Arguing With A Bill-of-Rights Socialist

[Mute Fox]

Hi, this is my second post on RevLeft, and probably not the last one that will feature a friend of mine and his confusing worldview.

So...I have this friend. He calls himself a lot of things, many of which seem to contradict each other, and when I bring this up, he calls me "cynical", "close-minded", a "radical" (as if that's an insult) among other things. Specifically, he calls himself a Marxist, is a member of the CPUSA; calls himself a Buddhist, is a "pastor" in the Universal Life Church, and defends religion and faith tirelessly; loves the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and thinks that we actually have democracy in the United States; and most annoying of all, interprets Ben Franklin's maxim "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" to mean that the reason we don't have socialism/communism is because people know all the facts, know their power as a class, but simply choose to be unfree - hence his support of the idea of a "vanguard party" to take power through the electoral system (or possibly independently) and then "spark" a revolution.

Basically, arguing with this guy gives me headaches, he doesn't seem to want to listen to reason. I think this is partly because of a certain strange belief of his - that people have a "right" to be deluded, oppressed, enslaved, etc, if it makes them happy. Regardless of whether that "happiness" is manufactured through relentless oppression and propaganda, regardless of whether that "happiness" is merely relative to having to starve, he doesn't care. He seriously believes this. He thinks that everyone has perfect awareness of their situation at all times and that if they are oppressed, it's their fault for "choosing" it. This ties in nicely with his parallel belief that people's persona beliefs in general, especially religious ones, should never be questioned. He maintains that by pointing out someone's delusions, you are violating their "right" to believe what they want (and I suppose, not have their feewings hurt, boo-hoo.) He also makes the claim that no one has a hold on objective truth. All in all, he's a big ball of post-modernist, religious-apologist, liberal claptrap that is going to make my head explode.

My first post on RevLeft, which I put in the Research and Online Classes section, detailed how he and I had an argument recently where he demanded I write an essay to defend my stance that the American electoral voting system (including referendums) is mostly useless. He countered my argument by saying that he himself had personally voted on the Patriot Act referendum, and that he didn't see any propaganda or misinformation being fed to people. When I asked hi if he ever actually watched cable news or read newspapers, he demanded an essay. (To clarify, we have a rule which each other that declares that whoever starts an argument must be prepared to wite an essay if the other guy asks for it, or else stop arguing. It's a preventative measure XD)

So...my question is, how do I change my friend's mind regarding his ridiculous and contradictory beliefs, especially his political ones? You see, he is 9 years older than me, and is college-educated, and I have only a high-school education and honestly am kind of thick...are there any simple ways of combating his irrationality that don't lead to me writing essays? Is it possible to argue with somene who can hold these kind of beliefs? It's not just him, either most of my friends are "liberals" who are all freaked out about me becoming a revolutionary leftist, and think I'm being a dick whenever I question their "nobody is right or wrong" attitude. I welcome all of your opinions or suggestions.

[mikelepore]

perfect awareness of their situation at all times

According to Marxian theory, one of the main reasons that workers are NOT aware of their situation is that the wage system itself conceals a robbery. Under feudalism, the vassals could see that they were being robbed. The manorial lord would periodically come around the farm with a train of empty horse-drawn wagons, and say, "I'm taking most of your produce." But in modern times the capitalist gives the worker a legal document that seems to account for all of the labor time expended.

[RED DAVE]

Judging from your description of your "friend," he belongs to a well-known political tendency: elitistassholism. Don't waste your time arguing with him because his primary purpose is to do exactly that: to waste time. As to his age and education: George Bush is over 60 and a Yale/Harvard graduate!

So, read a good book; listen to music; go out on a date; march in a demo; organize a demo. But let that schmuck stew in his own juice.

RED DAVE

[Potemkin]

Greetings,

This is a very interesting situation. And I thought I had difficult friends!

I have two suggestions on where to find some ammo that he might recognize as authoritative. The first is Noam Chomsky. I know he's a controversial figure here, but he has said some good things about oppression and how people often don't even know they are oppressed, due to its complete saturation in society at-large. Specifically, you can find an interview with him given by Barry Pateman online, where he talks about this. I would bring history the history of oppression into the conversation and try to show how deluded it is to assume that everyone knows everything about everything all the time. Obviously, the world just isn't that way.

Secondly, he seems to be taking a very subjective position with regard to people's beliefs. Any philosophy professor can tell you that yes, in a certain sense, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but we must have certain objective qualifications for those opinions if we are to get anywhere collectively as a society. To take such a subjective position would seem to erase any sort of agency anyone has to change anything, and this is obviously unsatisfactory -- just from a commonsensical perspective.

Plus, I'm sure he operates from some sort of moral framework which most probably isn't completely subjective. Actually, I would think that any moral framework would have to not be subjective, and allow for the existence of a certain amount of truth. This "truth," however, does not have to be absolute certainty, as if we set those standards too high, we'll never get anywhere. For instance, I "know" that the sun will rise tomorrow, but technically this is a minute possibility that it won't. For all intents and purposes, I can rely on the fact that the sun will rise, even though I don't have 100% certainty (though it's about as close as it gets).

The point is, there is a lot of room between absolute, dogmatic, and enforced "truths" and the kind of subjective chaos that your friend seems to be advocating.

Also, how can he defend a vanguard party to come to communism and also maintain that people are choosing the lives that they want, and that those choices are inviolable?

I hope this helps you somewhat.

[Mute Fox]

mikelepore: I'm not sure if Marx was really the first to come up with that idea, but nevertheless it's very true. Wages are theft, disguised as a gift. Just like taxes.

Red Dave: Heh...thanks for the advice. It'd be easier to follow if he weren't such a great friend of mine, and otherwise a very kind and generous guy. Also, I'm going to be moving in with him and his family next month (long story.)

Potemkin: Ah, Noam Chomsky. I started reading him in 11th grade, couldn't put him down. He is a controversial figure among leftists (and everyone else, really) but he's a great source of information and analysis. I hadn't thought to use him, so I'm glad you reminded me of how useful he is.

I know what you mean regarding subjectivity and social change, but I think my friend is very much an individualist...the frustrating kind. You pointed out that he must have some sort of objective moral framework for his personal philosophy - and I'm not even sure if he does. If he does, I suppose the task would be to find it, then point it out to him. He may verbally advocate subjective chaos, but he certainly doesn't live by it. Just gotta prove it to him. As for how he can defend a vanguard party to make people's decisions for them, while maintaining that people's subjective choices are inviolable - he mustn't be aware of the contradiction. He, and many other people today including other friends of mine, seem to be infected with this post-modernist "no black or white" attitude, and it makes them prone to simply accept contradictions and then shrug. Just an opinion of mine.

Anyway, thanks comrades for your thoughts.

[Post-Something]

Hi, this is my second post on RevLeft, and probably not the last one that will feature a friend of mine and his confusing worldview.

So...I have this friend. He calls himself a lot of things, many of which seem to contradict each other, and when I bring this up, he calls me "cynical", "close-minded", a "radical" (as if that's an insult) among other things. Specifically, he calls himself a Marxist, is a member of the CPUSA; calls himself a Buddhist, is a "pastor" in the Universal Life Church, and defends religion and faith tirelessly; loves the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and thinks that we actually have democracy in the United States; and most annoying of all, interprets Ben Franklin's maxim "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" to mean that the reason we don't have socialism/communism is because people know all the facts, know their power as a class, but simply choose to be unfree - hence his support of the idea of a "vanguard party" to take power through the electoral system (or possibly independently) and then "spark" a revolution.

Basically, arguing with this guy gives me headaches, he doesn't seem to want to listen to reason. I think this is partly because of a certain strange belief of his - that people have a "right" to be deluded, oppressed, enslaved, etc, if it makes them happy. Regardless of whether that "happiness" is manufactured through relentless oppression and propaganda, regardless of whether that "happiness" is merely relative to having to starve, he doesn't care. He seriously believes this. He thinks that everyone has perfect awareness of their situation at all times and that if they are oppressed, it's their fault for "choosing" it. This ties in nicely with his parallel belief that people's persona beliefs in general, especially religious ones, should never be questioned. He maintains that by pointing out someone's delusions, you are violating their "right" to believe what they want (and I suppose, not have their feewings hurt, boo-hoo.) He also makes the claim that no one has a hold on objective truth. All in all, he's a big ball of post-modernist, religious-apologist, liberal claptrap that is going to make my head explode.

My first post on RevLeft, which I put in the Research and Online Classes section, detailed how he and I had an argument recently where he demanded I write an essay to defend my stance that the American electoral voting system (including referendums) is mostly useless. He countered my argument by saying that he himself had personally voted on the Patriot Act referendum, and that he didn't see any propaganda or misinformation being fed to people. When I asked hi if he ever actually watched cable news or read newspapers, he demanded an essay. (To clarify, we have a rule which each other that declares that whoever starts an argument must be prepared to wite an essay if the other guy asks for it, or else stop arguing. It's a preventative measure XD)

So...my question is, how do I change my friend's mind regarding his ridiculous and contradictory beliefs, especially his political ones? You see, he is 9 years older than me, and is college-educated, and I have only a high-school education and honestly am kind of thick...are there any simple ways of combating his irrationality that don't lead to me writing essays? Is it possible to argue with somene who can hold these kind of beliefs? It's not just him, either most of my friends are "liberals" who are all freaked out about me becoming a revolutionary leftist, and think I'm being a dick whenever I question their "nobody is right or wrong" attitude. I welcome all of your opinions or suggestions.

Well, which part of this exactly don't you agree with?

[Post-Something]

Hi, this is my second post on RevLeft, and probably not the last one that will feature a friend of mine and his confusing worldview.

So...I have this friend. He calls himself a lot of things, many of which seem to contradict each other, and when I bring this up, he calls me "cynical", "close-minded", a "radical" (as if that's an insult) among other things. Specifically, he calls himself a Marxist, is a member of the CPUSA; calls himself a Buddhist, is a "pastor" in the Universal Life Church, and defends religion and faith tirelessly; loves the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and thinks that we actually have democracy in the United States; and most annoying of all, interprets Ben Franklin's maxim "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" to mean that the reason we don't have socialism/communism is because people know all the facts, know their power as a class, but simply choose to be unfree - hence his support of the idea of a "vanguard party" to take power through the electoral system (or possibly independently) and then "spark" a revolution.

Basically, arguing with this guy gives me headaches, he doesn't seem to want to listen to reason. I think this is partly because of a certain strange belief of his - that people have a "right" to be deluded, oppressed, enslaved, etc, if it makes them happy. Regardless of whether that "happiness" is manufactured through relentless oppression and propaganda, regardless of whether that "happiness" is merely relative to having to starve, he doesn't care. He seriously believes this. He thinks that everyone has perfect awareness of their situation at all times and that if they are oppressed, it's their fault for "choosing" it. This ties in nicely with his parallel belief that people's persona beliefs in general, especially religious ones, should never be questioned. He maintains that by pointing out someone's delusions, you are violating their "right" to believe what they want (and I suppose, not have their feewings hurt, boo-hoo.) He also makes the claim that no one has a hold on objective truth. All in all, he's a big ball of post-modernist, religious-apologist, liberal claptrap that is going to make my head explode.

My first post on RevLeft, which I put in the Research and Online Classes section, detailed how he and I had an argument recently where he demanded I write an essay to defend my stance that the American electoral voting system (including referendums) is mostly useless. He countered my argument by saying that he himself had personally voted on the Patriot Act referendum, and that he didn't see any propaganda or misinformation being fed to people. When I asked hi if he ever actually watched cable news or read newspapers, he demanded an essay. (To clarify, we have a rule which each other that declares that whoever starts an argument must be prepared to wite an essay if the other guy asks for it, or else stop arguing. It's a preventative measure XD)

So...my question is, how do I change my friend's mind regarding his ridiculous and contradictory beliefs, especially his political ones? You see, he is 9 years older than me, and is college-educated, and I have only a high-school education and honestly am kind of thick...are there any simple ways of combating his irrationality that don't lead to me writing essays? Is it possible to argue with somene who can hold these kind of beliefs? It's not just him, either most of my friends are "liberals" who are all freaked out about me becoming a revolutionary leftist, and think I'm being a dick whenever I question their "nobody is right or wrong" attitude. I welcome all of your opinions or suggestions.

Well, which part of this exactly don't you agree with?
The main one I see here is that people choose to be unfree. What does freedom mean?
How can one be said to be free when we now understand the motives behind such things as the Public Relations Industry? Every serious big business employs a group of psychiatrists specifically to sell to our inate insecurities and desires. The proof is all around you, everything from billboards with attractive women on them to shop display windows. We are taught what to desire from an early age. What you should ask your friend is "if we are free, then why are we marketed to based on our desires, which can be manipulated, rather than our actual needs; collectively?"

[Robocommie]

Speaking as a Marxist Buddhist myself, this guy sounds like he's lying to himself to cover up some belief of his own he doesn't want to part with. One of the central ideas of Buddhism is seeing through illusion - if he feels that people can be happy WITH illusion then he's not really getting the gist of either Marxism OR Buddhism.

And you can't really be a Constitutionalist and a Marxist. Sure, you can respect the Bill of Rights for what it is - a document that strongly promotes the idea of the individual as having certain rights and freedoms bestowed by nature, not by the state. But a true Marxist will also understand that the US Constitution and its legal philosophy, while admirable in it's own light, is obsolete. It played its part in advancing Liberalism from the old feudal mode of production into capitalism, but it is now superceded by socialism.

In short, the Constitution rests on Lockean philosophy which is incompatible with Marxism because it assumes that the ownership of private property is an inherent natural right.

Like I said, your friend sounds like he's clutching to some deeply held attachments unrelated to Marxism OR Buddhism and justifying them through gasbaggery. Don't let him upset you; just ignore his bullshit. If he's your friend for other reasons, try to live and let live and hope he comes around.

[Mute Fox]

Well, which part of this exactly don't you agree with?Sorry if I wasn't clear. For the sake of brevity, I merely assumed that the people that would respond to my post would disagree with my friend's beliefs as I laid them out. If you want to know specifically what statements I disagree with, I can lay them out briefly for you:

- "...people have a "right" to be deluded, oppressed, enslaved, etc, if it makes them happy. Regardless of whether that "happiness" is manufactured through relentless oppression and propaganda, regardless of whether that "happiness" is merely relative to having to starve..."
- "Ben Franklin's maxim "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"...mean[s] that the reason we don't have socialism/communism is because people know all the facts, know their power as a class, but simply choose to be unfree..."
- "support[s]...the idea of a "vanguard party" to take power through the electoral system (or possibly independently) and then "spark" a revolution."
- "everyone has perfect awareness of their situation at all times and...if they are oppressed, it's their fault for "choosing" it."
- "people's persona beliefs in general, especially religious ones, should never be questioned...by pointing out someone's delusions, you are violating their "right" to believe what they want...."
- "no one has a hold on objective truth."


The main one I see here is that people choose to be unfree. What does freedom mean?
How can one be said to be free when we now understand the motives behind such things as the Public Relations Industry? Every serious big business employs a group of psychiatrists specifically to sell to our inate insecurities and desires. The proof is all around you, everything from billboards with attractive women on them to shop display windows. We are taught what to desire from an early age. What you should ask your friend is "if we are free, then why are we marketed to based on our desires, which can be manipulated, rather than our actual needs; collectively?"Not only through the advertising, but through "news" outlets, through popular culture, public (and private) education, television programs, magazines, music, movies, et cetera. We're awash in a sea of propaganda from birth. Not only are we marketed to by ad agencies, but by the State. As Chomsky argued in Manufacturing Consent, the big reason people are unfree is not because they choose to be, but because they think they are actually free. I will definitely ask my friend your question, as well as some new ones of my own, when I next have the chance.


Originally posted by Robocommie
Speaking as a Marxist Buddhist myself, this guy sounds like he's lying to himself to cover up some belief of his own he doesn't want to part with. One of the central ideas of Buddhism is seeing through illusion - if he feels that people can be happy WITH illusion then he's not really getting the gist of either Marxism OR Buddhism.

And you can't really be a Constitutionalist and a Marxist. Sure, you can respect the Bill of Rights for what it is - a document that strongly promotes the idea of the individual as having certain rights and freedoms bestowed by nature, not by the state. But a true Marxist will also understand that the US Constitution and its legal philosophy, while admirable in it's own light, is obsolete. It played its part in advancing Liberalism from the old feudal mode of production into capitalism, but it is now superceded by socialism.

In short, the Constitution rests on Lockean philosophy which is incompatible with Marxism because it assumes that the ownership of private property is an inherent natural right.

Like I said, your friend sounds like he's clutching to some deeply held attachments unrelated to Marxism OR Buddhism and justifying them through gasbaggery. Don't let him upset you; just ignore his bullshit. If he's your friend for other reasons, try to live and let live and hope he comes around.

Yeah, he seems to me to be a very deeply confused individual. When you said he seems like he's lying to himself to hang on to some belief he doesn't want to part with, I think you hit the nail on the head. That' exactly what it seems like when I'm arguing with him. I just don't know what it is he's trying to defend. When I point out the contradictions in his beliefs, he just dismisses me as "close-minded", etc. As I said in my first post, he and most of my other friends seem to be infected with this (seemingly common) liberal viewpoint that all beliefs are reconcilable with each other and that "there's no black or white." Makes me sick to my stomach, it does. Maybe I shall start a thread in Philosophy addressing this bullshit.

[ajs]

i unfortunately dont have any useful suggestions; however, that seems like quite a maddening individual to discuss politics with and i would probably just refrain generally to save myself the fury. :sneaky:


Hi, this is my second post on RevLeft, and probably not the last one that will feature a friend of mine and his confusing worldview.

So...I have this friend. He calls himself a lot of things, many of which seem to contradict each other, and when I bring this up, he calls me "cynical", "close-minded", a "radical" (as if that's an insult) among other things. Specifically, he calls himself a Marxist, is a member of the CPUSA; calls himself a Buddhist, is a "pastor" in the Universal Life Church, and defends religion and faith tirelessly; loves the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and thinks that we actually have democracy in the United States; and most annoying of all, interprets Ben Franklin's maxim "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" to mean that the reason we don't have socialism/communism is because people know all the facts, know their power as a class, but simply choose to be unfree - hence his support of the idea of a "vanguard party" to take power through the electoral system (or possibly independently) and then "spark" a revolution.

Basically, arguing with this guy gives me headaches, he doesn't seem to want to listen to reason. I think this is partly because of a certain strange belief of his - that people have a "right" to be deluded, oppressed, enslaved, etc, if it makes them happy. Regardless of whether that "happiness" is manufactured through relentless oppression and propaganda, regardless of whether that "happiness" is merely relative to having to starve, he doesn't care. He seriously believes this. He thinks that everyone has perfect awareness of their situation at all times and that if they are oppressed, it's their fault for "choosing" it. This ties in nicely with his parallel belief that people's persona beliefs in general, especially religious ones, should never be questioned. He maintains that by pointing out someone's delusions, you are violating their "right" to believe what they want (and I suppose, not have their feewings hurt, boo-hoo.) He also makes the claim that no one has a hold on objective truth. All in all, he's a big ball of post-modernist, religious-apologist, liberal claptrap that is going to make my head explode.

My first post on RevLeft, which I put in the Research and Online Classes section, detailed how he and I had an argument recently where he demanded I write an essay to defend my stance that the American electoral voting system (including referendums) is mostly useless. He countered my argument by saying that he himself had personally voted on the Patriot Act referendum, and that he didn't see any propaganda or misinformation being fed to people. When I asked hi if he ever actually watched cable news or read newspapers, he demanded an essay. (To clarify, we have a rule which each other that declares that whoever starts an argument must be prepared to wite an essay if the other guy asks for it, or else stop arguing. It's a preventative measure XD)

So...my question is, how do I change my friend's mind regarding his ridiculous and contradictory beliefs, especially his political ones? You see, he is 9 years older than me, and is college-educated, and I have only a high-school education and honestly am kind of thick...are there any simple ways of combating his irrationality that don't lead to me writing essays? Is it possible to argue with somene who can hold these kind of beliefs? It's not just him, either most of my friends are "liberals" who are all freaked out about me becoming a revolutionary leftist, and think I'm being a dick whenever I question their "nobody is right or wrong" attitude. I welcome all of your opinions or suggestions.

[Montes]

To be honest, your post kind of reminded me of the way a Christian missionary would try to get his point across. "He thinks it's okay for someone to not believe and go to hell, so long as they're 'happy'. He seriously believes this!"

Didn't mean to offend if this does.

[Mute Fox]

Originally posted by Montes
To be honest, your post kind of reminded me of the way a Christian missionary would try to get his point across. "He thinks it's okay for someone to not believe and go to hell, so long as they're 'happy'. He seriously believes this!"

Didn't mean to offend if this does.

No offense taken; but I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Are you comparing my tone with that of a missionary? I wasn't preaching (unless it was to the choir), so...

I think you were looking at this part here:


Basically, arguing with this guy gives me headaches, he doesn't seem to want to listen to reason. I think this is partly because of a certain strange belief of his - that people have a "right" to be deluded, oppressed, enslaved, etc, if it makes them happy. Regardless of whether that "happiness" is manufactured through relentless oppression and propaganda, regardless of whether that "happiness" is merely relative to having to starve, he doesn't care. He seriously believes this.

Obviously, someone who is deluded, oppressed, and enslaved is much less happy than if they weren't all these things. I'm not arguing that people have to believe a certain thing to be happy, as you seem to be implying. People can believe whatever they want. Some beliefs, of course, lead to actions (or inactions) that are, shall we say, less than productive. I would never argue for someone's "right" not to have their cozy illusions disturbed, if it would improve their life - which is what my friend is doing. It's a bourgeois attitude - "Let the little people believe whatever they want, as long as it doesn't conflict with the established order." This is why spreading the message of revolutionary leftism is qualitatively different from missionary preaching.

[Nihilus]

Even being new and all, what with the lack of knowledge, I decided to throw my light commentary into the mix.

As it was said earlier, Buddhism has a strong creed about throwing off the bonds of illusion, of living a life of clarity in vision and mind. He seems to be forgetting that a people oppressed, whether they are aware of their oppression, is still an unhappy people. Believing in an ideal is all well and good, but his definitely seem counter productive, not too mention from the sounds of it, personally aggravating. His ideal stands to further the agenda of exactly what you and the rest here are trying to fight against.

I'd say the next time you talk with him, make sure to be prepared for whatever he's about to throw at you. He sounds like he's pulling from multiple sources to throw at you, and especially with someone who's received more education and experience, they're more than likely doing it to confuse and overwhelm you. A tactic I'm sure can be well realized with the government.

On a related side-note, it's a bit foolish for him to think the electoral process has any bearing on what happens here. Even at the lowest of political levels, the common people have only minimal say in what occurs. For instance, as you brought up the Patriot Act in your first post, that was brought through Congress, we as the citizens had no say in whether that occured or not. The referendum he's referring too (I may be wrong, so correct me if I am) is more of the one's that occurred on a smaller scale, at town, county, and sometimes state levels that repealed the Patriot Act. The faulty detail with that is no matter what the federal government can still act on it because the Patriot Act works on a federal level which obviously overrides any state level laws.

I hope this was at least minutely helpful, but keep it up and keep your head on straight, your friend is a handful too be sure.

[Montes]

No offense taken; but I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Are you comparing my tone with that of a missionary? I wasn't preaching (unless it was to the choir), so...

I think you were looking at this part here:



Obviously, someone who is deluded, oppressed, and enslaved is much less happy than if they weren't all these things. I'm not arguing that people have to believe a certain thing to be happy, as you seem to be implying. People can believe whatever they want. Some beliefs, of course, lead to actions (or inactions) that are, shall we say, less than productive. I would never argue for someone's "right" not to have their cozy illusions disturbed, if it would improve their life - which is what my friend is doing. It's a bourgeois attitude - "Let the little people believe whatever they want, as long as it doesn't conflict with the established order." This is why spreading the message of revolutionary leftism is qualitatively different from missionary preaching.

Fair enough. I don't mean to spout bourgeois bull; I'm still fairly new to the revolutionary concepts.

[Hexen]

I guess the person that Mute Fox was describing are one of the reasons/examples why there will never be a socialist revolution in the US since the working classes there are severely mentally ill and delusional due to hallucinates they have been force fed all their lives eversince childbirth (Red Scare, McCarthyism, Cold War propaganda...).

[#FF0000]

I guess the person that Mute Fox was describing are one of the reasons/examples why there will never be a socialist revolution in the US since the working classes there are severely mentally ill and delusional due to hallucinates they have been force fed all their lives eversince childbirth (Red Scare, McCarthyism, Cold War propaganda...).

Never? Listen, the U.S. working class isn't exactly on the brink of revolution, but don't start throwing absolutes like "never" when you're talking about society and history. Anyone who says things will never change is always proven wrong over time.

Also, OP, I wouldn't worry about changing his mind. People who hold so many contradictory beliefs while being so oblivious about it are really more trouble than they're worth.

[Mute Fox]

Originally posted by Montes
Fair enough. I don't mean to spout bourgeois bull; I'm still fairly new to the revolutionary concepts.

That's okay; so am I, which is why I'm posting here in Learning. I didn't mean to suggest that you were spouting bourgeois nonsense, by the way - I was talking about my friend's attitude. I just didn't know what you were trying to prove by comparing me to a Christian missionary.


Originally posted by Hexen
I guess the person that Mute Fox was describing are one of the reasons/examples why there will never be a socialist revolution in the US since the working classes there are severely mentally ill and delusional due to hallucinates they have been force fed all their lives eversince childbirth (Red Scare, McCarthyism, Cold War propaganda...).

Along with Loveschach, I'd have to say "never say never." I do think it's true that Americans are much less class-conscious compared to say, Europeans. You have to remember, though, that this financial crisis won't be the last, that the war in the middle east won't be the last, that the daily abuses heaped on the American people by the State and the bourgeoisie won't stop coming (and will in all likelihood just get worse and worse.) A tipping point will come, probably within our lifetimes.


Originally posted by Loveschach
Also, OP, I wouldn't worry about changing his mind. People who hold so many contradictory beliefs while being so oblivious about it are really more trouble than they're worth.

Probably, for most people. This guy is really great friend in all other respects, though, and I can't help but feel that he'd make a great Comrade if I could get him to see reason. People can change, too - only 3 years ago, I was a liberal theist who was seriously considering becoming a Muslim. People hold contradictory beliefs, IMO, because they are ignorant to the true causes of their misery and will latch on to anything to justify the material conditions of their lives. Obviously, my friend's "philosophy" is some kind of adaptation to protect some part of his identity...or something. I'm no psychologist.

I do know that I want to change his mind, and that I have plenty of time to do so. I recently turned a different friend of mine onto revolutionary leftism, and he was a liberal before. Dispelling ignorance becomes addictive. :D

[Nihilus]

People hold to those contradicting beliefs for the sake of themselves. To have too change one's strongly held beliefs is to loose faith in things that have sustained them for practically their whole lives. Let going of those believes and taking on something else is well revolutionary to them, and despite how open and honest a person may seem, that kind of change can scare them senseless. Which is exactly what most of those beliefs are, senseless.

Each person responds differently to different forms of persuasion so to speak. Personally, logical points are a strong swaying point for me. That which restricts me is my own personal pride and sometimes arrogance. To have to change my beliefs would mean that I would have to admit I was wrong, which is very difficult at times.

Beliefs run deeper than simple tastes of food, or passing knowledge, they run a lot deeper than that. It requires a type of introspection that most people never even attempt to reach in their lives. Also it would require them to lose faith in a system that they feel has taken care of them and their family.

I think what's needed is to find the person's point of reason, and use that to your advantage while trying to get past their weak point. Obviously some people will never let go of their beliefs, ever. They'll cling to it like a frightened child, often times quite aggressively. I'd say patience and persistance is the key.