] NotMushroomForDebate@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

At the very least it would get people to start grasping what communism even is, instead of them creating vibes-based strawmen in their heads that they argue against.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh for sure, I'm not arguing against reading it, after all, but just pointing out that it isn't quite that easy.

[–] NotMushroomForDebate@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not disagreeing, I meant for The Principles of Communism specifically because it's such a short read. If most people read it just once it would save so much time that's usually spent clearing up misconceptions in conversations.

I wish most people would start with that instead of the Manifesto of the Communist Party (or "The Communist Manifesto" as most people call it). It gets through most of the misconceptions in a much faster and simpler way. I like that you have it listed first in your reading list.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

Yep! I agree, that's why I put Principles in my list and not the manifesto.

[+] 0x520@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

Education is still important, because people's openness to new ideas depends on their current material conditions. As conditions decay, radicalization increases, and so does people's willingness to get organized and read theory.

[–] Rumo161@feddit.org -4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

To imply that you cant have a thought about a better future without reading the righrt book is big gatekeeping energy.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

It's more that leftists have been discussing and bringing about better societies for centuries, agitating and organizing, so if we want to take things seriously we need to learn from what works and what doesn't. That's why I made an introduductory Marxist-Leninist reading guide. It's to help people new to theory.

[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

'You' can, you just have to be a big brain erudite to come to conclusions that took several intellectual giants' work throughout centuries. The kind of mind that comes once every thousand years a la Solomon.

Respectfully, you just cannot conceive it because of Dunning-Kruger and because you've never been in a position in which you had to 'create a working ideology for society from scratch'. A part of me also thinks that "saying you need recipes to cook complex meals is big gatekeeping energy", then I fuck everything up and remember I'm both ignorant and naturally incompetent when it comes to cooking. No, we WANT to believe it's different, but it's not, and a wise person understands their limitations.

[–] Xulai@mander.xyz -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There would be a bigger leftist movement if the CIA’s saboteurs weren’t so successful at insulting /alienating liberals - which they do deliberately because they know an honest and educated liberal is most likely to become a leftist.

This is also how to spot a fed in the wild.

[–] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are you implying that Communists who insult or otherwise alienate liberals are fed saboteurs?

[–] Xulai@mander.xyz -2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I’m saying that attacking the very people most likely to take your side is classic sabotage behavior.

Doing so only makes sense only from the perspective of someone who wants to ensure no large leftist movement in the west.

Then attacking, ridiculing, and dog piling on the real leftists that point this out further sabotages any meaningful leftist movement. As already demonstrated here.

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

One problem with that presumptuous line of thinking:, liberals are not most likely to take our side: any cursory breeze though a history book (or look at the news) will show that they just take fascism's side while sanctimoniously lecturing leftists.

This is like when liberals complain about leftists "splitting the movement" by daring to have standards. There is no splitting, you are not in the movement. Fedjacketing people for pointing out that genocide enablers aren't comrades won't magically make you a leftist.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 month ago

But liberals aren't likely to take our side by definition. Who do you think is running those saboteur operation? Monarchists?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

It's more sabotage behavior to call leftists agitating liberals to get them to read theory feds. Rather than trying to provide alternatives to get liberals to read theory, you're defending liberals against leftists while claiming to be a "real leftist." That's wrecker behavior.