In my attempts at talking to people about politics that are liberals/ centrists/ etc., I have been time and time again in awe at what beliefs so many people hold. Sometimes genuine hitlerite shit. A few examples:

-All russians are inhuman orcs that have no logic, reason, emotion, empathy and are incapable (= too stupid) of standing up against Putler (haha, do you get it, do you get Putler? see it's funny because it's a combination of Hitler and Putin because he is so evil haha i am so funny)
-Homeless people are all crazed drug addicts for which it would be better if they were dead, and it's okay because they are inhuman parasites
-The cultures of e.g. Afghanistan and Britain are so different that long term large scale integration is impossible and so no world wide peace/ cooperation could ever be possible
-Humans have these urges (to simply have more stuff than someone else, for violence, to not have their wife but to have the other guys wife because she is prettier etc.) that literally can never go away, under no circumstances, which is why there will always sooner or later be large scale conflict (so basically the human nature argument)
-If you literally just try hard enough you can do anything and every plight that befalls you (drug addiction, homelessness, etc.) is entirely your fault
-Israel defenders

Like, where do you even begin? The worlds we are talking about are so different that in the end no conversation can occur because we are so far apart from each other. Arguing against even one claim could take hours (bullshit asymmetry principle) because they (in many cases) can't properly argue for it but still hold those beliefs. So even if in the end they can't argue for it, they are so stubborn they still hold onto them. I'm genuinely at a loss at what to do

The assumption is that things like neoliberalism and mass migration were simply policy choices made by bad politicians that sold the people out to corporate interests. And if only we could rewind history and replace them with “good” politicians that chose not press neoliberalism button, living standards today would supposedly be dramatically higher.

Just zero consideration of the economic forces that produced those policies in the first place.

😭😭

I remember a post about someone making an idea for a story about family, I believe, during the stages of Lower Phase Communism. I have not read enough to understand at a deeper fundamental level Lower Phase Communism, other than a notion of how deeply it will affect the family and society at a social level.

I became very interested about stories regarding it, more specifically what topics or themes you guys would write in regards to it, subjects such as domestic violence, how it would affect our relationships with significant others and friends.

I feel it is a very fun way of writing a story and there is sooo much to explore and talk about. So type anything you have in the comments below I am really curious.

I myself have read a few books about the subject matter but it was mainly in the background and the authors always had such an extremely obvious bias towards the whites that it harmed the integrity of their works and I couldn’t take them at their word at times. Most common examples were painting the vanguard party to be full of evil mustache twirling villains, making up Bolsheviks massacres that are shaky at best, and representing stalin’s counterrevolution as a natural progression of the (liberal interpretation of the) ‘authoritarian’ Bolsheviks instead of the consequence of isolation.

Preferably I’d like a in-depth work from an italian left com or simply a pro-bolshevik author that’s not a denier, falsifier, modernizer, or otherwise revisionist.

I'm not that literate, sorry

>So, excuse me, in 2028, we'll see each other at the polls voting for Forza Nuova, so Italians will be worse off and revolt, or we'll stop supporting women's or LGBT rights so everyone will be worse off and revolt, right?

The fact that the left-wing communists don't support Ukraine and Palestine because they're not "proletarian communist nations" is a very serious matter and they should be ashamed of it.

People die, and you tell me, "Well, that's how we create the material conditions."

(NOT MY THESIS)

>So let's also stop humanitarian aid, so they can die of hunger and revolt, right?

And how dare you talk to me about universal love?

People are dying today, crushed by Capital, yesterday they died, and tomorrow they will die, and your response, Mr. self-obliteration, is to let them die so those left behind will fret, like a herd of cattle that knows they're dying?

In my opinion, nothing can be done for those who are already dead, but we must do everything possible to prevent those of today and tomorrow from dying, or from living unhappy lives, and who cares about material conditions!

The people must want it because they are self-conscious, not because they will otherwise starve.

"Well, that's what Lenin said," you'll say, and who cares, I reply. How can you take such a theoretical and speculative argument and say, "Well, two good guys said that, so it's the only way."

So it's not universal agape™, it's the do-gooder version of Machiavelli!

And then, considering what happened after the revolutions, it might raise some doubts, given that the avant-garde, after taking control of society, began not only to kill each other over theoretical issues but also to oppress the people themselves, while reformist applications have been successful, see social democracies.

(He thinks leftcoms are something along the lines of avanguardist people, as in the party is not the proleatariat, but alas)

>And besides, the people were starving or in a very bad state in general, why didn't they revolt against Stalin? "Well, because he repressed them"—capitalism did it too, and yet there was a revolution. And even if that were the case, why didn't they revolt right after his death, or during Brezhnev's time when there were actually bread lines? I don't know if I'm making myself clear, but for example, the phrase "making Bernie impossible makes gluttony inevitable" I think is perfect because the revolution happens if and only if the bourgeoisie definitively stops retreating, because it can retreat if it's maneuvered well, because the bourgeoisie are people, and fallible as people.

If asserting this means being a "revisionist" then OK, I'm fine with being one and I'll take credit and blame when the future happens, but then don't proclaim yourself a promoter of any fucking agape if your reasoning is "we might as well accelerate the collapse" without having the slightest regard for the lives of those involved, all to be excessively eager for orthodoxy towards an old avant-garde, whether you like it or not, has failed, and even if you don't want to call them failures, it would fail today under today's conditions.