In that order, as it’s more difficult to actually win gains through “polite” society shit like voting and negotiations, you have to do things that require more sacrifice.
And how are you going to convince them to show up to that union meeting exactly. Perhaps you might even have to talk to them, to have a conversation where you convince them that showing up for a union meeting is in fact in their interest. That’s what debate, discussion, and education means.
If you are in any way thinking that the conditions in the 21st century US are equivalent rather that merely rhyme with the conditions in the 19th and 20th in Russia as much as you can take “What is to be Done?” off the shelf and use it as a playbook then there’s really no point in this discussion.
Weird straw man since nowhere did I say that. What I said is that there is real poverty in the US, and people are struggling to make ends meet. Nowhere did I suggest there’s going to be some sort of a proletarian revolution in the US as there was in Russia at the start of the 20th century.
Also, there are plenty of highly intelligent and articulate people in US who explain the problems in clear terms. Russia doesn’t have some unique tradition of grand political theorists. The problem in US is that most people don’t think they need to be educated, and want quick and easy solutions to difficult problems.
I’m going to stop here because it’s clear that we’re not getting anywhere convincing each other of anything. I’ve said all needed to say here.
That’s what debate, discussion, and education means.
At this point you might as well do a joke of Jordan Peterson style reasoning where you wriet debate = discussion = education. You keep using these terms interchangeably and they seem to mean whatever the hell you want them to mean in the context. Sometimes they mean that someone knows theory, sometimes they mean that someone has talked to someone else about how the boss is annohying, sometimes they mean you’re planning a violent wildcat labor action.
What I said is that there is real poverty in the US, and people are struggling to make ends meet. Nowhere did I suggest there’s going to be some sort of a proletarian revolution in the US as there was in Russia at the start of the 20th century.
My point is “real poverty” means different things across time dude. How do you not understand this? The aspects of “real poverty” in the 21st century quite literally invalidate 20th century communist thinking and strategy. The whole point is that when you’re cornered you rely entirely on quoting and throwing theory at people without explaining how that theory practically applies to the modern day.
Also, there are plenty of highly intelligent and articulate people in US who explain the problems in clear terms.
Name one. Literally name one.
The problem in US is that most people don’t think they need to be educated, and want quick and easy solutions to difficult problems.
Hmm… It’s almost like uhh they’d rather watch Mr Beast on YouTube which is quite literally my point.
You’re not competing with 20th century poverty, you’re competing with 21st century dopamine rat poverty and the left as a whole hasn’t evolved to handle that.
I’m going to stop here because it’s clear that we’re not getting anywhere convincing each other of anything. I’ve said all needed to say here.
Sometimes they mean that someone knows theory, sometimes they mean that someone has talked to someone else about how the boss is annohying, sometimes they mean you’re planning a violent wildcat labor action.
It’s like you’re unable to comprehend the concept of degrees. All of these things work together in practice. People who know theory help educate others, and people talk to each other at the level they are able. Trying to see this as black and white is absurd.
The whole point is that when you’re cornered you rely entirely on quoting and throwing theory at people without explaining how that theory practically applies to the modern day.
Another weird straw man. What theory means practically in modern day has been explained by me and many other people on this very site. I even explained that in this very thread earlier, and you promptly ignored that.
Name one. Literally name one.
Michael Parenti, Richard Wolff, Chris Smalls, Michael Hudson, Claudia De la Cruz, just off top of my head
Hmm… It’s almost like uhh they’d rather watch Mr Beast on YouTube which is quite literally my point.
And my point is that these people don’t matter. They’re not the demographic that’s going to drive any change.
Michael Parenti, Richard Wolff, Chris Smalls, Michael Hudson, Claudia De la Cruz, just off top of my head
If you’re looking for a Lenin, Parenti is your closest but he’s dead. Smalls is a good union organizer but has really just organized a single Amazon warehouse and fell off.
De La Cruz got less than half the votes Debs got in his weakest run, when the population of the US was minuscule compared to now. De La Cruz wasn’t even on the ballot in her home state. You might as well say Bernie Sanders if you’re gonna say De La Cruz because their theories of change are literally the same and are proven failures.
Wolff and Hudson have one foot in the grave as 80 year old men they’re not leading anything.
Capital is running up the board as the Globetrotters and you’re fielding a team that’s playing worse than the Washington Generals.
And my point is that these people don’t matter. They’re not the demographic that’s going to drive any change.
Oh boy, “lets ignore the lumpen proletariat” is literally the most Democratic Party brained take a socialist can make. Weren’t you just singing Chairman Fred’s praises 5 seconds ago, and now this???
In practice our society is amazing at making lumpenproles, the vast majority of people are lumpenproles by the Marxist definition (not the Engles or Leninist one where he gives them the old Kulak treatment).
And in your opinion the demographic that is going to drive change are unpopular people who are subjects of news discussed on this site and this site only.
This shit is silly dude, there’s no clear theory of change here, not even an analysis on a theory of change. Just bromides.
And how are you going to convince them to show up to that union meeting exactly. Perhaps you might even have to talk to them, to have a conversation where you convince them that showing up for a union meeting is in fact in their interest. That’s what debate, discussion, and education means.
Weird straw man since nowhere did I say that. What I said is that there is real poverty in the US, and people are struggling to make ends meet. Nowhere did I suggest there’s going to be some sort of a proletarian revolution in the US as there was in Russia at the start of the 20th century.
Also, there are plenty of highly intelligent and articulate people in US who explain the problems in clear terms. Russia doesn’t have some unique tradition of grand political theorists. The problem in US is that most people don’t think they need to be educated, and want quick and easy solutions to difficult problems.
I’m going to stop here because it’s clear that we’re not getting anywhere convincing each other of anything. I’ve said all needed to say here.
At this point you might as well do a joke of Jordan Peterson style reasoning where you wriet debate = discussion = education. You keep using these terms interchangeably and they seem to mean whatever the hell you want them to mean in the context. Sometimes they mean that someone knows theory, sometimes they mean that someone has talked to someone else about how the boss is annohying, sometimes they mean you’re planning a violent wildcat labor action.
My point is “real poverty” means different things across time dude. How do you not understand this? The aspects of “real poverty” in the 21st century quite literally invalidate 20th century communist thinking and strategy. The whole point is that when you’re cornered you rely entirely on quoting and throwing theory at people without explaining how that theory practically applies to the modern day.
Name one. Literally name one.
Hmm… It’s almost like uhh they’d rather watch Mr Beast on YouTube which is quite literally my point.
k
It’s like you’re unable to comprehend the concept of degrees. All of these things work together in practice. People who know theory help educate others, and people talk to each other at the level they are able. Trying to see this as black and white is absurd.
Another weird straw man. What theory means practically in modern day has been explained by me and many other people on this very site. I even explained that in this very thread earlier, and you promptly ignored that.
Michael Parenti, Richard Wolff, Chris Smalls, Michael Hudson, Claudia De la Cruz, just off top of my head
And my point is that these people don’t matter. They’re not the demographic that’s going to drive any change.
If you’re looking for a Lenin, Parenti is your closest but he’s dead. Smalls is a good union organizer but has really just organized a single Amazon warehouse and fell off.
De La Cruz got less than half the votes Debs got in his weakest run, when the population of the US was minuscule compared to now. De La Cruz wasn’t even on the ballot in her home state. You might as well say Bernie Sanders if you’re gonna say De La Cruz because their theories of change are literally the same and are proven failures.
Wolff and Hudson have one foot in the grave as 80 year old men they’re not leading anything.
Capital is running up the board as the Globetrotters and you’re fielding a team that’s playing worse than the Washington Generals.
Oh boy, “lets ignore the lumpen proletariat” is literally the most Democratic Party brained take a socialist can make. Weren’t you just singing Chairman Fred’s praises 5 seconds ago, and now this???
In practice our society is amazing at making lumpenproles, the vast majority of people are lumpenproles by the Marxist definition (not the Engles or Leninist one where he gives them the old Kulak treatment).
And in your opinion the demographic that is going to drive change are unpopular people who are subjects of news discussed on this site and this site only.
This shit is silly dude, there’s no clear theory of change here, not even an analysis on a theory of change. Just bromides.