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.

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.

You keep using the word “hiding”.

If you say ‘water’ and someone else says ‘agua’, the meaning is not being “hidden”. It is simply not being communicated using the same language.

In this context, you are attempting to explain socialism to people using a vernacular that comes off as academically elitist to many working class people.

It doesn’t matter if the speaker is a self-identified leftist. It doesn’t matter how much theory they’ve read. Someone of the working class has the potential to attain class consciousness and develop a path toward revolution. We’re just not even close to a global consciousness yet.

Nation-states are in the process of being replaced by corporate-states. The masses are praising tech-elites and corporatists as ideal leaders. I think you’ll notice a trend among various kinds of “states” throughout history. People are being increasingly hostile to the concept of a state, and that is class consciousness. That hostility would extend to a Marxist-Leninist state as well.

Mutual aid is NOT charity, and this is a fundamental difference. In fact, mutual aid is a fundamental component of grassroots organization and I’m shocked you are unfamiliar with the term with how much leftist literature you are sending me.

You seem to believe that theory is necessary to achieving class consciousness and I disagree. You sent me several links to books intended for already self-identified leftists to read. Me reading more books isn’t going to radicalize right-wingers, right?

You are right about “meeting people where they are”. But, we need to synthesize the information and translate it according to the individual we are speaking to. This isn’t “hiding” or “obscuring” anything. It’s relating to the person directly instead of hiding behind complex economic theory and terminology that may go over their heads.

Thanks for the literature but I know how to speak and relate to my neighbor. Many grassroots leftist organizations already implement what you’re talking about via mutual aid efforts and building community trust.

There is a strong individualist and isolationist mindset among the average American conservative. What I’ve come to learn is that being direct and honest about what Socialism is does not help because they’ve already formed a concrete belief about the buzz word. So, when I’m speaking to a suspected right-wing working class person, I do not use the buzz words while still conveying the meaning using words they commonly use themselves— hence what I said about translating our message in more ways than just language but also culture.

“Cubans leaving Socialism because their slaves were taken away by Castro are not going to have the same class characteristics”

Incorrect. There are many poor, working class Cubans (white, brown, and black) who vote conservative. You don’t have to be one of the elite to support their politics.

You saw the Simpson meme above right? That’s not entirely an exaggeration. The “S” word is legitimately terrifying to both American conservatives and immigrants who fled dictatorships.

It’s “explaining clearly and directly” that has been met with great resistance, actually. You forget we now live in a post-truth society.

Personally, I’ve strived to adhere to the Einstein quote:

If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.

This not only applies to theory but language in general. If you, an English speaker, wants to ally with someone who only speaks Mandarin, the two of you will need to figure out how to understand simple shared concepts first (“water”, “car”, “help”).

Theory is the same. I don’t think we should completely do away with the proper verbiage. But, I do think we need to figure out how to translate our message in more ways than just language— I’m talking cultural. Because, right now, there are a lot of working class Americans who have been convinced that capitalist exploitation is American culture.

Dialectical Materialism - Idk I’m still trying to figure out wtf that one means.

Practical historical development?

Definition: Practical historical development looks at how money, jobs, and resources shape how societies change over time. It shows that the ways people make things, the tools they use, and how resources are distributed build the base for how societies work. Instead of thinking that big ideas or beliefs drive history, this view shows that real-world conditions—like who has what resources and how work gets done—create the path for changes in society and politics.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The problem with many conservatives and regressives is that the only change to the status quo they seem content with are based on bigotry rather than economics.

Of course you can see the comment’s individual karma. But, if you got my profile or yours, there is not accumulated karma.

Horrible take. I absolutely do not give a fuck about arbitrary internet points and would like to see an open discussion without a majority bias downvoting someone into oblivion just because they disagree. For example, your comment will not be hidden just because your comment is being downvoted.

The only thing bringing profile karma to Lemmy will do is attract botters to inflate their credibility. Those could also be used to downvote others so the botter’s comments and posts are pushed to the top.

Again, horrible idea.

Why make this assumption? Is there a reason you believe we need that karma system? I genuinely can’t think of any reason, outside of corporate interest to push engagement.