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
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.
Hoping to finish up Lenins Imperialism this week! I sort of feel like I’m missing some stuff because I haven’t gotten to reading Caoital Vol 2 and 3 yet, but hopefully I’ll see some connections when I do read them
I’m reading Socialism Betrayed now and taking notes to Blackshirts and Reds. Both a refreshing break before diving into capital vol 2 😅
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?