Communism

As materialists, we should focus on substance over form, every time. Most people will eventually see through the hollowness of these liberal "debate tactics", and realize that they aren't making any real points.

I've read a few rhetoric-focused books, but none really had much value... one book that does stand out tho, is Cialdini - the psychology of persuasion. It goes through some of the most common tactics used by exploiters to to elicit automated responses, taking advantage of psychological and evolutionary shortcuts that helped us survive for thousands of years, and now being honed and used by advertisers and propagandists, to make a profit.

Honestly, learn dialectical materialism, the dialectical materialist way of thinking is the scientific Marxist approach that will shed light on any of life's issues. It is indeed connected to linguistics, as it is connected to every science, for example Saussure's way of understanding words with the auditory imagery and the meaning and so on, can be a form of dialectics where the synthesis of both of these creates the word. AFAIK Lacan also grabs from Saussure to create some concepts in psychology, which also work as trios, and can also be considered dialectical.

When you say ‘not specifically Marxist’, does that mean (i) you (only) want to read non-Marxists, (ii) you don’t mind reading Marxists or non-Marxists (i.e. you’re just interested in the content/subject), and/or (iii) you don’t want to read 'the Marxists' or ‘meta’ work about Marxism/Marxist theory?

If it’s (i), then two decent books on logic and reasoning are:

• Daniel C Dennett, Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking, and
• AP Martinich, Philosophical Writing: An Introduction.

If you mean rhetoric proper, you could always start more-or-less at the beginning, with Aristotle: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html

I suspect you meant a combination of (ii) and (iii) (which may be the same point worded in different ways) – you’re interested in learning about other fields and are happy to read works on those other fields whether they are written by Marxists or non-Marxists. Is that right? As Muad-Dibber and Soviet Snake said [Edit: /suggested], I would also start out by getting a good grounding in dialectical and historical materialism. It doesn’t have to be painful! Let us know if you want recommendations.

You may find two of my earlier comments about studying helpful:

• On reading: https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/357039
• On being critical: https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/348733

On the construction of history, showing where people get their historical 'education' from, you might enjoy: Michael Parenti, History as Mystery (I’d have put this in the list with Dennett and Martinich but Parenti is a Marxist).

If you did want to start with linguistics, you might want to look up Vygotsky, although he is a Marxist: https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/; maybe work towards Thinking and Speech: https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/index.htm.

Vygotsky is the root of a lot of liberal theory on linguistics and learning. Unfortunately liberals tend to see the sense in what he says and think they can do without the revolutionary part of his dialectical and historical materialism but that’s liberals for you. Or there is Stalin’s short work on ‘Marxism and Problems of Linguistics’ (beautifully rendered on ProleWiki): https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Marxism_and_problems_of_linguistics.

If you’re interested in the relationship between society and the production of ideas, try Althusser, ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses’: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Ideology_and_Ideological_State_Apparatuses. Again, though, he’s a Marxist.

I just recently listened to David McRaney on Gaslight nation. He doesn’t really focus on changing minds, more on getting them to question how they arrived at their opinions. He might be a liberal, but I’ll take help where I can get it. What he finds is that they form opinions around reactants and never think how they got there. They rarely change their minds because of the emotional attachments to their groups. But if you raise doubts, that’s all you can do. Then go from there.