Theory that's translated from their originals to simple to understand English so that I don't have to stare at a paragraph for 20 minutes and do an hour of research to figure out what it means
Theory that's translated from their originals to simple to understand English so that I don't have to stare at a paragraph for 20 minutes and do an hour of research to figure out what it means
This assumes that theory is written in a way that deliberately obscures its own meaning, rather than complex language being needed to communicate its point effectively
Congrats mr. nerd, but some of us are too stupid to get them.
What you're asking for isn't possible. You could have like a theory for dummies sort of thing where things are broken down and explained simply, but it would be a simplification, not a translation like you want.
Also, I guarantee you're not too stupid for theory. It's hard primarily not because of the language, it's hard because theory is always part of a larger conversation which you may be more or less familiar with. The State and Revolution, for instance, is written pretty simply, but Lenin immediately starts bagging on Kautsky for being a revisionist piece of shit, and it's like wait, who's this guy.
I'm pretty smart by most measures but I've got ADHD that I'm not medicated for and the language and structure of most theory makes it pretty much impossible for me to read more than a paragraph at a time, no matter how badly I want to read it.
I know that theory can be presented in ways that are more digestible and easier to get the foundation than what's in Kapital or State&Rev or whatever other original text because I've come across some of them — for example, someone made a manga that covers the key points of Kapital which was very easy to grok. Or like, State&Rev with footnotes for "what is lenin dunking on this rando for" or like an abridged version with the less-necessary bits like that edited down or removed entirely.
Sorry about your difficulties, comrade,and I think it's fine to engage with theory on whatever level you are able. But I can't in good conscience say that there's a better way of understanding theory than actually engaging with the text. Those things sound cool and good, but with the exception of the State and Rev with footnotes (which likely actually exists), you're getting someone else's representation of what they think is the most important in text.
That said, why is theory even important? Because it creates the conditions for praxis. It shouldn't be an end unto itself. If you get enough to direct the right actions towards the right ends, you're golden as far as I'm concerned
Yeah but you can always rephrase things and add infographics and any other pedagogic things. I'm saying this because in things that I studied sometimes for the exact same concept you have these dense motherfuckers authors who can't for the love of anything be clear and some rando youtuber from india explain the thing in 15 minutes. It happens! Don't believe me? Go read this intro to ecology book authored by "Begon". It's the worst shit you can find and yet the professor I had loved it.
The difference is that a textbook is meant to educate and explain to someone assumed to be unfamiliar with its contents. If it struggles to do so, then it has failed in its purpose.
Theory is an argument that contributes a an already extant discourse and is generally pitched towards people who have knowledge of what that discourse has been up to that point.
Ultimately its a case of the map not being the territory. Any explanation or simplification will make choices about what is important and what is not. It will leave things out by necessity (otherwise the explanation would just be the original). It will make choices about how to interpret things that may be incorrect or misleading or ideologically motivated. To go back State and Rev, much of the text is just an argument about how Lenin's ideological enemies are misinterpreting and distorting Marx and Engels. Kautsky's 15 minute YouTube tutorial is going to be a lot different from Lenin's. Which one is ultimately correct? If it's something you care about, then you have to read it yourself.
For what it's worth annotated student editions of theory do sound cool and I endorse it
Well to learn things I like to read reviews that hit you with the concept, and then explain how it was discovered/developed, instead of a long stream of diss-tracks.
But I get it
I know it's not, but I'm too stupid to get it
Try something by Mao. Something about the Chinese-to-English translations gives the vocabulary and sentence structure a very terse, almost blunt, feel as compared with 19th century works by Marx, Engels, or even Kropotkin. It's almost like reading Simple English Wikipedia articles in that sense. This has the opposite problem, though -- instead of nuggets of truth being lost in a sea of Victorian era verbosity, now you have extremely dense stuff to try to unpack. You're still reading the same sentence over and over again trying to understand some deeper meaning or missing context, but with Mao, that's like 8 words.
Edit: Here you go:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/date-index.htm
This one in particular is pretty noteworthy (Combat Liberalism):
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm
no you're not