The first clashes between Ukrainian forces and North Korean troops took place in
the Kyiv-controlled Kursk region in Russia on October 25, according to sources
available to Jonas Ohman, head of the prominent Lithuanian Blue/Yellow NGO.
I mean, as much as the "MAGA Communism" people are disgusting fascists who share almost nothing with us, their ability to convince some limited number of reactionaries that communism is good (and the weird, revised version of communism that is more like what American history books teach than reality) despite being very blatant about the symbolism and the language of their movement needs to be studied. I think that the prevalent pipeline theory of leftist radicalization, where people need to be held by the hand to become socdems first, then demsocs, gradually getting more radical in several steps, is not necessarily complete and could be complemented with an understanding of cases where being exposed to a radically different mode of analysis and ideology can be convincing to someone who currently feels they don't have a system through which to understand the world.
But yeah, if you try to quote Lenin to a very self confident lib you're probably going nowhere. Those people need to learn humility first, which is why I support an American century of humiliation
I don't necessarily believe in a linear leftward path. My claim is that AES is best approached diagonally or from the side, flanking it, when dealing with such ignorant chauvanism like above. Simple, factual showcasing of real people in the DPRK eliminates the absurd claims of "never seeing a computer or smartphone." The narratives are combatted easily with simple video, when you over-leverage liberals shut down and cease all receptiveness.
To expound on @Cowbee@hexbear.net's point, ideology is not, nor ever has been a linear progression.
Not to harp on it but ideology is primarily informed by material conditions, and our general awareness of the state of ideology is primarily informed by the media.
So what does this mean?
By my just talking to people and attending every advertised meeting I know of, there are more leftists in the U.S. than there have ever been, and to be sure these leftists are more ideologically coherent and informed by deteriorating conditions than ever before, with many of them never even stopping at socdem (as they were too young to ever be actually ideological Berners). However, because their ideology is informed by material conditions, they are not cavalier in proselytizing those ideological beliefs, because they know that the fascism is coming/already here. The ones that are more cavalier are often more cavalier because they do not have a choice to hide and be mentally sound (transitioning people in particular).
However, from the outside it would appear as though these people do not exist, as they will not get interviewed, and if they do they will usually be cautious on what exactly they say on camera. To be frank, in any ad hoc leftist meeting I have attended, even in deeply conservative areas, MAGA communists are an absolute minority, but they are not cautious because they are (for lack of a better term) pretty much all morons who do not care who records them or what they say on camera, because their beliefs are not usually informed by material precarity, but more by personal conviction.
The issue is that solid comrades are often waiting for a direction to be pushed into.
Excellent point, thank you. My experience as a former-debatebro helps solidify that people don't decide positions based on raw logic, they are receptive based on material conditions, hence why when combatting pure myths we succeed merely by providing simple proof of falsehood. Video is especially effective.
I mean, as much as the "MAGA Communism" people are disgusting fascists who share almost nothing with us, their ability to convince some limited number of reactionaries that communism is good (and the weird, revised version of communism that is more like what American history books teach than reality) despite being very blatant about the symbolism and the language of their movement needs to be studied. I think that the prevalent pipeline theory of leftist radicalization, where people need to be held by the hand to become socdems first, then demsocs, gradually getting more radical in several steps, is not necessarily complete and could be complemented with an understanding of cases where being exposed to a radically different mode of analysis and ideology can be convincing to someone who currently feels they don't have a system through which to understand the world.
But yeah, if you try to quote Lenin to a very self confident lib you're probably going nowhere. Those people need to learn humility first, which is why I support an American century of humiliation
I don't necessarily believe in a linear leftward path. My claim is that AES is best approached diagonally or from the side, flanking it, when dealing with such ignorant chauvanism like above. Simple, factual showcasing of real people in the DPRK eliminates the absurd claims of "never seeing a computer or smartphone." The
narratives are combatted easily with simple video, when you over-leverage liberals shut down and cease all receptiveness.
To expound on @Cowbee@hexbear.net's point, ideology is not, nor ever has been a linear progression.
Not to harp on it but ideology is primarily informed by material conditions, and our general awareness of the state of ideology is primarily informed by the media.
So what does this mean?
By my just talking to people and attending every advertised meeting I know of, there are more leftists in the U.S. than there have ever been, and to be sure these leftists are more ideologically coherent and informed by deteriorating conditions than ever before, with many of them never even stopping at socdem (as they were too young to ever be actually ideological Berners). However, because their ideology is informed by material conditions, they are not cavalier in proselytizing those ideological beliefs, because they know that the fascism is coming/already here. The ones that are more cavalier are often more cavalier because they do not have a choice to hide and be mentally sound (transitioning people in particular).
However, from the outside it would appear as though these people do not exist, as they will not get interviewed, and if they do they will usually be cautious on what exactly they say on camera. To be frank, in any ad hoc leftist meeting I have attended, even in deeply conservative areas, MAGA communists are an absolute minority, but they are not cautious because they are (for lack of a better term) pretty much all morons who do not care who records them or what they say on camera, because their beliefs are not usually informed by material precarity, but more by personal conviction.
The issue is that solid comrades are often waiting for a direction to be pushed into.
Excellent point, thank you. My experience as a former-debatebro helps solidify that people don't decide positions based on raw logic, they are receptive based on material conditions, hence why when combatting pure myths we succeed merely by providing simple proof of falsehood. Video is especially effective.