I'm seeing some dumb-ass takes about how "online isn't real" and how it's "a drop in the bucket." But seriously, how did you all become aware of leftist ideas? How does anyone in nations such as the US become politically literate? How many of you were former atheist edgelords or shitposters on reddit?

Seriously, online does matter. It wasn't Fox News that created the alt-right Charlottesville rally. It was the fucking Sargon/skeptic/manosphere pipeline, which was primarily a youtube phenomenon. Or how about the comrades that listened to Chapo, and were inspired to travel to Iowa to help Bernie win the Iowa caucus? For Christ's sake just look at how much of an influence Facebook has had on the CHUDs. To ignore that we live in a neoliberal hellscape where the vast majority of us only find some kind of solace or connection in the online world is to ironically ignore material conditions. Something can be "not real" but still have a HUGE affect on the "real world" (e.g. money, gender). Have the recent voices of trans comrades and POC comrades about their issues here not taught anyone anything? Doesn't take a genius to see this.

For those that scream "rEaD tHeOry" take a step back and think, what the hell were many those "classic Marxist texts?" A lot of them were political pamplets or, as others have pointed out before, literally debate-bro replies to others. How is that any different than online shit now? Honestly, if Marx et. al were alive today, wouldn't they use podcasts, tweets, and youtube vids to spread their messages?

TL;DR: online does matter. Seriously, how did any of you become politically aware, be honest.

  • friedchurros [he/him]
    ·
    hace 4 años

    Have to remember people that were literate back in the day were more adept at reading, since it requires practice and that was the entertainment aside from maybe radio and newspaper. So reading ol pamphlet was no big deal, or having it read by a friend. Lots of reading by friends.

    Conditions are different here in US 21st century there isn't a whole lot of functional literacy among the masses, I'd ass throw a much higher than official number like maybe 30-60% (corresponding to class factor as well) are functionally illiterate, unable to make use of much more than the basics. For reading theory you need to be at least proficient and would have to understand nuisance, subtlety, sarcasm, and even when to take things as they are. The bourgeoisie knows this, why you think the educational system is utter trash? If they can read and understand they can question. There's chuds on a popular conspiracy theorist forum trying to read the mere Manifesto and stumbling about like a fish in confusion and element. It's more sad than funny, and they use this misunderstanding to reinforce their reactionary views.

    Its a desperately alienated society, you're not going to have a friend read you a 50 pg text, even if they could it takes way too much time and isn't as entertaining as say laughing at a silly meme or watching a youtube vid. People are stressed, depressed, do you think they want to read a big ass book after a long shift coughing out a lung? Nah, not when there's other fun distractions.

    Its like some Trots fetishizing newspapers into the age of the computer, that's the past technology and situations change, where do people spend their time now? That's what to focus on. Get the message out, treat them as humans (alienation is dehumanizing) and if they have the ability and resources (time), yes point at the theory books. Even back in the day it was the vanguard, propagandists in party, academics and what not that focused on really being involved with theory everyone else just learnt enough to try to live it.

    It was the books themselves in my case and my fatal sense of curosity, this was before the internet got super mainstream as today.

    • deshara218 [any]
      ·
      hace 4 años

      ppl read more now than they used to if you count reading stuff online instead of only counting novels. Yeah, ppl aren't as good at reading novels or writing letters than they used to back in the day but let's unthaw some asshole from the 1600's & throw him into reddit and see how he fucking fares

      • friedchurros [he/him]
        ·
        hace 4 años

        I'll give you that, yes we do read in general more, but it usually isn't long or full of intricacies as theory is. Theory is more akin to legal-ese imo these days.

        • deshara218 [any]
          ·
          hace 4 años

          Nobody read theory back then either lol I assure you the past had no more grand philosophers than the present does. Idk if u imagine like the era that marx & engels lived in was full of marxes & engelses but if u do u need to square your worldview off with 1 question: why did nobody listen to them?

          • Pezevenk [he/him]
            ·
            edit-2
            hace 4 años

            but if u do u need to square your worldview off with 1 question: why did nobody listen to them?

            What do you mean nobody listened to them millions of people did lol how do you think these movements got off the ground in the first place?

            • deshara218 [any]
              ·
              hace 4 años

              the french & german & british revolutions happened before marx

              • Pezevenk [he/him]
                ·
                edit-2
                hace 4 años

                You brought up 3 liberal democratic revolutions, I'm not sure what these have to do with this.

          • friedchurros [he/him]
            ·
            hace 4 años

            Not disagreeing there, more like those that could were more apt to read at the degree this calls for, not that they actually went through with it. They even made bad interpretations back then.

      • science_pope [any]
        ·
        hace 4 años

        let’s unthaw some asshole from the 1600’s & throw him into reddit and see how he fucking fares

        He just keeps linking to Rembrandt's "The Pig That Pooped on its Balls"