Not sure if this counts as right wing, but I sympathize with some of Dostoevsky’s philosophy. If we look at how fascism triumphed over socialism, there was an irrational and emotional component to it that drew people in, which in some ways socialism fails to do because it’s rooted in objectiveness. And I believe Dostoevsky touches on this in his works where he has characters that are disillusioned with society but also disillusioned with the revolutionary movement, because it all boils down to objectiveness. I believe he is a reactionary, but also in real life he was part of revolutionary movements so he has real lived experience of what it’s like to try to change society, which I find interesting.

That being said I do think socialism can have a subjective appeal to the masses, in that it aims to ensure prosperity and liberation for all.

Maybe I’m biased but you can even see the difference in cultures between predominantly Catholic countries vs Protestant countries. The former seems to have alot more distinctiveness and (not very, but slightly more) collectiveness

I don’t know if this is a cultural US liberal thing of thinking oneself too unique for a movement

It’s mostly this. We are brought up with individualist propaganda and great man theory bullshit to explain how everything works in our society. Then you get people who feel alienated at the mention of a “society” or “community” cause they think they’re special snowflakes that don’t fit in with everyone else, when our culture is designed that way.

We need to organize better. There is a lack of militant groups that aren’t just straight up ascists.

How to build up an organization, idk, that is the hard part. I feel like the most compelling thing you can ask someone is what would they do if shit really went down? Police won’t protect you. Your company won’t protect you. Your friend group or family is probably too small or weak.

Maybe its possible to sway left wing groups to be more militant and armed?

At least shit really hasn’t hit the fan yet that we can still organize.

Inshallah comrade

Bernie and AOC have demonstrated that they will compromise on their “principles” ( if you even consider them that) to fallback to the Democratic party line. Putting our support in them is not a way to move their supporters to the left, but for them to move leftists to the right.

I think AOC is just a careerist, and Bernie is genuine, but functionally they are the same. I think of it similar to the SPD in Germany during the late 1910s and how it compromised with the bourgeois which killed any real revolution from happening.

Bernie wants billionaires to “pay their fair share” and then what? Is that really the root of the problem? They start paying more taxes and everything becomes fine for us?

I think in order to move people further left, we have to break their trust in AOC in Bernie. They have to see that there is no politician out there that actually is fighting for their interests, and their salvation lies in their own hands and they must organize.

Edit: oops I meant to reply to your other comment

I mean with the defunding of USAID maybe? China giving an alternative to the IMF that allows countries to take loans to develop themselves in a more flexible way. It seems more promising than it ever has for the third world.

I think the working class in the west and eu is still too disorganized for a revolution. I believe the material conditions are there, but the class conscious and organizational structure to guide the working class are not, for various reasons.

Wartime revolutionary action against one’s own government indubitably means, not only desiring its defeat, but really facilitating such a defeat.

banger quote. So he’s calling out the people who say they are against the war, but take no action that would impede the government from waging the war.

The war cannot but evoke among the masses the most turbulent sentiments, which upset the usual sluggish state of mass mentality. Revolutionary tactics are impossible if they are not adjusted to these new turbulent sentiments.

I think this is important when analyzing our own modern day situations, and not just taking what Lenin lists out here and applying it willy-nilly. It is my belief that we do not need to gain the support of the masses before performing an action because if we can understand the “turbulent sentiments” correctly, then we can come to a conclusion of what the correct action is. By performing the correct action we gain support of the masses. I think of it kinda like the whole UnitedHealthcare CEO situation, but the killer was not organized and only arrived at a correct action by chance.

Those who stand for the “neither-victory-nor-defeat” slogan are in fact on the side of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists, for they do not believe in the possibility of inter national revolutionary action by the working class against their own governments,

This is a nice way of framing it. In the end our goal is the revolution and everything we do is to achieve that end.

edit: I dunno how you are going about selecting texts, but could I submit a vote for Theses on the National and Colonial Questions

Forming a study group seems like a no brainer now that I realized Lenin, Mao and even Marx had their starts in study groups

Unfortunately I think I alot of people would be turned off by it being marxist, even if they dont have a real conception of what marxism is. I’m kinda wondering if its worth going straight to marxist texts, or maybe start with something more borderline to attract liberals that can potentially be converted.

This is actually the first time I’ve seen the original

NYPD budget is higher than North Korea’s military budget. These people are hallucinating

Mass immigration didn’t exist before 2001

Right Wingers: left wingers just thrive on fear mongering. Also we should be scared about the flood of immigrants coming into the country and the government trying to kill us with vaccines

Is that because they associate Assad with Putin?

I’m also wondering what evidence there is for this rebellion force being “pro-Assad” besides being against the current government.

Ironically that last comment is just describing the normal behavior of people under capitalism

How do y’all talk to libs about how the media is portraying Trump as subservient to Putin? For example refusing aid to Ukraine and easing sanctions on Russia. I don’t really have a good answer other than the long history after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that the US and Russia would probably never be allies.

I can understand why he’d be hard on Ukraine, but even I have trouble understanding why Trump seems so friendly with Russia

Unironically, there are so many parallels with Harry potter and the way modern liberals act

Joe Rogan is the ultimate example of social being determining your conscious. As he got richer and more popular he became more right wing.

I also agree and don’t think it was a deliberate long con by any of them (well maybe Tim Pool?). They are all just products of their environments. The right also understands how important it is to control the cultural hegemony. Theyre not just talking to people about politics, but all sorts of different niches.

American online right wing propaganda is way too strong, to a point where its just a self-sustaining plague on the internet. The way it turns apolitical people into right wing nut jobs is quite scary. I would bet most people in China are apolitical and that would be ripe picking for the propaganda.

I mean the US rarely uses its own soldiers for expanding its imperialism doesnt it? Its about recruiting the locals from its colonies and using them to overthrow or suppress any movement of self-emancipation. Helps that they keep these colonies poor so that there are plenty of desperate people to recruit from.

They failed to do this in China though which is a problem for them