How democratic should the revolution be?

[MrTreeFingers]

As someone who lives in Mississippi I find it very discouraging to hope for a democratic socialist revolution. It seems like where I live the poorer you are the more likely you will vote for the capitalist pig that keeps you living in squalor. I am a very lonely voice. Most Americans are not going to consider themselves socialist by any means so how do we go about communism? For a long time I considered myself more of an anarchist but the sheer unwillingness of the majority have made me look for another more pragmatic ideological approach.

[Nwoye]

"Socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism."

[redSHARP]

unfortunately, i always thought revolution would start in one place by a core few, then spread to non-red areas. just gather who you can and try to imprint on the minds around you, you can be surprised how many people warm up to an idea with a little name change,

communism = cooperation!

anarchism = social libertarianism (people really like the libertarian part)

[Jimmie Higgins]

As someone who lives in Mississippi I find it very discouraging to hope for a democratic socialist revolution. It seems like where I live the poorer you are the more likely you will vote for the capitalist pig that keeps you living in squalor. I am a very lonely voice. Most Americans are not going to consider themselves socialist by any means so how do we go about communism? For a long time I considered myself more of an anarchist but the sheer unwillingness of the majority have made me look for another more pragmatic ideological approach.

the South is tough because people are so divided - obviously by race, but also because of the anti-union "right-to-work" laws.

Workers often go with the status quo because they are beat-down and think there's no other alternative. But when things begin to change and people see that they can make an impact, watch-out! In the South at least there is the recent history of the civil rights movement - 100 years of people feeling they couldn't take on Jim-Crow and then in a decade, major changes happened. It started modestly (conservatively) and slowly, but as people saw they could stand up, they gained confidence and went from asking the politicians to let them have black bus drivers on black bus routs to DEMANDING equality and and end to blacks being drafted into Vietnam and so on.

My advice would be try to find practical reforms to work on that could lead to more revolutionary opportunities. The obvious one would be support any unionization struggles, get to know the local union activists, find out who the more radical one are and start trying to build a larger movement to fight anti-union laws and politicians. Read about CIO organizing during the depression and communist agricultural organizing in the South, this could help you see how quickly situations can become radical when working people confront their bosses and the goverment.

[Jimmie Higgins]

unfortunately, i always thought revolution would start in one place by a core few, then spread to non-red areas. just gather who you can and try to imprint on the minds around you, you can be surprised how many people warm up to an idea with a little name change,

communism = cooperation!

anarchism = social libertarianism (people really like the libertarian part)
I definitely agree - you must find other people who have similar ideas to start.

However, I think it's better to be as open as possible about your politics - if you end up doing any union organizing or anti-racist work, the right-wingers are going to call you a commie no matter what your politics are. Hell even Obama is a socialist to those guys.

Take the name calling with pride, hell yeah I'm a radical! You're welcome for the weekend by the way!

[New Tet]

As someone who lives in Mississippi I find it very discouraging to hope for a democratic socialist revolution. It seems like where I live the poorer you are the more likely you will vote for the capitalist pig that keeps you living in squalor. I am a very lonely voice. Most Americans are not going to consider themselves socialist by any means so how do we go about communism? For a long time I considered myself more of an anarchist but the sheer unwillingness of the majority have made me look for another more pragmatic ideological approach.

Whoever told you that democracy and its practice are not pragmatic?

[MrTreeFingers]

Well I was just questioning it being pragmatic due to the lack of widespread democratic cooperation. I mean if the majority of the working class is ignorant of the ills of capitalism then its fairly difficult to bring about democratic socialism. We can try to educate the masses from the outside but the system has succeeded in making us look like fringe idealists.

[New Tet]

Well I was just questioning it being pragmatic due to the lack of widespread democratic cooperation. I mean if the majority of the working class is ignorant of the ills of capitalism then its fairly difficult to bring about democratic socialism. We can try to educate the masses from the outside but the system has succeeded in making us look like fringe idealists.

In that case we have to leave the fringe and enter the mainstream of political discourse, educate the working class about the nature of capitalism while presenting them with a viable democratic option, and reach sufficient numbers to effect the change we want.

And what do we want? We want socialism. What is socialism? (http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm)

[mikelepore]

The program has to correspond to the goal. You can't have a revolutionary few command a conservative majority with "do what we say or we will poke you with our bayonets" -- and then expect that program to implement a system that will have the people controlling their own fate by intelligent participation.

[Pawn Power]

For actual and structural revolution to take place it must, out of necessity, be democratic in nature. If not, then there is no real social change- no change in the understanding of power.

Eugene Debs makes the point clearly enough:

"I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I could lead you in, somebody else would lead you out."

[MarxSchmarx]

I mean if the majority of the working class is ignorant of the ills of capitalism then its fairly difficult to bring about democratic socialism. We can try to educate the masses from the outside but the system has succeeded in making us look like fringe idealists.As a matter of fact I think the majority of the working class is deeply cognizant of the ills of capitalism. Working people by large numbers routinely say that corporations make too much money, that wage inequality is unacceptable, that management are parasites, that everyone deserves a basic standard of living, that meaningful jobs should be available to all, etc... At least in the US, poll after poll has shown that workers by large numbers hold these views, and have for some time.

The problem is translating this sentiment into action. Clearly we, as well as the social democrats and unions, have failed miserably for a large number of reasons. So has the kind of soap-box oration you describe (the "fringe" left). It is incumbent upon us to refine our message, to make our case directly to people, and to organize people to realize that their deep seated misgivings about the present order can be translated into action. We haven't found a way to do it yet, far be it from me to claim to have the answers. But it will only be a matter of time before we crack this nut.

[ckaihatsu]

As someone who lives in Mississippi I find it very discouraging to hope for a democratic socialist revolution. It seems like where I live the poorer you are the more likely you will vote for the capitalist pig that keeps you living in squalor. I am a very lonely voice. Most Americans are not going to consider themselves socialist by any means so how do we go about communism? For a long time I considered myself more of an anarchist but the sheer unwillingness of the majority have made me look for another more pragmatic ideological approach.





Well I was just questioning [communism] being pragmatic due to the lack of widespread democratic cooperation. I mean if the majority of the working class is ignorant of the ills of capitalism then its fairly difficult to bring about democratic socialism. We can try to educate the masses from the outside but the system has succeeded in making us look like fringe idealists.





As a matter of fact I think the majority of the working class is deeply cognizant of the ills of capitalism. Working people by large numbers routinely say that corporations make too much money, that wage inequality is unacceptable, that management are parasites, that everyone deserves a basic standard of living, that meaningful jobs should be available to all, etc... At least in the US, poll after poll has shown that workers by large numbers hold these views, and have for some time.

The problem is translating this sentiment into action. Clearly we, as well as the social democrats and unions, have failed miserably for a large number of reasons. So has the kind of soap-box oration you describe (the "fringe" left). It is incumbent upon us to refine our message, to make our case directly to people, and to organize people to realize that their deep seated misgivings about the present order can be translated into action. We haven't found a way to do it yet, far be it from me to claim to have the answers. But it will only be a matter of time before we crack this nut.


I'll agree with MarxSchmarx here and say that I think you're getting caught up too much in labels and demographics -- categories have a way of taking on a life of their own and it soon becomes like trying to manage clouds in the sky....

Abstract thinking is important when it comes to theory, but *not* really so much in practice -- people *know* the reality of the situation from having lived their lives in it -- it *doesn't* mean that that's their favorite topic of discussion, or that they want to jump right in and talk about it with you, a stranger.

I'd say just get people talking about their life reality -- people like to talk about themselves and many people may not *have* any outlets for the discussion of their own work experiences. Start there. Also keep in mind that much of the damage done by the bosses is embarrassing to talk about since it's demeaning to each worker's life (and to all of us) -- maybe *don't* try to bring the discussion around to such serious and dark topics (or grandiose ones, either) right away -- let people share the ups and downs of what it means to work for a living, especially for *their* living.

What we can do as revolutionaries is to bring in some *snippets* of that abstract, generalized thinking that we're so good at, in ways that can give people a better perspective on their own work lives. We can lend a *real* politics as people who are equipped to speak to these work realities on the ground and resonate with them -- we're in counterdistinction to those who are *professionally political* (bourgeois), because we are *not* elitist, careerist propertied politicians pushing a pro-aggrandizement agenda.

The reason we're on the (revolutionary) left in the first place anyway is because leftism best describes the overall situation that regular people (wage workers) are in. Those who care more about the privileged wealthy will publish in newspapers and magazines, and will utilize a skewed worldview that attempts to justify the existing rule of the propertied class based on a variation of the 'divine right of kings'. If anyone you talk to thinks that you're the enemy right away, just bring up some softball points like this one, that you don't think the wealthy are any better or smarter than anyone who has to work for a living....

If the people you talk to want to get hung up on labels right away and dwell on your political identity as an anarchist, just briefly and politely acknowledge it and get on to some concrete discussion, or maybe some small talk first to show that, hey, we're just talking here -- maybe there's a conversation here, or maybe there isn't -- either one of us can walk away at any time, so I'm not the guy trying to load you up with stone tablets, telling you what you should and shouldn't do.

Finally, the movie 'Norma Rae' comes to mind as a good illustration of how *some* organizing can be accomplished -- the beginning steps are just *reaching out* to people, letting them know what kind of animal you are, that you'll be around and reachable, giving them an option to discuss things that they may not have been able to do before....

Whatever conditioning people have received about politics, or Marxism, or anarchism, just let them know that it's different now -- maybe whatever they heard was true 10 years ago, but there's something going on that maybe you can fill them in on -- you're not *that* political creature that they've been hearing so many *bad things* about -- *you're* Mr. Tree Fingers and what you have to share is definitely *not* what they *think* they know about your kind....

Hope this helps...!


Chris





--




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[h9socialist]

Frankly, democracy is a scary thing for people who've been shut out of the process for their entire lives. It shouldn't be surprising that they become conservative -- there's something in human nature that "makes us rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of." Socialist democracy is not simply voting, but gaining real power for the working class. When democratic principles usurp market authority in daily life, socialist democracy will be complete. Until then we engage in struggle to expand the power of worker democracy.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Well I was just questioning it being pragmatic due to the lack of widespread democratic cooperation. I mean if the majority of the working class is ignorant of the ills of capitalism then its fairly difficult to bring about democratic socialism. We can try to educate the masses from the outside but the system has succeeded in making us look like fringe idealists.
Trying to do anything from the outside isn't going to work. But we're not, or we shouldn't be, outside the masses. Are you at work? At school or college? If so, then you're inside somewhere. From there, pick up the local issues that affect people and try to do what you can about them.


I'd say just get people talking about their life reality -- people like to talk about themselves and many people may not *have* any outlets for the discussion of their own work experiences. Start there. Also keep in mind that much of the damage done by the bosses is embarrassing to talk about since it's demeaning to each worker's life (and to all of us) -- maybe *don't* try to bring the discussion around to such serious and dark topics (or grandiose ones, either) right away -- let people share the ups and downs of what it means to work for a living, especially for *their* living.

What we can do as revolutionaries is to bring in some *snippets* of that abstract, generalized thinking that we're so good at, in ways that can give people a better perspective on their own work lives. We can lend a *real* politics as people who are equipped to speak to these work realities on the ground and resonate with them -- we're in counterdistinction to those who are *professionally political* (bourgeois), because we are *not* elitist, careerist propertied politicians pushing a pro-aggrandizement agenda.

The reason we're on the (revolutionary) left in the first place anyway is because leftism best describes the overall situation that regular people (wage workers) are in. Those who care more about the privileged wealthy will publish in newspapers and magazines, and will utilize a skewed worldview that attempts to justify the existing rule of the propertied class based on a variation of the 'divine right of kings'. If anyone you talk to thinks that you're the enemy right away, just bring up some softball points like this one, that you don't think the wealthy are any better or smarter than anyone who has to work for a living....

This, pretty much. Small and winnable is better than big and unwinnable (at least in the short term).

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem is translating this sentiment into action. Clearly we, as well as the social democrats and unions, have failed miserably for a large number of reasons. So has the kind of soap-box oration you describe (the "fringe" left). It is incumbent upon us to refine our message, to make our case directly to people, and to organize people to realize that their deep seated misgivings about the present order can be translated into action. We haven't found a way to do it yet, far be it from me to claim to have the answers. But it will only be a matter of time before we crack this nut.

A recent CPGB article by Lars Lih that I posted in the Theory forum (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blueprint-tyranny-freedom-t111802/index.html) suggests that Lenin himself was "overoptimistic" about workers.

The problem is, we're caught between the above "dogmatic Marxist socialism" (Lih's own words, suggesting his liberalism or social-democratism :blink: ) on the one hand and Bakuninist-Sorelian elitism on the other (that workers can only be conscious by action, the rhetoric of "workers are cowards," "action for action's sake (http://www.revleft.com/vb/conspiracism-and-prophet-t108012/index.html)" that includes even riots, etc.) as documented by CPGB comrade Mike Macnair (http://csukblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/debating-the-marxist-programme-videos-from-communist-university-north/) (29:30 onwards).

[Black Sheep]

communism = cooperation!

anarchism = social libertarianism (people really like the libertarian part)

So anarcho-commies would be " socio-libertarian cooperationists"? :D

[BabylonHoruv]

Don't start throwing words like proletariat or bourgeoisie around, use the words that those around you use, an you'll often find that your conservative neighbor, who has voted republican his entire life, is nearly as communist as you are.

People are not stupid, at least most people aren't, and most of them are ware of the problems with the country. Try to find something you both dislike, have a conversation about it, and work from there. You probably have far more in common than either of you think.

Also, although it does no good to try to hide your politics there's no reason to throw them in someone's face. Once they have agreed with you a few times they'll be more willing to listen to you explain just what an Anarchist is and why you are one.

[MarxSchmarx]

Don't start throwing words like proletariat or bourgeoisie around, use the words that those around you use, an you'll often find that your conservative neighbor, who has voted republican his entire life, is nearly as communist as you are.
...
Also, although it does no good to try to hide your politics there's no reason to throw them in someone's face. Once they have agreed with you a few times they'll be more willing to listen to you explain just what an Anarchist is and why you are one.

To a large degree that seems to be ckaihatsu's point as well:



If the people you talk to want to get hung up on labels right away and dwell on your political identity as an anarchist, just briefly and politely acknowledge it and get on to some concrete discussion, or maybe some small talk first to show that, hey, we're just talking here -- maybe there's a conversation here, or maybe there isn't -- either one of us can walk away at any time, so I'm not the guy trying to load you up with stone tablets, telling you what you should and shouldn't do.Indeed, We shouldn't accept certain views because they fit labels, we should accept certain labels because they fit certain views.

A real challenge for the left is to be able to communicate our views in ways that mesh with how most people think on a day to day basis. A lot of this is about tying in broader struggles to everyday struggles (e.g., workplace organizing) but also speaking to people's broader world views about "the need to look out for each other" etc... And part of this is, yeah, speaking ordinary language to people without having to rely on the other person understanding what is meant by the "surplus value of labor" for instance.



The problem is, we're caught between the above "dogmatic Marxist socialism" (Lih's own words, suggesting his liberalism or social-democratism :blink: ) on the one hand and Bakuninist-Sorelian elitism on the other (that workers can only be conscious by action, the rhetoric of "workers are cowards," "action for action's sake (http://www.revleft.com/vb/conspiracism-and-prophet-t108012/index.html)" that includes even riots, etc.) as documented by CPGB comrade Mike Macnair (http://csukblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/debating-the-marxist-programme-videos-from-communist-university-north/) (29:30 onwards). In many respect, these are two sides of the same coin. I suspect both are a symptom of the divorce of the socialist movement from the broader workers movement. This breeds both a culture of elitism and self-perpetuating dogmatism.

[ckaihatsu]

The problem is, we're caught between [...]


(A finer point here -- we're technically not "caught between" as much as we're "outboxed" by the stripes of the softer left, to our right.)

[ckaihatsu]

Also, MrTreeFingers, please see the 'Political Diagrams' at the link in my prior post -- there are some illustrations there that you can simply download and print out (at home or at the store), to use as visual aids with people you may be talking to....

[CommunityBeliever]

The revolution should be as democratic as possible and if we are not in a revolutionary period then we should be peacefully educating people about our movement so that when it goes down there will be more support from the people.