A lot of chuds seem to believe the phrase "toxic masculinity" is referring to the entire concept itself as toxic rather than certain manifestations of masculinity.

Certainly true of the more potato-brained of the hogs. I'm going to sound like an asshole for saying this but half of the working class are really really really not think-ey people, like seriously they barely think at all during their days. A lot of western marxism has this issue of coming from suburbia and well educated groups of people and they very naively (in a good way) think everyone thinks like them. This however is not the experience I have seen for myself in the bottom of society where people are guided far more by raw emotion and gliding through their days than by any real introspection, rationalisation or logical decision making. I love and sympathise with many of these people deeply but they are raw to put it nicely. There is a reason a vanguard is needed.

Concepts like toxic masculinity are too high, they're good arguments for the college educated and suburbanites but they do not reach many of the lower levels of the working class. This isn't helped by a kneejerk resistance to criticism that they have.

[–] ProudCascadian@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A lot of the working class in Russia were not think-ey people either. This is why I really study Lenin in regards to how he got to revolution.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Right we have like, 2 levels that matter. One level is the organisers and one level is the average population. The organisers need to be at the very very highest level of theory while what is given to the working population needs to appropriately guide them for their level.

The right wing is currently much better at this than the left wing.

[–] ProudCascadian@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 days ago

Yes I read Lenin. I believe in the vanguard party. I just have high social anxiety which prevents me from really meeting people a lot, so I make up for that by reading theory.