Ironically, doing as such contributes to Elitism by creating a secondary language for those who haven’t read theory from those who have

You’re still operating under the mindset that people need a specific theory, much of which has its own historical ties to political and academic elites. In reality, the working class and marginalized communities have created several ‘secondary languages’ outside of elitist tradition and decorum through slang and code-switching. It is here that the localized vernacular, the whispers of revolution, organically develop into physically organized revolution.

You keep using the word “hiding”.

If you say ‘water’ and someone else says ‘agua’, the meaning is not being “hidden”. It is simply not being communicated using the same language.

In this context, you are attempting to explain socialism to people using a vernacular that comes off as academically elitist to many working class people.

It doesn’t matter if the speaker is a self-identified leftist. It doesn’t matter how much theory they’ve read. Someone of the working class has the potential to attain class consciousness and develop a path toward revolution. We’re just not even close to a global consciousness yet.

Nation-states are in the process of being replaced by corporate-states. The masses are praising tech-elites and corporatists as ideal leaders. I think you’ll notice a trend among various kinds of “states” throughout history. People are being increasingly hostile to the concept of a state, and that is class consciousness. That hostility would extend to a Marxist-Leninist state as well.

Mutual aid is NOT charity, and this is a fundamental difference. In fact, mutual aid is a fundamental component of grassroots organization and I’m shocked you are unfamiliar with the term with how much leftist literature you are sending me.

You seem to believe that theory is necessary to achieving class consciousness and I disagree. You sent me several links to books intended for already self-identified leftists to read. Me reading more books isn’t going to radicalize right-wingers, right?

You are right about “meeting people where they are”. But, we need to synthesize the information and translate it according to the individual we are speaking to. This isn’t “hiding” or “obscuring” anything. It’s relating to the person directly instead of hiding behind complex economic theory and terminology that may go over their heads.

Thanks for the literature but I know how to speak and relate to my neighbor. Many grassroots leftist organizations already implement what you’re talking about via mutual aid efforts and building community trust.

There is a strong individualist and isolationist mindset among the average American conservative. What I’ve come to learn is that being direct and honest about what Socialism is does not help because they’ve already formed a concrete belief about the buzz word. So, when I’m speaking to a suspected right-wing working class person, I do not use the buzz words while still conveying the meaning using words they commonly use themselves— hence what I said about translating our message in more ways than just language but also culture.

“Cubans leaving Socialism because their slaves were taken away by Castro are not going to have the same class characteristics”

Incorrect. There are many poor, working class Cubans (white, brown, and black) who vote conservative. You don’t have to be one of the elite to support their politics.

I’m a millennial who found access to the alpha version of Minecraft on a forum circa 2011. Millennials were the forerunners of Minecraft.

Fortnite came with a build-mode PVP that was a huge turn off for me and many old-head millennials. That game was primarily for Gen Z and Gen-Alpha.

You saw the Simpson meme above right? That’s not entirely an exaggeration. The “S” word is legitimately terrifying to both American conservatives and immigrants who fled dictatorships.

It’s “explaining clearly and directly” that has been met with great resistance, actually. You forget we now live in a post-truth society.

Personally, I’ve strived to adhere to the Einstein quote:

If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.

This not only applies to theory but language in general. If you, an English speaker, wants to ally with someone who only speaks Mandarin, the two of you will need to figure out how to understand simple shared concepts first (“water”, “car”, “help”).

Theory is the same. I don’t think we should completely do away with the proper verbiage. But, I do think we need to figure out how to translate our message in more ways than just language— I’m talking cultural. Because, right now, there are a lot of working class Americans who have been convinced that capitalist exploitation is American culture.

Dialectical Materialism - Idk I’m still trying to figure out wtf that one means.

Practical historical development?

Definition: Practical historical development looks at how money, jobs, and resources shape how societies change over time. It shows that the ways people make things, the tools they use, and how resources are distributed build the base for how societies work. Instead of thinking that big ideas or beliefs drive history, this view shows that real-world conditions—like who has what resources and how work gets done—create the path for changes in society and politics.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The problem with many conservatives and regressives is that the only change to the status quo they seem content with are based on bigotry rather than economics.

I feel ‘dick rider’ is appropriate

One of my favorite books! It’s arguably what led to my radicalization.

Yea, there’s a Japanese film that came out around the same time with a similar premise that is also really good.

It’s a quote from The Departed and that’s exactly what the character is saying. The Church and State present the masses with binary choices that they ultimately control. They don’t want us to know about a third choice because then we start wondering about an infinite amount of possible choices which makes the masses harder to control.

In this case, we are taught that you are either a good guy who follows the law or you are a bad guy who breaks the law; abolitionists and runaway slaves were considered criminals but slave catchers were considered “Good Guys”. Today, the lobbyists and lawmakers are trying to make it illegal to criticize the government, protest, etc. to the point where the binary view of justice starts to cave in on itself.

Hey, you’re not entirely wrong. But, you’re also conflating protests with riots. I never said people do not protest for things that do not affect them— just that they don’t intend to riot unless something directly affects them.

And, in pretty much all of the examples you’ve given for riots, those were sparked by acts of violence perpetrated by white supremacists, union busters, police, etc. which forces the people to obviously defend themselves in a reactionary state. But, this is not the same as the masses mobilizing with the intent to root out and destroy these institutions that are designed to hurt and control us.

Holding signs and singing chants in the streets doesn’t change anything but it can easily be framed as a justification for more police and military spending to “maintain order and peace”. If you consider the elites who actually control the flow of commerce, it’s a net loss for the protestors who only have their jobs to risk and possibly jail time and a fine. In fact, the State applies Deterrence Theory in this way to keep the public from rioting and it has, so far, been extremely affective in the modern era.

Oh, and those hippies who protested the Vietnam War were a small percentage of white middle class youth that went on to be corporate leaders in America, many of whom are the primary antagonists we deal with today.

There is a threshold many people aren’t willing to cross that, in my opinion, is necessary for us to move toward dismantling classism. They have us so firmly put in place that they’re now comfortably passing laws that are erasing constitutional rights, and majority of the elderly in this country voted for him, keep that in mind.

I’ll end my rebuttal simply stating that the examples you’ve mentioned involved people who consciously viewed themselves as interconnected with those they were protesting alongside of. This is something we severely lack in today’s social-political climate; a shared consciousness, which is what a grassroots movement requires.

Oh, we are definitely getting protests. But, will we see riots? Will we see people taking control of their workplaces? Will people start growing their own food and shopping at farmer’s markets instead of grocery chains? The only people who have the ability to dismantle the vestiges of power that control them are the people themselves.

Historically, there have been riots during the Great Depression where people raided grocery stores. But, hey, homeless people and poor single parents have been doing this for years and are called criminals for doing so.

These people will need to be okay with being considered criminals if they truly wish to riot and change things, but they’ve spent decades voting to put people who do those things in jail.

Sorry, but you should. Historically, the only people who have ever rioted were people who were directly affected by said issues. If they can successfully be convinced that Daddy Government is going to fix everything while demonizing the actual protestors on the streets, you get decades of stagnation.

I’d love for you show me any counter examples in history.

Why would retired old people suddenly riot? They will call their social security rep and wait for hours on hold while they watch Jeopardy and cable news that tells them rioting is bad and only criminals do that.

People don’t want to fly planes because they’re falling out of the sky. A Tesla dealership explosion would’ve done some significant PR damage, and may keep people from visiting them.

But, you’re right, it seems like Tesla is collapsing on its own without the need of terrorist attacks. But, the nonviolent Tesla graffiti is funny though.