Why Many Radical Leftists "Grow" To Be Liberals

[Outinleftfield]

I was thinking about how many radical leftists are only radical in their youth and then become liberals or even conservative when they're older.

Then I thought about how hard it would be for me to resist the temptation to participate in capitalism as part of the ruling class if the opportunity presented itself.

I think the main reason for this political transformation is not a gain in knowledge or reason but twisting reason through wishful thinking to conform to your own self-interests. As people grow older especially if they get degrees in college opportunities present themselves and pretty soon they start realizing that if they really wanted to they could be a rich, bourgeois capitalist. At first they are disgusted by the idea but at the same time keep thinking about how nice their life would be. Eventually subconsciously they become more accepting of even flimsy arguments for capitalism, seeing validity where they used to easily see through the arguments and eventually abandoning socialism for liberalism or even conservatism.

Of course most of these people never become rich, but only hope and keep hoping to be rich. Of course some probably do become rich which brings me to the question of whether there are ever wealthy capitalist owners who start wondering if what they're doing is right especially if they used to be socialists. Has any rich owner ever abandoned their position upon converting to socialism.

The main point is that capitalism keeps people supporting it because people are convinced that if they try really hard they can become the rulers. Its ingenious. The rulers get to keep their power by promising everybody that if they just work hard enough they get to be the rulers. Its like how casinos make money. Most people will lose but people come anyways thinking they'll be the ones who get lucky. I can see how this progressed over time. Slave societies couldn't work because status was completely fixed so this gave way to feudalism where status was mostly fixed but there was some mobility in the land-holding system and some peasants even were elevated to lords on occassion, then it became capitalism. It seems that over history social mobility just keeps increasing to keep people dreaming.

In a way primitive communism had a completely fixed social status as everyone was fixed as equal. In a slave society you could still be freed or if an owner made a slave if you committed a crime or lost yourself in a bet so there was some small mobility. The constant is that as society progresses mobility increases, with a few short lapses here and there but the general tendancy is an increase in mobility. What would total mobility look like?

[Die Rote Fahne]

If it gets to the point that I go right past democratic socialism ( I am further left than that now as a Libertarian Socialist) and head toward social democracy, i hope someone smacks the left back into me.

[RHIZOMES]

It's easier on your health to be.

[yuon]

It has been said that you can not change your opinions at all, and move from being a "liberal" to "conservative" within your life. I would suggest that this is particularly true if you think about racism and sexism.

60 years ago it was, to a certain extent, socially acceptable to be racist. If you weren't, you were a bit radical for the times. Now, it's unacceptable to be racist.

Times change.

Anyway, on the specific topic of people actually changing their opinions... Yes, people do. In many cases I suspect it may come down to resignation, the revolution isn't coming, may as well work within the system we have. And, personally, I think that sucks, but what can you do?

Not to mention, people get jobs, and families, and they don't really want to endanger this. Perhaps. :confused: *shrug* :)

[Muzk]

If you are taken by the evil side of power, you weren't radical enough in the first place

You simply wanted things to change so it's better for YOU, in the poor position, but a true revolutionary is not himself, but an objectively thinking "thing", existing for the sole purpose of liberating the poor of the world, getting rid of poverty, all the problems caused by society! We want to change this!

Fuck yes!

[pranabjyoti]

Basically this is a petty-bourgeoisie mentality. Petty-bourgeoisie always oppose capitalism because that stands in the way of his/her to be capitalist. So, before revolution, he/she is very much an active revolutionary. But, after revolution, when the field is cleared and there is no or very little obstacle in the way of being capitalist, then he/she become counter revolutionary and oppose the revolution, which cleared its path.

[mikelepore]

This happens to some because they are originally too optimistic about seeing results. The system seems to be collapsing already. Big changes are right around the corner. As soon as people hear these new proposals they will certainly be persuaded. But then one day they get a big smack in the face: they suddenly realize that a radical is really planting seeds of ideas that may germinate a hundred years after the radical is dead. The imagined gratification is gone.

It happens to some because their radicalism, instead of being independent of the situations in their own lives, was linked to their own adolescent development. They were really rebelling against their parents and upbringing, and going through the life stage of asserting personal independence. This former radical, upon acquiring a job, spouse, baby and house, becomes conservative, while the person whose radicalism was based more on intellectual understanding of how the social system operates will never give up.

It happens to some because their radicalism was too closely linked to specific effects of capaitalism. They were mainly angry because Nixon refused to end the war in Vietnam, or because women weren't allowed to become engineers, or because black people were forced to sit in the back of the bus. Because specific injustices were their main point of reference, they interpreted later social improvements as evidence that the system is self-correcting. Who can oppose a social system that continually realizes its own errors and fixes itself?

It happens to some because their understanding of society is value-laden and not sufficiently technical. They end up dwelling on "brotherhood" and "love", instead of focusing on the need to create new kinds of social structures that will have certain principles of operation.

[Demogorgon]

This happens to some because they are originally too optimistic about seeing results. The system seems to be collapsing already. Big changes are right around the corner. As soon as people hear these new proposals they will certainly be persuaded. But then one day they get a big smack in the face: they suddenly realize that a radical is really planting seeds of ideas that may germinate a hundred years after the radical is dead. The imagined gratification is gone.

It happens to some because their radicalism, instead of being independent of the situations in their own lives, was linked to their own adolescent development. They were really rebelling against their parents and upbringing, and going through the life stage of asserting personal independence. This former radical, upon acquiring a job, spouse, baby and house, becomes conservative, while the person whose radicalism was based more on intellectual understanding of how the social system operates will never give up.

It happens to some because their radicalism was too closely linked to specific effects of capaitalism. They were mainly angry because Nixon refused to end the war in Vietnam, or because women weren't allowed to become engineers, or because black people were forced to sit in the back of the bus. Because specific injustices were their main point of reference, they interpreted later social improvements as evidence that the system is self-correcting. Who can oppose a social system that continually realizes its own errors and fixes itself?

It happens to some because their understanding of society is value-laden and not sufficiently technical. They end up dwelling on "brotherhood" and "love", instead of focusing on the need to create new kinds of social structures that will have certain principles of operation.
You are certainly onto something here, though I would make a few amendments. It is true that one's radicalism isn't going to last unless they have a firm understanding of capitalism. I see a lot of people post here and I think it will be a miracle if they are still radicals in six months never mind five years precisely because they do not understand how capitalism works or because they are focussed on a side issue or whatever.

However at the same time, I don't think you can simply come to a conclusion based on abstract thinking alone. You need to see or experience certain injustices in order to realise something is wrong. I know I started by first of all realising something is fundamentally wrong in the world and it was only later that I was able to conclude what it was exactly that was the problem.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Besides what Mike said, I started out as a liberal, social-democrat and Utopian Socialist of the religious type. In all three instances, moralism trumped any lack of knowledge about class-strugglist politics. If one can't discover this kind of politics, the lapse into more conservative ideology is inevitable.

[Charles Xavier]

Half of this forum is liberals, they rely on moralist arguments. They call George Bush dumb and they think that smoking pot or eating vegan food it will lead to social change. And they think the biggest enemy we have is neo-nazis and individuals rather than this rotten system which ceases to be progressive economically.

[bcbm]

they think that smoking pot or eating vegan food it will lead to social change

half of this forum? name me ONE person who believes this.

[Wanted Man]

half of this forum? name me ONE person who believes this.

I do.

[bcbm]

wanna toke and eat some soy burgers with me?

[Lodestar]

Half of this forum is liberals, they rely on moralist arguments. They call George Bush dumb and they think that smoking pot or eating vegan food it will lead to social change. And they think the biggest enemy we have is neo-nazis and individuals rather than this rotten system which ceases to be progressive economically.

I haven't been here long enough to qualify this statement, but I believe that if one is committed morally to a cause, then we as communists (or socialists) have a responsibility to instruct and inform to the best of our ability to nurture these comrades intellectually so that they may become socialists. Even if there are "liberals" here of the pussy-foot variety, we should be actively working to present scientific socialism enthusiastically and respond to their questions.

sidenote: I am a very frequent pot smoker, but it has nothing to do with my politics, nor do I do it for an anti-authoritarian kick. I just like being stoned.

[Raisa]

I think some people become liberal for this reason:

Their not capitalist sympathisers, but alot of the leadership on the left turns people away because it still reflects the traits of ignorance that are inherant in class systems....and they probably feel like entrusting them with the future is no better.

The main problem this can be attributed to is poor leadership among us.

[Raúl Duke]

wanna toke and eat some soy burgers with me?

lol
:)

[Tower of Bebel]

Don't forget, and those who have a jobs may already know that, but being employed can change a lot. Not only do you have less time for yourself, you're also pushed by your employer, and in some cases by your colleagues, not to foster certain believes and political views. This can, in the long term, result in giving up your own views. But apart from the more personal reasons there are also far more important social reasons.

Social being gives way to social consciousness. A revolutionary consciousness and revolutionary theory, if it wants to have some real and lasting influence, needs a revolutionary proletariat (and consequently a revolutionary organization).

It's because they happen to live under a capitalist hegemony that many on the left turn liberal. Most of the left organizations are unable to implement some basic principles of communism into their own organizations. Besides that, today many struggles are basically treadmill struggles: we're not exactly taking real progressive steps. How can you expect from most leftwing individuals that they keep on going when the only thing that seems to work is capitalism?

The crisis offers us some ideological space for maneuvering, but that wont be enough.

[Wanted Man]

wanna toke and eat some soy burgers with me?

Are they organic?

[cb9's_unity]

I'm still relatively young, so I haven't seen a lot of people go all the way from liberal to socialist to back to liberal, but I have to believe that people who actually start to understand anarchism, socialism, or communism are much more likely to stick with the ideology than someone buying into the capitalist strawman versions. /run-on-sentence

[Angry Young Man]

If you came from uni, then probably because you settle your debts; if you come from work then probably because you have a better pay cheque or have probably been promoted. I'll be long dead before I can turn coat mind. Turning coat's one of many interlinked things that make me never want to be middle-aged.

[Axle]

Honestly, there are probably many reasons why people turn away from radical politics and towards liberalism.

Some may find being a radical is just too much work. We've got theory and capitalist critique out the whazoo, which any true radical should familiarize him or herself with, as none of our views are expressed in the mainstream media...especially not in bite-sized, easy-to-remember nuggets people can regurgitate at will. And we all know being a liberal (or conservative) is too often less about what you know and more about how well you follow party lines.

Some people may genuinely still agree with the radical left, but are put off by our lack of organization, leadership and good solid results, and are attracted to liberalism to feel as though they're part of something that gets shit done (add quotation marks to that last word if it strikes you), not a movement that looks as if its been treading water in this country for fifty years. Liberals have politicians on every ballot, in every level of government in the country; we have forums and an army of minor political parties that hardly anyone but the radical left even know about.

I'm sure everyone's got their own personal reasons for leaving the radical left, though.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Don't forget, and those who have a jobs may already know that, but being employed can change a lot.

Yeah, my views got radicalized. :D


Not only do you have less time for yourself, you're also pushed by your employer, and in some cases by your colleagues, not to foster certain believes and political views. This can, in the long term, result in giving up your own views. But apart from the more personal reasons there are also far more important social reasons.

Time is finite indeed. A simple solution is to minimize (though not eliminate) your "social life" and social circle.

On average, an employed person can do three or four kinds of activity in a particular day or week apart from eating, sleeping, and so on. One of them is work. [For me until recently, the other slots went to part-time uni studies and political development, with some "social life" with RevLefters.]


Besides that, today many struggles are basically treadmill struggles: we're not exactly taking real progressive steps. How can you expect from most leftwing individuals that they keep on going when the only thing that seems to work is capitalism?

The crisis offers us some ideological space for maneuvering, but that wont be enough.

And that is why honest comrades who know there's greater educational, agitational, and organizational potential - beyond treadmill struggles that hold the working class back - don't get "active." :(

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Time is finite indeed. A simple solution is to minimize (though not eliminate) your "social life" and social circle.

You want the shock troops of the revolution to look like this?

http://blogs.tampabay.com/80s/images/2008/01/02/nerds.jpg

No.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It gives more people more time to understand capitalism better while making a living.

We are at that point in time when education and not agitation is important.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Maybe some people leave the radical left because they resent being told to minimise their social life?

[Jazzratt]

The true revolutionary section of society is awkward reculses with asperger's.