We aren’t talking about Spanish vs English, though. You can simplify concepts like Dialectical Materialism without trying to rename or repackage it so that people already hostile to the concept don’t reflexively reject it. People are smarter than that, even if theory can get complex people don’t need new words for established terms. Ironically, doing as such contributes to Elitism by creating a secondary language for those who haven’t read theory from those who have, and places a confusing barrier in front of those who begin to read theory and would have to relearn terms.
Look to how Communist parties have communicated theory to the masses. Communist leaders and parties have always had to balance simplification for education with getting their ideas across, but never by replacing terminology. This separates the party from the people and disrupts the Mass Line. You are correct that people can understand these concepts without reading theory, but theory is still necessary, and creating needless sepparation drives division between the party and the people, rather than unifying them.
Ironically, doing as such contributes to Elitism by creating a secondary language for those who haven’t read theory from those who have
You’re still operating under the mindset that people need a specific theory, much of which has its own historical ties to political and academic elites. In reality, the working class and marginalized communities have created several ‘secondary languages’ outside of elitist tradition and decorum through slang and code-switching. It is here that the localized vernacular, the whispers of revolution, organically develop into physically organized revolution.
The theory people need is the one informed and confirmed by past practice and formed through their own experiences in applying theory to their conditions. Everywhere will be different.
The Haitian Revolution happened before the development of Marxist theory. The cataclysm of events that followed could not have been predicted but it’s what lead to the French and American revolutions.
Most of Marx’s key works were written after the Haitian Revolution and prior to the American Civil War, but he didn’t address either.
In my opinion, people do not need any predefined theory. There just needs to be a shared consciousness aligned with class interest. The Haitian Revolution was largely made possibly by the Polish who were sent there by the French to squash the revolt. But, the Polish were also seeking their own independence and defected to help the Haitians. This did not require theory just the shared concept of independence.
Eventually, the State will morph into a de facto Corporation that is no longer bound by geopolitical borders. The concept of nationalism will dissipate over time. Company towns will have their culture, customs, and traditions dictated by a top-down corporate structure; Mayor-Managers who work beneath District Manager-governors, who work beneath Regional Manager-governors who works beneath the Zone Manager-governors, who work brandy VPs, the Board, and the CEO-dictator. Corporate police will exist to protect corporate interests and will be present domestically and internationally. They would not need to identify themselves nor the employer financing them.
I believe it will be somewhere during this late-stage of global corporatism that we will begin to see a true socialist revolution— where each individual working class person recognizes their role, the power, their ability. And, are able to communicate and organize utilizing their role. We aren’t there yet but I believe we are building the society we wish to see each day with every effort of resistance.
It’s pretty undeniable that learning from the successes and failures of previous revolutions increases your chance of success. The Haitian revolution in particular was one of National Liberation, the likes of which Marxists like Frantz Fanon have spent lifetimes analyzing. It isn’t about finding “predefined theory,” but not reinventing the wheel every time. See what can be universalized, see what can’t be, and work from there.
Again, though, I recommend you dive into the myriad factions at play in the many successful Socialist revolutions we have seen. Many factions supported the idea of “general radicalization,” like the SRs, but ultimately it ended up being the more organized and dedicated to theory that successfully guided revolution.
We aren’t talking about Spanish vs English, though. You can simplify concepts like Dialectical Materialism without trying to rename or repackage it so that people already hostile to the concept don’t reflexively reject it. People are smarter than that, even if theory can get complex people don’t need new words for established terms. Ironically, doing as such contributes to Elitism by creating a secondary language for those who haven’t read theory from those who have, and places a confusing barrier in front of those who begin to read theory and would have to relearn terms.
Look to how Communist parties have communicated theory to the masses. Communist leaders and parties have always had to balance simplification for education with getting their ideas across, but never by replacing terminology. This separates the party from the people and disrupts the Mass Line. You are correct that people can understand these concepts without reading theory, but theory is still necessary, and creating needless sepparation drives division between the party and the people, rather than unifying them.
You’re still operating under the mindset that people need a specific theory, much of which has its own historical ties to political and academic elites. In reality, the working class and marginalized communities have created several ‘secondary languages’ outside of elitist tradition and decorum through slang and code-switching. It is here that the localized vernacular, the whispers of revolution, organically develop into physically organized revolution.
The theory people need is the one informed and confirmed by past practice and formed through their own experiences in applying theory to their conditions. Everywhere will be different.
The Haitian Revolution happened before the development of Marxist theory. The cataclysm of events that followed could not have been predicted but it’s what lead to the French and American revolutions.
Most of Marx’s key works were written after the Haitian Revolution and prior to the American Civil War, but he didn’t address either.
In my opinion, people do not need any predefined theory. There just needs to be a shared consciousness aligned with class interest. The Haitian Revolution was largely made possibly by the Polish who were sent there by the French to squash the revolt. But, the Polish were also seeking their own independence and defected to help the Haitians. This did not require theory just the shared concept of independence.
Eventually, the State will morph into a de facto Corporation that is no longer bound by geopolitical borders. The concept of nationalism will dissipate over time. Company towns will have their culture, customs, and traditions dictated by a top-down corporate structure; Mayor-Managers who work beneath District Manager-governors, who work beneath Regional Manager-governors who works beneath the Zone Manager-governors, who work brandy VPs, the Board, and the CEO-dictator. Corporate police will exist to protect corporate interests and will be present domestically and internationally. They would not need to identify themselves nor the employer financing them.
I believe it will be somewhere during this late-stage of global corporatism that we will begin to see a true socialist revolution— where each individual working class person recognizes their role, the power, their ability. And, are able to communicate and organize utilizing their role. We aren’t there yet but I believe we are building the society we wish to see each day with every effort of resistance.
It’s pretty undeniable that learning from the successes and failures of previous revolutions increases your chance of success. The Haitian revolution in particular was one of National Liberation, the likes of which Marxists like Frantz Fanon have spent lifetimes analyzing. It isn’t about finding “predefined theory,” but not reinventing the wheel every time. See what can be universalized, see what can’t be, and work from there.
Again, though, I recommend you dive into the myriad factions at play in the many successful Socialist revolutions we have seen. Many factions supported the idea of “general radicalization,” like the SRs, but ultimately it ended up being the more organized and dedicated to theory that successfully guided revolution.