I would argue that people in general don’t want ownership or we would have many more cooperatives.

The White Army was specific to Russia, not all Socialist states like China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

If I remember correctly, Mao was supported by Stalin. I assume something similar for any other revolution. Outside support is needed.

Look at Syria. Assad was in control and it took massive outside support to let the opposition win. Who is going to support a socialist revolution today?

Workers were always consumers.

Not like today, where brains are addicted to TikTok and shopping. Workers could work less but they shop more. That’s not considered in the original theory.

As Capitalism decays, proletarianization increases even in the Imperialist countries, and thus reception to Socialism increases.

Will it reach critical mass?

There is no “mental problem that cannot be solved,” this is quite literally inventing a problem that exists purely in your head. Idealism to a T.

Exactly. Consumers are trapped there. The left cannot handle this because it absolutely contradicts their mindset. This alone will prevent any further progress towards socialism.

Broism is a reaction to proletarianization, combined with patriarchial culture. It ignores analysis and goes for vibes-based solutions, which is why all bro-culture is incoherent and contradictory.

Correct. ‘Ignoring the material ones’ means ignoring analysis while vibe-based solution corresponds with ‘mental issues’. My point is that Broism looks at aspects of the current situation to which the left analysis is blind. Calling it a reaction already frames it as not worth considering.

The left analysis in itself is correct. That doesn’t change anything if the consumers are not listening. Knowing the truth is a mental trap if it leads to ineffective action.

Ok, that’s clearer and more to the functional point than unity.

My perspective is that people are driven by emotions. Is ownership something in itself that people want? I would say that it is just a tool.

I agree. My point is that the right-wing workers also don’t want a fascist state. Thus there is common ground to prevent it together.

A repressive small state is a strawman. Done right a small state is not repressive.

Socialist revolution has already happened in many areas.

Which all go back to the white army losing. Some say it was intentionally. Can that be recreated?

Socialism locks in the current situation.

The early industrial society doesn’t exist anymore. Capitalists have adapted and turned workers into consumers. The old paths are gone.

“Socialism has ro for improvement

Consumers don’t want to endure hardship or analysis. They can’t stand seeing the problem, how can they be receptive to a solution?

The material situation is the same but there is now a mental problem that hasn’t been solved.

To fish for downvotes, let me add that the bro lifestyle is an attempt by the right to solve the mental issues while ignoring the material ones.

Xi Jinping is the son of a high ranking politician. How is that not some form of class dynamics?

Socialism does work

USSR failed by having to import grain, while having black earth.

But I am not opposing Socialism.

My point is that right-wing people shouldn’t be ignored, especially not to the point of seeing them as enemies.

The upper class is using the split to reign. Insisting on a solution that has room for improvement locks in the current situation.

the bourgeoisie has been suppressed by Proletarian States, your hypothesis isn’t accurate

But there are priviliged positions of power within those states. It’s just another form to organize power. Those positions will not be available to everybody.

The idea of trying to synthesize a new ideology of left combined with right historically is Social Democracy,

That can’t be all.

As you write, it doesn’t work so something else should be tried.

Leftist analysis, which is correct.

Leftist analysis is not correct if the proletariat is stuck where it is.

Not all desires are valid

I would say, not all enactments of desires are acceptable, but invalidating desires by themselves sounds wrong to me. Who decides which desires are valid?

blaming government as the issue when really it’s the fault of Capitalism

Having a strong government to oppose Capitalism doesn’t help either. Capitalism is just one form of maintaining power. The people with capital will become the people at the top of the government if Capitalism is abolished by government.

Why not go full Hegel, treat left and right as thesis and antithesis and come up with something new?

From the point of view of the right, the left government is maintaining overbearing zoning laws and medical regulations. These left politics retain the profits for the upper class in the current Capitalist system.

It’s the separation of the proletariat that uphelds Capitalism, not one side alone.

A unified proletariat doesn’t have to be left. Restricting analysis to dialectical materialism misses that people also care about other things. The left would already have convinced the entire proletariat if it’s only materialism.

It’s the arrogance of already knowing how to resolve social issues that keeps the left stuck in the past. The left is all about respecting people and their emotions and desires, but when they are expressed in the form of right-wing support, they are called reactionary and ignored.

Capitalism and fascism is not what the proletarian right wants.

The main differences are that the right accepts social, class differences while the left wants socialized support and unity. On the other hand the left wants individual personal differences while the right wants uniform values.

It’s not about gaining things from the right but overcoming differences. There doesn’t have to be left and right. Then both sides can change society together and make a better world instead of fighting each other for the benefit of the upper class.

Soviet Union was authoritarian. Both the far left and the far right don’t want authoritarianism but claim the other side does.

Fascism, when state and companies become one, is the opposite of a small state, a major goal of the right.

So from a right wing perspective, the left and globalists must be in power if they are not living freely in a country with a small state.

Left and right should talk. There are many things that they can achieve together.

You can’t exploit capitalists. Hate alone is not enough.

It could also be a warning against importing foreign workers to build ambitious projects because social cohesion could collapse.

(This is not meant as an argument against a pluralistic society)

Still the future I want. Stealing doesn’t matter if there are enough free hats. Not having to be responsible for property would be nice.

Isn’t therapy there to be able to heal and not to forget? The last session should mean that the client is not traumatised again.

The expectation of retaliation for not paying is a perfect setup. The decline of the card could be intentional, just for the client to realize in a deeply emotional situation that the dark memory doesn’t hurt anymore. The wide eyes, I want to believe that it comes from the bewilderment that the familiar, expected pain is gone.

Now, who is going to give those hugs?

Without data, it’s impossible to tell. I am sorry to say it but it’s very dangerous to get rallied up without evidence.

How can it be changed? Their votes ruin society.

Thanks. I should have known.