You are welcome! If you think that people in your area will just dismiss it because of the section, you could rephrase it to be softer. Just cutting the use of “gods” in the paragraph and leaving it implicit could maybe make some people more receptive? Otherwise highlighting that you can use diamat as a method of analysis without accepting diamat fully as a worldview could maybe help?
Agree! My biggest weakness as a writer is that I write too complex sentences and paragraphs. It is a difficult balance though with pamphlets, because it needs to be readable, short, and precise and correct. This one is additionally about philosophy, which often has dense concepts and writing. But readability is definetly still an area of improvement!
I think Legos or other building-block toys could be a great example. Quantity into quality, existing as an relation between component parts, phenomena (a thing) vs essence (a bunch of blocks that are connected), change as you build more or modify … the actual contradiction part I guess is not so clear, but there are a lot of other aspects that you could try to explain with. I mean I guess you could say that Legos are a contradiction between their ability to connect and their innate existance as separate parts but I don’t think that makes sense to a 9 year old lol
Thats a tough one! I’d suggest focusing on opposites, which are very intuitive, and how things keep changing, with plenty of examples. Maybe an example about what a thing is internally determines what it can do, with a common toy or something as an example. And then explaining that this can be used to find out all sorts of stuff about the world!
Good suggestion! As for the target audience I guess it would be anyone vaguely socialist that might need an intro or some encouragement to read. I don’t think it’ll convince any libs, but maybe it could encourage socdems to read more theory
I’ve been working on this pamphlet for the last couple weeks
I also got an e-ink reader and I love it so far. So much easier than dragging around a big book. I also find it comfortable to hold, so I can change seating positions more when I read. Reading PDFs or long webpages on a computer has always been a bit exhausting for me so it’s nice to get it on another type of display
What’s next, the moon?
Still capital vol 2. Also started “Hard to be a god” to have some fiction on the side
A bit over a 100 pages into capital vol 2 now. Just like in Vol 1 he often goes into long step by step explanations instead of getting to the point, except it’s worse here, because you’re on a circulation merry-go-round. It’s not too bad though, reading it is mostly just trying to spot when he is saying something new and when he is repeating himself/overexplaining.
Although I definetly think that in general class interests rule societies, I do think that specific mainfestations of class rule can be more or less rational with respect to their interests. I’d say that I definetly think the current administration and for example Tsar Nicholas’s regime were examples of less rational manifestations. That doesn’t change the fact that the entire bourgeoisie class is the problem, of course. But I do think we should be careful with assuming that just because the Trump-administration does something, then it is in the rational self-interest of the Bourgeoisie, it could just as well be a very poor attempt at that. But of course proletarian class rule is the solution anyhow.
I agree in general, but I do think it doesn’t help that the leadership is irrational specifically (not just Trump of course)
The future might be uncertain comrade, but that means potential for change aswell. We’ll probably never see a Red Western Europe as long as our continent is built on the exploitation of other peoples. But through their emancipation we can eventually build a brighter future for proletarians in our part of the world too!
It’s of course morally fine to pursue medical treatment with the means available to you. It’s not like you’re taking a job for Lockheed Martin for health insurance or something, right :P
Hi, I’ve been trying to make a norwegian-speaking marxist theory podcast, because I felt it was lacking in our language. If you are a norwegian comerade you can check it out at: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2468064
You mean the checks contributing to the balance in the politicians bank accounts?
JPDON Grahom 🙏
Come on, do the Potemkin thing …
In more facist periods the bourgeois ideology gets more and more irrational traits to try to convince segments of the petite bouegeois and the workers to support the bourgeois state despited the increased exploutation of the working class, this ultimately reflects in more irational leadership as well. In this case, I think it is entirely possible the US leadership too eagerly bought into their own propaganda about their military strength and the supposed weakness of their enemies. It is not because of Trump or anything like that, he is just part of a less rational bourgeois state apparatus due to material reasons.
That being said, I think they may have had some indications that could have implied that the war would go better for them, which they too eagerly accepted.
Tell me more about your joke reference to the Eliza chatbot.