Film club

agitprop
ăj′ĭt-prŏp″
noun

Agitprop (/ˈædʒɪtprɒp/;[1][2][3] from Russian: агитпроп, tr. agitpróp, portmanteau of agitatsiya, "agitation" and propaganda, "propaganda")

1. Political propaganda, especially favoring communism and disseminated through literature, drama, art, or music.

2. Agitation and propaganda; -- used especially for such activities carried out on behalf of communist activists.

You guys started it under your Bolsheviks. 70 odd years of spreading the cancer around the globe.

"Let he who is without sin, throw the first stone."

Regardless, my point is that Russians haven't a leg to stand on when accusing the West of some kind of shadowy cultural propaganda. It was Moscow who began all that radical, deconstructionist crap under the diktats of Marxist-Leninism, where it was later imported to Maoist China to cause further havoc, that is the Cultural Revolution. Some of this has indeed now reached the Western World, but we've covered that in plenty detail on our Disney thread, amongst other places.

A Russian pretending to be the vanguard of traditional values is the biggest joke going. That's not what history shows us

Perhaps, and it would be most welcome (a surprise to be sure), but I would sincerely doubt it; Moonshield is a veteran. Russians rarely admit the mistakes of their state to foreigners. It's either chest-thumping, jingoistic, exceptionalism or this bleak, apathetic form of defeatism. They like to pretend they've never hurt a soul, then accuse you of being some American stooge when you press them, as if everything in geopolitics were black or white. I've spend more than enough time being critical of GW Bush et all to have to deal with that.

While it's true that some elements of what Marx wrote about have been picked up and adopted by the wider politik (eg state intervention), Marxist-Leninism, which you might describe as "Lenin's bastardisation of Marx", was unquestionably terminally flawed from the beginning, being inherently anti-democratic like fascism. Stalin didn't bastardise anything, he simply implemented the ideology. Trotsky wouldn't have been much of an improvement, look at how brutal he behaved in the war against Poland, he was no angel either.

I'm not sure if Democratic Socialism is going anywhere in the US, given how the two party system is furiously guarded. Society there is also quite consumerist, which puts them in the arms of the corporations, making meaningful change difficult. The American mainstream left, as in Canada, is actually rather capitalist if one considers the phenomenon that is woke capital (alliance between Trudeau/DNC, pandering corporations and Davos elites), and because the politics is bogged down on culture debates, it again makes it hard to have a serious discussion on economic inequality and class (not unintentionally one might ponder). Indeed, since the rise of the neoliberalism in the West, once unthinkable positions have become reality. You now have some US conservatives harbouring a - traditionally leftist - anti-war, isolationist perspective, whilst social democrats adore bankers who push their social justice message.

There is nothing traditionally liberal about anit-war movements here stateside. As the media age blossomed the anti-Vietnam-War protest fast established itself as an easy cultural reference to leftism, no doubt, but such was also something of an outlier in the grander history of our nation. US isolationism dates back to our 1rst President, cross-pollinating all political parties for such a time and with a lifespan that dwarfed that of latter-half 20th century optics wherein 'American Imperialism' may have been equitable with baseball and apple pie. There's an irony to it. While the US today is viewed default and even (self)mocked as the nation that polices world affairs, once upon a time it was viewed, if not dismissed outright, as a plainly isolationist country—leading up to and during WWI and during the intervening years leading up to WWII with said sentiments perhaps being not only the most vocal/widespread but likewise spearheaded by right-wing politicians, orators, influencers etc.

The truth of the matter is more of a mixed bag. Even modern conservatism here has, under a nuanced lens, been far less pro-war than simply pro-vet, if one is to appreciate the difference; not "support our government's invasion" but rather simply "support our troops". Conservatives have only generally been pro-war when referencing the lowest common denominator: in their dumbest, laziest depictions, whether accurate or merely caricatured (neither should be denied). Modern liberalism meanwhile, at least when manifested into its close-knit political parties, has proven, how shall we say, selective with its anti-war sentiments, depending on a multitude of sociopolitical, economical and ideological factors deep in the bedrock of whatever engagement... depending on which way the wind's blowing. 

Fair enough. But the slide into geopolitics was coming with the release of Oppenheimer anyway