Missed this post completely, got caught up with replying to the other posts. >>7775>Yeah no, showing compassion and appealing to a persons common sense and intelligence is the exact opposite of that, and your experiences are called not APPEALING to a person but PANDERING to them.
9/10, when a person rattles on about "appealing", they are talking about pandering. Simply showing compassion and attempting to reach a person through "common sense" has never worked in my view, and in the "best" possible scenario just leads to a complete warping of socialism into mere SocDem trite. >You're projecting your own subconscious attitude about workers.
No, I am not. >I am a prole, I'm from a prole family
Yeah, so is everyone else.
so don't tell me that I'm being condescending about the class of people I know and live around. >As I stated before, the proletariat in capitalist countries is not class conscious and rejects communism if they're just said to "accept it" because that's telling them to surrender their agency because someone else told them to, why the fuck would they listen?
I never said to state to them to "accept it" outright with no explanation, I'm saying that if any argument is to be made, its of the necessity of communism in the face of mutual ruin. That communism isn't something that must be strived for because its a nice alternative, but because it is the only alternative available to us outside of the loss of everything.>Capitalism doesn't do that, because the experience of Union Strikes, the rise of the USSR and the vehement fight against openly repressive fascism indicated that forcing an ideology without support of the proles is impossible.
Its actually entirely possible to force an ideology without support of the proles (it quite literally happens all the time), but that's besides the point. >Why do you think Lenin called for participation in bourg elections? Because he recognized that the true purpose of this qould be to get their message out to the people, promising Land, Peace and Bread, not some generic waffling about some grandiose dialectical progression that people barely care about.
Even then, he made it clear that socialism was not merely peace, land, and bread, and understood that merely making promises of such to draw in people is not what would actually propel the bolsheviks forward, as this was already similar to statements made by the Social Democrats of the time. Even when making such statements, Lenin was very clear in not warping Marxism itself to try and make it into something that merely appealed to public sentiment. >No, it's spammed to them and TOLD to them that it is good, see They Live for an intertextual allegory of this.
Everyone fucking knows of They Live and Zizek's analysis of it, you don't need to state it as if I'm fucking new to this shit. And I'm talking of ideology itself, which absolutely crafted in the modern day to try and appeal rather then fundamentally change minds.>Obviously to make sure it organically gets continued by the people it has to appeal to something, such as greed, or laziness or any other vice that capitalism thrives on. And to double down, there is no method of ethically consuming under capitalism, so people are forced to make do.
Again, not new to this.>Ah yes, because the average Joe understands the intricacies of Base-Superstructure, or Capitalism's exploitation of worker through profit.
Never said they understand this immeditaly, but you should explain it to them. >There is a reason that EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL MOVEMENT TO EXIST has SLOGANS, because people easily identify with that and often do not know to look deeper.
The issue is that we want people to look deeper, and in today's climate, we in fact require people look deeper into both the system and history itself. We aren't building off of a largely agrarian society of peasants in order to create some kind of patchwork movement that intends to develop a devastated Russia first before moving on to bigger aspirations, we are trying to construct a movement of people operating in a developed global capitalism that is totalizing in its scope. Simple statement offering simple solutions will not cut it here, you will just lose yourself in the morass of politcal noise that exists for all politcal dispute to remain in while the bourgeoisie continue on in their actions regardless.>So yes, talking to nonclass conscious people is like talking to a child - you have to walk them through things and make them palatable to an uninitiated mind.
Literally anyone can say "Capitalism bad", the issue is that it is not in the slightest some marginal innocuous jump to then say "Communism good", because such a thing is not and will not be palatable to them. You can slowly walk your way step by step to the very edge of saying communism outright, but the actual gulf you must cross is one that cannot rely on appeal, and if you try to do so the person will just fall back to the allure of social democracy, as that at least retains the "appeal" without any of the baggage. Marxism has to be true for them, not just preferable. >This reminds me of my Chemistry professor in College, she expected us all to have a certain level of understanding on the subject because that's the point of Highschool, and over 50% of the class consistently failed her "Beginner" level class because she refused to change her teaching methods and account for people coming in to a BEGINNER CLASS utterly ignorant of anything because high schools didn't have any standardization and quality control on the material they taught. The connection? People that are NOT class conscious are like those 50% that failed that class, preaching philosophy that they were taught to hate in a knee-jerk reaction is not going to get through to them, because they see a incomprehensible enemy in it.
Just appealing to them wont do anything either, as they will end up entering and then dropping out half way through when they realize there was more then they were led on to believe. People aren't as stupid as you think they are, they will notice when you start veering into attempts at sliding in actual communism and not just what they perceived as capitalist reform, which is what they were initially listening to you in the first place over. Also, went to trade school rather then college, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it pretty much impossible for 50% of a class to fail due to how things are graded? >Proletarian is another termin for worker, if they are still doing work, then they are proles.
This is just dishonest, when Marx is referring to the proletariat, he is not referring to anyone who just goes around working. Work existed prior to the proletariat as a class, the proletariat is rather defined by Marx in terms of both their relation the mechanisms of the capitalist class system itself and their selling of labour power for a wage. If the conditions and social relations which constitute the proletariat end, the proletariat abolishes itself. Marx is very clear on this, this shouldn't even be contested. The whole reason the proletariat is historically unique for Marx is because it carries the potential to both abolish itself and the class society as a whole. >Literally states abolition of family, yet provides no explanation as to the structure after. You're being intentionally obtuse.
Ok, this going to an important point for later, but do you understand what "Aufheben" means in the way Marx uses it? >No YOU don't view them as PEOPLE at all, you view them the way a programmer views a computer, something you can just upload a program into.
No, I view them as someone who has to work everyday next to them as another worker, with the people you're going to have to get through. And believe me when I say "appeal" isn't going to cut it for the majority. >People understand the necessity of a REVOLUTION because revolutions have NEVER been initiated by someone preaching some ambiguous shit, that'd be RELIGION, and even religion starts off by appealing to people.
Or providing what they see as a very real and approaching ultimatum. >I believe people can be better, but to believe that they can be better I must also understand that they need to be made AWARE of the true problems in socio-economic terms AND WHAT THAT MEANS FOR THEM PERSONALLY, because most people aren't going to risk everything on a revolution unless they already have something threatening their most important things or if they have nothing to lose anymore. This is seen in every historical revolution.
Everyone has there own personal reason for anything, but Marxism isn't a box where you throw in what you already held values and desires, mix it all up, and get something out the other end that exists suited and tailored just for you. That's the trap the modern left and really politics as a whole has fallen into. Communism as of right now is a question of necessity and the continued existence of human society as a whole, and little will convince someone to actual communism at this point until they are made to actually understand its actual operations and the stakes that are on the line. >The fuck are you talking about, stop using big words that you don't understand.
"Flattered" is not a "big word" you fag.>Lenin is the one that marched under a banner of "Land, Peace, Bread" Lenin's efforts in the USSR included introducing literacy and educating people because, guess what, they ALL were ignorant as fuck and thus followed the Bolsheviks because of a hope for betterment from the horrific conditions of the Czardom, not because Lenin spouted "Marx said capitalism gets abolished on page X of book Y". That kind of discussion came AFTER the revolution, qhen people had fought for their freedom and needed to be more in depth in their understanding of communism so that the Soviet plans could proceed collectivization and the like.
Lenin was also the one who blatantly rejected tailism or any kind of warping of actual communist theory merely to suit the perceived wants of the populace. "Peace, Land, and Bread" was something that was poart and parcel to their theory to begin with, and even then the scenario was different to what we have now. >No, you're expecting people to be at a level they are not at and refuse to stoop down and uplift these people from their ignorance. They won't spontaneously become communists because you talk over their head about things.
I'm fine with stooping. I'm not fine with treating people as incapable of handling the truth they need to hear. If you truly watched "They Live", then you know actually opening people up to unconformable truths, even people you care for, is often an ideologically "violent" affair. >I'm ick and tired of your hogwash, you are exactly the kind of condescending idealist ideologue that plagues leftism today.
Not an idealist in the slightest.