I’m familiar with the term Mutual Aid. I am aware that it is an aspect of grassroots organization. I don’t see how it has relevance to what we are talking about, regardless of trying to build a gift economy on the ground.
Theory is necessary because it informs correct practice. The SRs celebrated an “end to theory,” while Lenin and the Bolsheviks pushed for using every tool you could to your advantage. The SRs, of course, failed.
There’s a difference between trying to relay complex theory to trying to hide that you’re a Leftist or describe concepts while hiding the proper terms for them. You can explain concepts like classes without shying away from terms like “Capital ownership.”
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.
We aren’t talking about Spanish vs English, though. You can simplify concepts like Dialectical Materialism without trying to rename or repackage it so that people already hostile to the concept don’t reflexively reject it. People are smarter than that, even if theory can get complex people don’t need new words for established terms. Ironically, doing as such contributes to Elitism by creating a secondary language for those who haven’t read theory from those who have, and places a confusing barrier in front of those who begin to read theory and would have to relearn terms.
Look to how Communist parties have communicated theory to the masses. Communist leaders and parties have always had to balance simplification for education with getting their ideas across, but never by replacing terminology. This separates the party from the people and disrupts the Mass Line. You are correct that people can understand these concepts without reading theory, but theory is still necessary, and creating needless sepparation drives division between the party and the people, rather than unifying them.
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.
