You wanna take some time to gather your thoughts first?
Either you’re quite condescending or there is some confusion here. I’m going to assume it’s the latter; if it’s the former, well… life is an adventure.
Yeah but, which part exactly should I not understand because of my American education?
So you’re not talking about Marx and Engels, but you are somehow talking about socialism AND scientific socialism no less?
The vocabulary I said I wasn’t referring to is the list of terms provided by Prole[2](https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/20225314) in response to your question[3](https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/20225057). My original comment was offhand, not intended to be a detailed analysis, so their response was assumptive. I’m familiar with the user and they’re good people, so I’m sure it was in good faith.
To answer your original question, here are specific terms in the Wikipedia article[4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism) I would suggest are not covered in US public education with sufficient depth or frequency to give the average citizen the functional vocabulary necessary to fully understand the article without significant further reading. I.e., most Americans would be unable to provide even a basic (correct) definition if asked.
Materialism
Historical materialism
Dialectical materialism
Utopian socialism
Scientific government/Technocracy(though briefly described in line)
Classical liberalism
Marxism
And by extension…
Scientific socialism
The United States ranks 36th in the world for population literacy, with 54% of Americans reading below a 6th-grade proficiency level and 21% being functionally illiterate[5](https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/2024-2025-literacy-statistics), so I’m pretty comfortable with my suggestion but am willing to be convinced otherwise.
Either you’re quite condescending or there is some confusion here. I’m going to assume it’s the latter; if it’s the former, well… life is an adventure.
I’m not referring to you in my original comment[1](https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/20221397), but to the person to whose comment I’m responding.
The vocabulary I said I wasn’t referring to is the list of terms provided by Prole[2](https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/20225314) in response to your question[3](https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/20225057). My original comment was offhand, not intended to be a detailed analysis, so their response was assumptive. I’m familiar with the user and they’re good people, so I’m sure it was in good faith.
To answer your original question, here are specific terms in the Wikipedia article[4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism) I would suggest are not covered in US public education with sufficient depth or frequency to give the average citizen the functional vocabulary necessary to fully understand the article without significant further reading. I.e., most Americans would be unable to provide even a basic (correct) definition if asked.
Materialism
Historical materialism
Dialectical materialism
Utopian socialism
Scientific government/Technocracy(though briefly described in line)
Classical liberalism
Marxism
And by extension…
Scientific socialism
The United States ranks 36th in the world for population literacy, with 54% of Americans reading below a 6th-grade proficiency level and 21% being functionally illiterate[5](https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/2024-2025-literacy-statistics), so I’m pretty comfortable with my suggestion but am willing to be convinced otherwise.