>>17848993
Socialists tend to cope with their ideas not being popular by asserting that it's because of capitalists preventing the socialists from reaching the workers. There may be some truth to it, but the fact of the matter is that most workers most of the time in most of modern history have not been class-conscious revolutionaries. That was also true when socialism/communism was more popular than it is today. The working class has never been particularly internationalist. There were three socialist Internationals. The first one only represented a few people and basically didn't matter. The Second International was mainly a European group of socialist parties that imploded in World War I. The Third International was the USSR, the communist parties, and some anti-colonial movements, and it had some early enthusiasm but the USSR shut it down because in fact the Russians realized that they weren't going to be helped by a world revolution.

>>17849166
>>17849171
People only make revolution like what happened in Russia and China -- I am talking about an armed insurrection (and thus civil war) on such a large enough scale to take over the government -- if people feel their backs are up against the wall and it's a matter of life and death. It comes from COMPLETE despair, and has also happened when these countries were undergoing / coming out of major wars with mass conscription where there could be large defections from the army (so you have revolutionary soldiers):
https://youtu.be/gAlm53y5Txw

Socialism has to mesh with the average person and answer the problems that are pressing on him. People can say Zohran Mamdani is just another Democrat in reality but he understands this in his own time, place and context:
https://youtu.be/JN_WPjwr7yA

It's not a subculture. If you want to be effective as a political preson you can NEVER be like "fuck these normies," which is a shitty punk attitude.