I guess what is considered easy is very subjective. I seriously think Marx’ Manifesto of the Communist Party is not a bad place to start. It’s everything Capital is not: short, easy to read, somewhat superficial.
I’d say the historical analysis is at the core of marxism as much as the economic one, and it’s summarized perfectly right from the start:
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
Make sure to take a second to reflect on this and the Soviet Union and the failure of Marxist-Leninism. It was not the end of history, but another common ruin. Which brings me to the biggest problem of studying socialist theory: The line between theory and propaganda is often blurred. The Manifesto of the Communist Party itself, thought-provoking as it is, is a pamphlet made for wide circulation, and more propaganda than academic work. Marx’ understanding of history revolves around how proletarian revolts such as the Soviet Union go wrong and end up reproducing existing power structures. Yet many of today’s self-proclaimed Marxists are somehow blind to this and end up tricking themselves with all sorts of mind games.
That’s why I think it’s important to start with Marx himself. Understand his view of history and his criticism of the economy, and reflect on what it means for what you see in history since it was written. It still holds, though the theory itself has become weaponized in the very historical and economical dynamics he is describing. If you understand this independently you’re less likely to become a sucker who falls for propaganda.
And of course, Marx wasn’t a god, and he didn’t get it all right. I personally think the main problem is his understanding of history as having an “end” (a teleological account) - Marx believed every class revolt would lead us slightly closer to a classless society, and that eventually we would get there. This builds on Hegel, who had a similar understanding of history rooted in religion rather than communism. I think this is plain wrong - things very well might just get worse, and there is no end of history. But that’s me.
Of course one shouldn’t focus only on Marx, but I feel like he’s important enough that it’s worth taking him seriously. And with all the stupid takes people have on his work, I think it’s a good idea to go straight to the source.
I also feel like the problem with starting with Marx and getting into socialism as a government type is that Marx was an economist writing about economic forces while a lot of his work has been coopted into political theory.
Which makes discussions on government structure hard with a lot of leftists because once you remove discussing the economics of a society, having a discussion on political freedoms only becomes very problematic.
For instance, I saw some English speaking communists discussing a Chinese analysis of their government, which the analysis states that the Chinese government isn’t a democracy. It is true, China would describe itself as a technocracy, with trained political leaders in charge who are shielded from disruptive democratic whims. However, you could see the issue of them accepting that political power should be held only by elites.
I’m a bit sceptical of people who are too into “socialism as a government type” - they tend to develop fundamentalist ideas about what the perfect society should look like, and which means are justified in order to get there. Usually all means will be. To me socialism is at its best as a critique, allowing us to understand what’s going on in the world and how to fight it piece by piece instead of trying to construct some ideal society based on a feeble understanding of reality.
Easy way? What do you mean by that? Sociology doesn’t even have a basic axiom, it’s such an elusive thing.
Either be attentive and critical to the social constructs that surround you (if possible, it’s really hard to just observe, because many things we thing are natural, like inhereting your father’s name, not your mother’s), or start reading Max Weber, Karl Marx & Emile Dürkheim’s writings to get started.
Well, I prefer my Mom than my father, and I’ve been going by my Mom’s maiden name Johnson (as in “Dilly Johnson”) for a while now. Seriously!
Sorry if came through as judgy in my first comment. What territory of sociology interests you? Why do you want to learn more on the topic?
In the school where I was taught, one of the major directions was statistics. Harm reduction and drug policy also go under the umbrella. I really enjoyed the idea of mental maps, but that might’ve been the cultural anthropology class (which kinda bleeds over into the subject).
I said “socialist theory” (including Marxist theory), NOT sociology
Me and my reading comorehension. Good luck!
If you’re looking at left wing memes and YT videos by socialists then you’re probably a good deal more educated than you realise
Always look for more thinkers, speakers and ideas you haven’t encountered yet.
Art and music is also important to propogating socialist ideas, i was surpised when studying art in 6th form just how important socialist principles were to so many artists. Final essay ended up kind of political, lol.
The old internet game Oiligarchy
https://armorgames.com/play/2607/oiligarchy
https://molleindustria.org/oiligarchy-postmortem/ (read after playing at least once, ideally)
It’d be real cool if that could be made in to a mobile game. I’m so rarely at a desktop anymore
[off topic]
Why waste time with theory? Find a good politician you feel you can support and go work for them.
Two groups in the US doing good work. If you’re in another country you can hopefully find similar.
What about socialism proper?
What about it?
It makes no sense to study cooking if you don’t have any food.
Get people elected, get laws passed.
I recommend https://soulism.net/ for anarcho-antirealist theory
Why?
I made it and I think it’s very good. And people have told Me I’m much easier to understand than the other prominent soulists
I think that soulism and other related concepts is like the concept of nihilism but with extra steps and such; nihilism affirms the belief that life has no meaning; soulism takes that just one step further by saying that if life has a meaning it would be an “unjust hierarchy” and that the soul is more of a noncoercive unit.
A true anarchist knows that life is NOT really hierarchic, and that life has a meaning: love, beauty and freedom. The point is that life is a beautiful thing, and that we should all learn to appreciate all that made life is beautiful, such as sunsets and sunrises, the scenery, snow falling, the grass we touch everyday and all other stuff.
And this is coming from a left-libertarian who finds anarchy to be pretty interesting. There should be a form of anarchism that’s like “screw the state, let’s just chill and appreciate life and such because life is beautiful”.
The meaning of life is to survive and have children. That’s the definition of a lifeform, a survival and reproduction machine. But meaning has very little to do with what you should do. I think what people should do is make the world a happier and less miserable place.
Is soulism NOT nihilism in any way, shape and form?
Soulism is more like absurdism, but instead of applied to meaning, it’s applied to everything. Reality is not objective, and that gives us the freedom to interpret our condition in a manner so radical it would make Sartre blush. We can change our beliefs to change our perception to change the world we live in. That’s magic.
You could try zettelkasten or slipboxes as a method.
