“Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future. ”

“Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being.”

“It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate. ”

“The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. ”

“Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.”

“This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.”

I do love how seemingly every paragraph touches on some aspect of how either capitalism has fucked us or how this isn’t an inevitability innate to our “nature” and how there’s actually an answer to the problems of today.

Seeing as this is written by Einstein, I do think its text would carry more weight among those liberals for which I’m targeting my guide. It is short and easy to understand. While I still expect I’d likely have to distill this down even further since it seems impossible to get the liberals in my life to interact with anything political that isn’t a podcast or TV news, the brevity of this likely makes quoting sections much more impactful.

As for its place in this guide, I think it works pretty well! The name recognition and short length alongside its critique of capitalism is a pretty good primer for getting people in the door.

A lot of the quotes I saved from this work are actually quotes from other people so I’ll just share a few really good ones haha.

“The mass popular election of the supreme executive of a nation is a ritual so deeply ingrained in the western psyche that it is possible that any kind of Socialism with Western Characteristics will simply opt to maintain it indefinitely. We should, however, understand that under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, it is simply a pressure valve for discontent.”

“[…]in 2013 Xi Jinping asserts that “to repudiate Lenin, to repudiate Stalin was to wreck chaos in Soviet ideology and engage in historical nihilism” and that “this is a lesson from the past.” [23] We need to recover this tradition. As long as socialists’ main concern is to rhetorically distance themselves from these experiences, we will fail to learn anything more profound from our predecessors than “don’t take power.”

“To defeat Capital, we must understand how it works, so we can exploit its weaknesses. As Huey Newton put it: “You cannot oppose a system such as this without opposing it with organization that’s even more extremely disciplined and dedicated than the structure you’re opposing.”

I personally enjoyed reading Why Marxism?. I also felt like it was written in such a way that it acts as modern reinforcement and an addendum to Why Socialism?. So they act in tandem together pretty well even though they cover some similar things. Though I almost got the feeling like Why Marxism? is written like the average “correct the record” lemmy.ml copypasta comment in both length and number of quotations. This isn’t a bad thing though! It just means it’s a more competitive space for my own guide when it comes to quote-and-source-blasting someone about why we critically support AES states (and what it means to critically support) and have many irreconcilable issues with DemSoc politicians. Unfortunately, and I’m sorry if I’m unable to adequately explain this, but Einstein hopping around to different-but-related topics felt more easy to follow than Roderic Day doing about the same thing. I don’t know why- maybe the quotes pause the natural flow of thoughts?

I do like how the heat gets turned up pretty fast after reading Einstein though. I also really like his bringing up the COVID response and how we can analyze those differences.

“Lenin, our great teacher, summarized the importance of theory in the following sentences: “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement,” and “The role of an advanced fighter can only be fulfilled by a Party guided by an advanced theory.”

I do think this one is a bit odd out in the guide, but it’s so short, it could probably be summarized or quoted fairly easily and included at the start of your guide.

I have a similar opinion of this to Why do we have to Study Theory?. It could likely be summarized or quoted and placed in a pre-chapter-one sort of section.

Yes… Ha Ha Ha YES!

[…]it’s not tankies but normies[…]

If I showed my megalib dad this, he’d have so many issues parsing sections of this haha

“Anyway, the basic point is that socialist revolution is neither easy (as the Trotskyists and ultraleftists would have it) nor impossible (as the liberals and conservatives would have it), but hard.”

Is this where that line comes from?? I was searching for this line the other day on lemmy and couldn’t figure out the source of it, but I guess it was right here in the guide this whole time (if Frome is the originator)!

Both Tankies and Why Marxism seem to come from a “defend our standpoints” position, but IMO Tankies does a bit better at handling it and not seeming like it was written in a defensive tone. Of course Tankies covers fewer topics, but explains things while speaking generally, which probably prevents a sort of liberal counter-defensiveness which would halt progress in the reading guide (not that we should cater the guide to liberal sensibilities, but just to keep in mind for how to order this guide at the start to prevent as much stumbling as possible). But overall I really like this one.