I think there's something in Lenin's way of speaking that bears a resemblance to Trump's "many people are saying".
In almost every notable speech Lenin always says things like "the eyes of the people are being opened". He is always talking about how a lot of people are coming over to his side, how a lot of people are confirming socialist ideas, he is always talking about the collective affirmation.
I think this is very important for socialists to learn and weave into everything they write and when they speak. I've seen how much it matters to people online whether other people have upvoted something or downvoted something. Collective affirmation matters, and it even matters when you're the one saying that lots of people confirm something. That shit works. It's powerful and it should be weaved into everything.
I mean, that works too sometimes. I think you should work in a few lines about how people are waking up, our numbers are growing, how people's eyes are opening, how minds are turning to us while you do it though.
All this shit produces the feeling of collective affirmation, and that feeling becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as the snowball starts to roll. People get pulled towards things that they feel like lots of other people are also being pulled to. It produces a kind of movement magnetism.
The lefts problem is what the right is very good at. Getting past the fact that people are not perfect. That they need molding. And that you got to just let some things slide to a point. And welcome them in.
Once they are ingrained is when you start to actually form and solidify the boundaries.
Not in one interaction no. But your interaction with someone is not the only interaction that exists. Our interactions with people do not exist in a vacuum.
Take a step back and look at things more holistically. Sometimes the conversation you are having is a lost cause and it is literally impossible for you to win this person over because it is not happening under the right conditions, in the right mood, with the right circumstances, after wolf howled twice at the moon and a black cat crossed your path twice that day.
In these circumstances it is often obvious when you're not going to win this person over... What can you do instead? What you should be aiming for in those circumstances is setting up the next interaction this person has with a socialist to be circumstances that might bear more fruit for that socialist instead.
What does this mean? Sometimes a person NEEDS to have extremely negative interactions with socialists that they were unsatisfied with in order to interact with another socialist in a more good-faith manner. Sometimes a person needs to be upset about an interaction they had previously in order to have a friendlier and more open interaction with a different socialist -- I am almost certain you have heard this story told before, a story of "wow you're so much better to talk to, the last time I tried to speak to someone about this they just screamed at me". This is an exaggeration, the previous socialist didn't just scream at them, they set you up for success because their conversation was never going to be a success in the first place.
We aren't having individual interactions with people. We are interacting with people as a collective movement and there are going to be dozens if not hundreds of interactions people have with socialists. Pick and choose your strategy for the moment based on judgement.
Some people need the stick. Some people need the carrot. Sometimes you need to be the stick so the next person can offer the carrot.
That they need molding. And that you got to just let some things slide to a point. And welcome them in.
To an extent yes. But I think this can only happen in active struggle. At events, at protest, on the picket lines, at the bread line, the food bank, the soup line. I don't think you get far letting any significant :brainworms: in without action and struggle to form bonds that will rip those worms out.
This was something I started doing without even thinking about it, I just started being more and more open about politics whenever it was relevant and as I learned how to communicate my ideas and practiced and gained confidence I noticed people agreeing with me more and more, and that led me to be able to confidently assert that there is this sort of sea change occurring which in turn makes the arguments themselves more persuasive.
Also learning how to paraphrase really good hard hitting bits of theory in a way that the average person can grasp the core of the message with more modern phrasing and terminology is a big plus.
Certainly pointing out people in the present who are winning in the workplace or at whatever electoral level, etc, and why they are worth celebrating is important and using them to rally a winning spirit behind the ideas that back unionizing activities etc is important to be made lucid and relevant and a slice of good ol socialist pie to give people an appetite for it. Because the risk of being associated with real leftism is not inconsiderate
"Folks, the bourgeois, they're no good everyone is saying it. All these workers, very handsome workers come up to me and say, Comrade Trump there is a specter haunting Europe, and you know what, they're right. These bourgeois are very nasty people very very rude and very unfair to the workers. They are stealing our surplus value and no one is doing anything about it. The proletariat comes up to me everyday and says, Comrade Trump will you lead the revolution? And I gotta turn to them and say, Look the instruments of capitalism will be used to bring about its destruction believe me you gotta trust me on this one. The means of production, obama never wanted to seize them. Well guess what? I'm seizing them. Landlords? They're done for folks. Everyone told me they said, Comrade Trump you won't be the vanguard of the revolution and they would laugh, the media laughed the democrats laughed, guess whose laughing now?"
That "the eyes of the people are being opened" style of universalizing rhetoric is really common. Newspaper editorials love to do it with phrases like "amidst growing concerns about" and "many are questioning." Also that weirdo from Spirit Science uses it a lot.
Anyway, you're right; rhetoric is neat and worth studying.
I think there's something in Lenin's way of speaking that bears a resemblance to Trump's "many people are saying".
In almost every notable speech Lenin always says things like "the eyes of the people are being opened". He is always talking about how a lot of people are coming over to his side, how a lot of people are confirming socialist ideas, he is always talking about the collective affirmation.
I think this is very important for socialists to learn and weave into everything they write and when they speak. I've seen how much it matters to people online whether other people have upvoted something or downvoted something. Collective affirmation matters, and it even matters when you're the one saying that lots of people confirm something. That shit works. It's powerful and it should be weaved into everything.
No no no
What we must continue to do is frantically yell at people for imagined slights and words not being perfectly spoken. It's clearly a winning strategy
I mean, that works too sometimes. I think you should work in a few lines about how people are waking up, our numbers are growing, how people's eyes are opening, how minds are turning to us while you do it though.
All this shit produces the feeling of collective affirmation, and that feeling becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as the snowball starts to roll. People get pulled towards things that they feel like lots of other people are also being pulled to. It produces a kind of movement magnetism.
Talking down to people wins no one over.
The lefts problem is what the right is very good at. Getting past the fact that people are not perfect. That they need molding. And that you got to just let some things slide to a point. And welcome them in.
Once they are ingrained is when you start to actually form and solidify the boundaries.
Not in one interaction no. But your interaction with someone is not the only interaction that exists. Our interactions with people do not exist in a vacuum.
Take a step back and look at things more holistically. Sometimes the conversation you are having is a lost cause and it is literally impossible for you to win this person over because it is not happening under the right conditions, in the right mood, with the right circumstances, after wolf howled twice at the moon and a black cat crossed your path twice that day.
In these circumstances it is often obvious when you're not going to win this person over... What can you do instead? What you should be aiming for in those circumstances is setting up the next interaction this person has with a socialist to be circumstances that might bear more fruit for that socialist instead.
What does this mean? Sometimes a person NEEDS to have extremely negative interactions with socialists that they were unsatisfied with in order to interact with another socialist in a more good-faith manner. Sometimes a person needs to be upset about an interaction they had previously in order to have a friendlier and more open interaction with a different socialist -- I am almost certain you have heard this story told before, a story of "wow you're so much better to talk to, the last time I tried to speak to someone about this they just screamed at me". This is an exaggeration, the previous socialist didn't just scream at them, they set you up for success because their conversation was never going to be a success in the first place.
We aren't having individual interactions with people. We are interacting with people as a collective movement and there are going to be dozens if not hundreds of interactions people have with socialists. Pick and choose your strategy for the moment based on judgement.
Some people need the stick. Some people need the carrot. Sometimes you need to be the stick so the next person can offer the carrot.
To an extent yes. But I think this can only happen in active struggle. At events, at protest, on the picket lines, at the bread line, the food bank, the soup line. I don't think you get far letting any significant :brainworms: in without action and struggle to form bonds that will rip those worms out.
Say what you want.
But there's a reason the left is constantly at each other's throats.
This was something I started doing without even thinking about it, I just started being more and more open about politics whenever it was relevant and as I learned how to communicate my ideas and practiced and gained confidence I noticed people agreeing with me more and more, and that led me to be able to confidently assert that there is this sort of sea change occurring which in turn makes the arguments themselves more persuasive.
Also learning how to paraphrase really good hard hitting bits of theory in a way that the average person can grasp the core of the message with more modern phrasing and terminology is a big plus.
Certainly pointing out people in the present who are winning in the workplace or at whatever electoral level, etc, and why they are worth celebrating is important and using them to rally a winning spirit behind the ideas that back unionizing activities etc is important to be made lucid and relevant and a slice of good ol socialist pie to give people an appetite for it. Because the risk of being associated with real leftism is not inconsiderate
"Folks, the bourgeois, they're no good everyone is saying it. All these workers, very handsome workers come up to me and say, Comrade Trump there is a specter haunting Europe, and you know what, they're right. These bourgeois are very nasty people very very rude and very unfair to the workers. They are stealing our surplus value and no one is doing anything about it. The proletariat comes up to me everyday and says, Comrade Trump will you lead the revolution? And I gotta turn to them and say, Look the instruments of capitalism will be used to bring about its destruction believe me you gotta trust me on this one. The means of production, obama never wanted to seize them. Well guess what? I'm seizing them. Landlords? They're done for folks. Everyone told me they said, Comrade Trump you won't be the vanguard of the revolution and they would laugh, the media laughed the democrats laughed, guess whose laughing now?"
~ Lenin, State and Revolution
Having read some of Castro's interviews recently, I've got to say a lot of it reads like this
So you're saying....Lenin was redpilled?
One might even say he was "based"
:lenin-da:
People definitely want to unironically :so-true: stuff - that what makes the right's framing of stuff as "common sense" so insidious.
Jedi and Sith both use the force
:think-about-it:
That "the eyes of the people are being opened" style of universalizing rhetoric is really common. Newspaper editorials love to do it with phrases like "amidst growing concerns about" and "many are questioning." Also that weirdo from Spirit Science uses it a lot.
Anyway, you're right; rhetoric is neat and worth studying.
A lot of people are saying this rhetoric is powerful.
more and more people are saying this
:yes-hahaha-yes-r: :rocz-yes: :mlk-yes: :yes: :sicko-yes: :yes-sicko: :yes-chad: :yes-comm: :chomsky-yes-honey: :yes-hahaha-yes-l: