but confuse his readers.
A good propagandist, on the other hand, as Marx is, presents only one side of the issue, does so with passion and confidence, and leaves the reader no room for escape from his one-sided arguments. The good propagandist, as Marx is, never bores the reader. Marx presents his portrait of history's class struggles and the saving era of socialism with enough solid-seeming argument to be convincing, but never lingers too long, keeping sentences relatively short and crisp.
The chronological order of his argument---taking each stage of capitalist development step-by-step---allows the reader to follow the logic of that argument, again, whether or not it is true and accurate. He is finally a successful propagandist because he presents the argument in terms of good versus evil, the oppressed workers versus the oppressive capitalists. The reader who is open to Marx's argument and follows it step-by-step cannot help but be affected to some degree by the author's passion and drive.
The mark of a good propagandist, of course, is to appeal to both the reason and the passion of the reader, giving the reader's reason enough to chew on, but founding the argument on a passion which makes the reader feel that some very serious wrong has been done and that the writer has a righteous solution for righting that wrong.
...