I thought about this yesterday when I was trying to explain the difference between socialism and communism. Even such a simple question requires so much foundational information. I couldn't just say they were different stages of society, because communism is really more a vector of transformation for societies, and to even understand how these societies transform you have to understand dialectical and historical materialism. So I'm revising my post to explain what a dialectic is and I realize I'm already in my third paragraph. Not only is no layman going to read this because its just boring philosophy mumbo jumbo, but I've wasted the last 20 minutes writing out this thing that I eventually just end up deleting anyway.
What we need is a streamlined way of propagating theory for a new online age. The Communist Manifesto was supposed to be the quick and dirty version of theory to propagate, but people don't even read 10 pages anymore. What we need are children's book versions of these ideas, summarized in an easily spreadable copypasta format. Not only do they have to be simple and succinct, but entertaining as well. Getting someone hooked has never been harder, because with so much information at our fingertips, its never been easier to ignore it.
I also think they should be modular, rather than longer masterposts. Someone who asks a simple question shouldn't have to read an entire essay, but if the question requires it we should be able to plug-and-play with additional information. This is the hard part, having separate copypastas for each topic that can work with each other while still being understandable independently. It's hard, but I think its necessary in order to bring editing down to a minimum and increase spreadability as much as possible.
Edit: oh cool I got featured lol
Parenti
“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”