I fucking told you hoes that we have to talk to Chuds and I got eaten alive with a dull knife in the comments. Adam Curtis on latest chapo closes with an ill description of why we must, if our intent to change the world is genuine.
Yes, yes, vindication is a self-oriented fantasy that obscures the truth, I fucking know. But still, happy to shove in your collective face.... also please think about it
There's also a difference between clueless people who know they're mad at the status quo and don't know why so they blame what they're told to and full blown chuds who know they're lying and perpetuating harmful propaganda to further a fascist agenda. The first kind of worth reaching, the second isn't
Correction: the second kind is worth reaching, too. 7.62x54 at 200yds should suffice
The Mosin-nagant fires the 7.62x54r cartridge, which can kill a polar bear at a thousand yards and keep going right through the tree he was standing in front of. The Mosin-nagant was used by the Russians in both world wars, so it's killed more Germans than collisions on the autobahn and under-cooked sauerkraut combined.
Why should we listen to an old Anglo anti-marxist movie producer? And why should we try to "reach the chuds" when there are vast swaths of the population which aren't reactionary and not politically activated?
I like AC, but he's not a political leader or anything, especially if you're on the left. He just makes interesting movies.
The last time I talked to a chud they called me a "jew-loving pedo" and said the US should have dropped nukes on Iraq and Syria
Chuds exist in many tiers. Obviously someone who is proudly “j-woke” is going to be a pretty hard sell. Not to mention, some people are just assholes!
The thing is, America is a chud country. Because reactionary ideals are instilled into the people here from preschool through college, many people who are otherwise decent will become chuds anyway. It’s these otherwise decent people that are potentially reachable.
I can talk to a Hank Hill or a Dale Gribble, but I'm not talking to an Alex Jones or a Rush Limbaugh
Well you don’t have to worry about talking to the last guy anymore.
The real question is if you’d talk to Bill Dautrieve
Bill doesn't need to talk to anyone but a therapist, that man ain't right I tell ya what
Bold of you to assume Alex Jones would let you get a word in edgewise
Adam Curtis: "this is a sophisticated fantasy that captures the imagination."
I don't even disagree per se, I just don't see what to do about it.
I listened to the episode, and Adam Curtis has a lot more shit takes than good ones. His central talking point is that leftism has no clear vision for the future, and only represents dissatisfaction with the present. What we actually lack is a clear vision for how to destroy the existing power structures that are making our extremely clear and well-articulated visions for the future impossible to implement. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
I stopped listening about 10 minutes in whm he kept referring to the democrats as "the left."
Oh shit is that what he was doing? I failed to realize throughout the entire hour. In that case, his critique turns from just wrong, to woefully naive.
More specifically he kept referring to the the centrist neoliberals in the democratic part to be part of a broad political spectrum that includes socialists. He basically subscribes to the view that if you go far enough left incrementally you can create a spectrum from liberalism to socialism.
Stop arguing with strawmen
Bring back downvotes to get rid for stupid posts like these from the front page.
WTYP is a decent example I think. Alice might alienate the chuds but I love Liam's ranting. It's cathartic and I think that kind of energy is useful on the left.
I am once again asking you to use the mass line.
To link oneself with the masses, one must act in accordance with the needs and wishes of the masses. All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well-intentioned. It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should wait patiently. We should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise we shall isolate ourselves from the masses. Unless they are conscious and willing, any kind of work that requires their participation will turn out to be a mere formality and will fail.... There are two principles here: one is the actual needs of the masses rather than what we fancy they need, and the other is the wishes of the masses, who must make up their own minds instead of our making up their minds for them.
Our congress should call upon the whole Party to be vigilant and to see that no comrade at any post is divorced from the masses. It should teach every comrade to love the people and listen attentively to the voice of the masses; to identify himself with the masses wherever he goes and, instead of standing above them, to immerse himself among them; and, according to their present level, to awaken them or raise their political consciousness and help them gradually to organize themselves voluntarily and to set going all essential struggles permitted by the internal and external circumstances of the given time and place.
If we tried to go on the offensive when the masses are not yet awakened, that would be adventurism. If we insisted on leading the masses to do anything against their will, we would certainly fail. If we did not advance when the masses demand advance, that would be Right opportunism.
And yes, also
Commandism is wrong in any type of work, because in overstepping the level of political consciousness of the masses and violating the principle of voluntary mass action it reflects the disease of impetuosity. Our comrades must not assume that everything they themselves understand is understood by the masses. Whether the masses understand it and are ready to take action can be discovered only by going into their midst and making investigations. If we do so, we can avoid commandism. Tailism in any type of work is also wrong, because in falling below the level of political consciousness of the masses and violating the principle of leading the masses forward it reflects the disease of dilatoriness. Our comrades must not assume that the masses have no understanding of what they do not yet understand. It often happens that the masses outstrip us and are eager to advance a step and that nevertheless our comrades fail to act as leaders of the masses and tail behind certain backward elements, reflecting their views and, moreover, mistaking them for those of the broad masses.
Thank you. Was hoping for some mass line talk in this thread
the implication is some people are reachable, some are not. A way to reach one person wont work on a different person. Tailor your approach to who youre speaking to.
Everyone is worth reaching, except the war criminals and those who have literally made money from killing poor people.
Exactly! Power is the important distinction here. Everyone else is worth trying to reach.
I don't listen to Chapo and don't care what they or their guests say.
I would rather talk to the 50% of people that don't vote at all, the majority of whom are working class.
There's no blueprint for radicalizing, some chuds might be able to be reached, many can't. Don't act like they're some key demographic that's going to spark the revolution.
Totally agree. Interesting point. Couldn’t culture serve to demand and implement improved material conditions? I’m not on some wack “coalition building” kick, or even educating fallen bozos. Just hoping to box-out the power structure by undoing the intentional cultural fracturing.
