how can we make socialism palatable to the "average Joe"?

[LoneWanderer420]

I'm thinking in particular of "social conservatives," people who by virtue of their occupation should be fervent socialists, yet because of "values" support the party who helps keep the Cold War mentality of "communism = evil" alive

I really want to become politically active in my community, but I live in a place where being liberal is considered an extremist position

[RadioRaheem84]

It's going to be really hard and sometimes I just want to give up.

We're going up against a long concerted effort by business and political interests to shift public opinion away from a pro-union past to a rabid right wing alternative universe.

It was very much an effort to dominate the use of "common sense", even though the term itself is wrapped up in nationalist, cultural and economic presumptions.

[Adil3tr]

Attack liberals for their weakness, then exploit common ground between you and your community members.

[Victus Mortuum]

If linguistics is your only issue, abandon the terms that are no longer functioning properly in your community. Say you support legally mandatory worker cooperatives or something as a starting point. Say that dictatorship in economics is just as bad as it is in politics...

[28350]

It isn't?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm thinking in particular of "social conservatives," people who by virtue of their occupation should be fervent socialists, yet because of "values" support the party who helps keep the Cold War mentality of "communism = evil" alive

I really want to become politically active in my community, but I live in a place where being liberal is considered an extremist position

This is the biggest question for the radical left: since revolutionary attitudes are always a minority opinion (until the revolution that is) how do we convince more people that they can and should take radical action? Unfortunately I will not be as brief as I'd like to be in attempting to answer this very big question:D.

Well as I see it there are two major things that prevent people who on an economic level should be in favor of our kinds of politics, but identify as liberal or conservative instead:

1) They don't know what our politics are really about 2) They don't think our politics are relevant.

These are pretty general and broad reasons that could incorporate everyone from rank and file trade unionists with militant ideas to raving Glenn Beck-heads who think socialists run everything. So, I think that it's important to narrow it down... really, there is nothing we can individually do to convince or argue successfully with someone who thinks that the earth is 6000 years old, Obama is a Kenyan Marxist Mulsem, and that Sarah Palin is smart. That 10-15% is not going to be convinced with argument or empirical evidence - they are too polarized and convinced of reactionary ideas and would probably become more so if the country in general went to the left - also they are even in the minority of Republican voters in general (at least half of them are not happy with the tea-parties and most Republicans don't think Sarah Palin would make a good President).

So there's the other section of people with some reactionary or conservative ideas who CAN be convinced through some rational arguments - but even more convinced through a general political shift in the country or first-hand experience with alternative political ideas and tactics. They range from convinced Republicans who may be decent people but identify with that party for whatever reason to other people who are largely the people who say "I don't pay attention to politics" and probably vote sporadically or vote based on impulse or because their friends or family vote that way. This group and their liberal-leaning counterparts can be convinced but since they are normally "passive" about politics, I think arguments alone won't make much ground with them, but this large "neutral group" are the ones who can be won through personal experience even if they currently identify as Democrats, Republicans, or Independents. This is the group is probably most of the people we know at school or work and they are the people who might agree with us on this or that issue but do not see what workers and people do in general as having any effect on anything - they support the system by default because there is no obvious viable alternative in their eyes. Then there are the liberals who are passive supporters of the Democrats. Because they are kind of closer to us on surface issues, they might be convinced through some arguments on this or that issue, but like passive Republican supporters, probably will not be radicalized by arguments and propaganda alone - they will have to be convinced that the Democrats and electoral politics can not solve our problems, but are part of the problem, and that self-activity of workers and grassroots democracy are better options.

Within this group is the smaller percentage of activist liberals - like passive Dem supporters, they have some political similarities with us so we can win some points with political arguments - but unlike the other groups, many grassroots liberal activists, through their activist work, often confront the limitations of the capitalist system and the ability to gain long-lasting reforms - their activity means that they also run up against and have to confront the limitations of establishment liberals and the Democratic Party.

Because of all this, I think it actually does make a difference to be a radical in a reformist union or a liberal coalition - if you are on the grassroots along with them... if you become a signature gatherer for some national liberal group or a paid organizer for a trade-union, then you are kind of a cog for the establishment liberals rather than being a radical working with grassroots and working class liberals (I know many people who have done or do these kinds of jobs, so no offense to the decent individuals who do this kind of work either to make a buck or because they think they are doing something good). The rank and file co-workers or grassroots liberals in anti-war coalitions can be argued with like anyone else in our society, but because they are usually stuck between the messed-up system (and its wars and poverty and so on) on the one hand and ineffectual liberal organizations and politics on the other, they are sort of in the best place to have our politics and ideas make an impact. It's still tough going because a worker might like what you have to say, but then they go home and there are 10 liberals on TV and the radio and newspapers making arguments that go against radical ideas, but if you can build trust with people so they know that you are honest, sincere, and open about your politics, then you can make inroads.

We have been so right about so many things that the liberals have been wrong about... we said the war was bad, based on lies, and for imperialism while Olberman, John Kerry, and every other establishment liberal was waving the flag and cheering bomb drops! Liberals and conservatives have been telling us for years that recessions and capitalist crisis were a Marxist myth. And we were right about Obama and the Democrats... something that most establishment liberals will never admit and grassroots liberals are just now bitterly realizing. So having these arguments which have been more correct than not - and at least more correct than the Democrats and Republicans can have a huge impact if we have an audience for our ideas.

From this small group of radicalizing liberals, we can begin to do more actions that will then help show passive liberals and even some passive Republican voters that self-action, militancy, independence from the Democrats and Republicans or union bureaucracy is effective and can make gains. This will convince more people and so on.

So (sorry so long) in conclusion, I think if we think about trying to convince right-wingers, we will only end up with lots of frustrating a fruitless political arguments with people. So we should focus on people who are open to some sincere political discussion but are also in a position where they are confronted with the realities of this system and our "official allies" in power. We will probably still get into plenty of debates and arguments with liberal grassroots activists, but it will be much more fruitful because if we are in a union together and we make the right kinds of arguments about what the best thing from a working class perspective, then even if we loose that particular argument, when they go the route prescribed to them by politicians or bureaucrats (and they will probably fail at some point because of listening to these forces), in the long run we will prove that our politics make more sense and have better tactics than the status-quo friendly politics of the Democrats and Republicans.

[ckaihatsu]

...Put some hot sauce on it!


= D

[ckaihatsu]

Okay, admittedly I haven't been on the ground much, in favor of doing a lot of incubator-type, developmental stuff here at RevLeft....

But seeing just a *little* of the dazed look among regular liberals these days who have only *just* woken up to the reality that their guy Obama has taken them for a joy ride, and I'm thinking that there's *plenty* of reaping to do.... It's easy pickings at this point....

I agree in spirit with Adil3tr -- it's *not* the time to be doing conciliatory-type marketing here -- it'd be better to just pointedly ask where the new New Deal is, when Bush is going to take the stand for war crimes, how Wall Street is feeling after that 12 trillion in public money, how many killed in Afghanistan, etc.... Then mention the upside of the strikes in Greece, Britain, and Spain (among others, I'm sure).... Also note what the hustle and bustle of a regular city is for, anyway -- are people's actual human needs being served by it all, or should workers maybe control the flow themselves so as to only keep humanity-specific kinds of traffic and services going -- ?

We need to realize that our past investments of "sweat equity" in our "political capital" have just paid off handsomely -- right around the time that Obama announced he was keeping Gates on board from the Bush Administration. Mentioning that'll shut them up *real* fast, and then just keep at it so that they know where *you've* been all the while.... Politically speaking *we're* the ones who have earned the megaphone, so it's time to use it!

[Broletariat]

I'm thinking in particular of "social conservatives," people who by virtue of their occupation should be fervent socialists, yet because of "values" support the party who helps keep the Cold War mentality of "communism = evil" alive

I really want to become politically active in my community, but I live in a place where being liberal is considered an extremist position

Well hello there fellow CEman, decided to come here finally ehh?

[hatzel]

Well, of course the situations 'on the ground' are important, as ever. It should go without saying that there will be times, socio-politically, when the left will seem more desirably, and other times the right will be. Of course the art is identifying when exactly it's right to storm out, attracting people to a new way of thinking. Taking advantage of the prevailing situation, and using it for our own ends, should be a priority...

[LoneWanderer420]

Attack liberals for their weakness, then exploit common ground between you and your community members.
But the thing is conservatives won't see any common ground; they think liberals are commie scum, what are they going to think of an actual communist?


So (sorry so long) in conclusion, I think if we think about trying to convince right-wingers, we will only end up with lots of frustrating a fruitless political arguments with people. So we should focus on people who are open to some sincere political discussion but are also in a position where they are confronted with the realities of this system and our "official allies" in power. We will probably still get into plenty of debates and arguments with liberal grassroots activists, but it will be much more fruitful because if we are in a union together and we make the right kinds of arguments about what the best thing from a working class perspective, then even if we loose that particular argument, when they go the route prescribed to them by politicians or bureaucrats (and they will probably fail at some point because of listening to these forces), in the long run we will prove that our politics make more sense and have better tactics than the status-quo friendly politics of the Democrats and Republicans.
First of all, thanks for the thoughtful response, no need to apologize, it's refreshing to see some actual thinking on the internet. While I think your ideas are pretty much spot on, the problem (for me) is that the reachable demographic you describe is incredibly small in my community (which has the highest concentration per capita of Fortune 500 CEO's anyhwere).



We need to realize that our past investments of "sweat equity" in our "political capital" have just paid off handsomely -- right around the time that Obama announced he was keeping Gates on board from the Bush Administration. Mentioning that'll shut them up *real* fast, and then just keep at it so that they know where *you've* been all the while.... Politically speaking *we're* the ones who have earned the megaphone, so it's time to use it!
Again, while I agree in spirit with pretty much everything you say, the problem is that even with a megaphone, a radical voice in my town is going to be drowned out by the sheer volume (in both senses) of conservatives.


Well hello there fellow CEman, decided to come here finally ehh?
Yeah, I've been lurking for a while, finally decided to take the time to register last night.

[Zanthorus]

Why would we want to make socialism 'palatable' to the 'average joe'?

We are not selling a product, much less to a group of people who I doubt actually exist, or, if they do, that they are, in fact, 'average'.

[LoneWanderer420]

Why would we want to make socialism 'palatable' to the 'average joe'?

We are not selling a product, much less to a group of people who I doubt actually exist, or, if they do, that they are, in fact, 'average'.

I used the scare quotes for a reason, it's easier to say "average Joe" than "working class people who have been indoctrinated by the very party who works against them to despise the party who works for them." Arguing about semantics is not going to help effect the revolution.

[Zanthorus]

I used the scare quotes for a reason, it's easier to say "average Joe" than "working class people who have been indoctrinated by the very party who works against them to despise the party who works for them."

This is not a very homogenous group of people though. The majority of the populations of every industrialised nation on earth right now would fit into this category. Levels of commitment to their specific brand of politics will be widely varied, and I think most people's commitment to bourgeois political parties doesn't go much beyond reading the newspaper once in a while and voting for who seems to be least likely to screw things up. An increasing number of people simply don't vote at all. Countries like Britain and America have voter turnouts around the 60% mark. Since the 'average joe' is such a large and varied group, there isn't going to be any simple change of rhetoric, tactics or image that's going to magically get them all over to our side. I don't even see why we'd want to do that. Again, we are not selling a product on the political marketplace, we are advocating the abolition of all marketplaces. As difficult as it may seem, it will be even more difficult if we try and pretend we're something we aren't. "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."

Frankly, your posts don't give off much evidence that you've actually really tried anything to work with the people in you area. So far, the only reason you've given is that being a liberal is considered extremist, and then asked what they would think of an actual communist.

[ContrarianLemming]

I'm thinking in particular of "social conservatives," people who by virtue of their occupation should be fervent socialists, yet because of "values" support the party who helps keep the Cold War mentality of "communism = evil" alive

I really want to become politically active in my community, but I live in a place where being liberal is considered an extremist position

I'm sure they hate their boss just as much as the next guy, socialism is the theory of "no boss". autogestion is an easilly understood and loved theory, that workers sohuld control their workplace, and that's socialism.

[ckaihatsu]

We need to realize that our past investments of "sweat equity" in our "political capital" have just paid off handsomely -- right around the time that Obama announced he was keeping Gates on board from the Bush Administration. Mentioning that'll shut them up *real* fast, and then just keep at it so that they know where *you've* been all the while.... Politically speaking *we're* the ones who have earned the megaphone, so it's time to use it!





Again, while I agree in spirit with pretty much everything you say, the problem is that even with a megaphone, a radical voice in my town is going to be drowned out by the sheer volume (in both senses) of conservatives.




But the thing is conservatives won't see any common ground; they think liberals are commie scum, what are they going to think of an actual communist?


This is sheer revolutionary defeatism -- we have *zero* need to be concerned about the right or far-right, because it's a *given* that they will defend their privileged material interests to the bitter fucking end.

What concerns *us* is the capitalist *state*, since that's the supposedly benign, quasi-collective modern approach to the administration of society. If the state *didn't* exist we could just swamp the capitalists and the right, presumably in street battles, without interference from the state. But since the state *does* exist it plays the "middleman" role to "mediate" between the interests of labor and capital.

So.... Our day-to-day awareness *has* to involve the politics of the state since that's at the center of it all. And who are the main *upholders* of the supposedly public-interest government?

Yup -- liberals.

Liberals, by definition, are *not* anti-capitalists because they actually provide a political *smokescreen* -- "environmentalism", etc. -- to conceal their fundamental support for the *continuation* of the capitalist state.

If the "average Joe" identifies with their *own* interests as workers, for a bigger paycheck, for improved public services, for more accurate political representation in the workplace, etc., then they are more *class conscious*. If they instead look more towards "change" in the way government is run, then they are liberal reformists and are articulating a set of politics that is *not* in their own best interests as workers (wage-earners).

We can be fancy or we can be plain in making this clear, but the point is to disabuse liberals / workers of the illusions they have that the ruling class will somehow decide to give its revenue *back* to the people it skimmed it from, without a fight.

[Peace on Earth]

Discuss socialism with workers without calling it such. The words socialism, communism, or even progressive now (thanks to Fox News) are considered dirty by many hard working people. But if they're told they will be having more choices of where, when, and how they work, as well as being paid more and having increased amounts of control in the business, I doubt they will look at that with scorn.

[RadioRaheem84]

If you were to talk to any a-political group of workers and discuss Marxism and Socialism with them without mentioning the terms, they will agree with you.

The Problem:

There is always that one person that adheres to right wing conservatism that will chime in when he hears Marxist rhetoric and will then counter the argument with mostly strawmen stuff. He will try to show workers why while it may appear as though we're getting the shaft at work, the "reality" is this (insert right wing bullshit).

During the late 70s and 80s, the corporations and their politicians pumped so much time, money, and effort into organizations that would disseminate and indoctrinate workers, breaking them apart and having them side with management at every turn.

They've become so legitimate that they hide behind their right to free speech no matter repulsive and disgusting their views maybe, especially if they couple their rhetoric with nationalist, racist and elitist undertones.

In their promotion of "common" sense, they've actually attacked it and restructured the way workers view the workplace, seeing themselves as the unproductive ones and management as the naturally selected leaders that they claim themselves to be.

In other words, they've changed the presuppositions of many Americans.

We have to change it to where those presuppositions make about as much sense as the crap we read on the OI forum section.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm sure they hate their boss just as much as the next guy, socialism is the theory of "no boss". autogestion is an easilly understood and loved theory, that workers sohuld control their workplace, and that's socialism.
No, that's just co-operatives.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1. Coffee and muffins.
2. Fucking shit up.

[ckaihatsu]

...Slick pie charts.


= D


Heh -- unfortunately it turns out it's not so much a joke really -- I *am* all for using visual aids to help describe general concepts and their interrelations, and I've done a few myself. But let's stick to the classics here:


http://links.org.au/files/surplusvalue.jpg

[Diello]

Where's this comic from?

(Would quote to indicate the comic, but I'm still three posts away from being able to do images.)

[ckaihatsu]

Where's this comic from?

(Would quote to indicate the comic, but I'm still three posts away from being able to do images.)


For *any* image you come across on the web you can always do a right-click to get a contextual menu and then select 'Copy Image Address' (or something similar) to find its source.


http://links.org.au/files/surplusvalue.jpg

[Diello]

For *any* image you come across on the web you can always do a right-click to get a contextual menu and then select 'Copy Image Address' (or something similar) to find its source.

I meant that in the sense of, who created the cartoon? What was its original context? etc. That is, where did the cartoon itself come from?

I did manage to find these things out pretty easily via Google, and would have inserted an edit to that effect but for the forum downtime.

[ckaihatsu]

I meant that in the sense of, who created the cartoon? What was its original context? etc. That is, where did the cartoon itself come from?


Oh -- well, excuse my "crude materialism" -- (!)


= D

[Diello]

Oh -- well, excuse my "crude materialism" -- (!)


= D

X) Quite all right. I was ambiguous.

By the way, I've just attained the ability to post pictures, so, here, for your amusement:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a256/Emperor_Diello/Album2/50df7e69-d850-474d-bfee-58de8e96e50.jpg

[ckaihatsu]

Goddamn cut-rate knock-offs.... I'm with *that* guy -- I don't want "socialisum" either...!


x D

[Jazzhands]

I think I might have a potential convert. She's a devout Muslim, but not an extremist. She's got this massive crush on Anderson Cooper, she listens to Democracy Now, NPR and Al Jazeera. She talks a lot about the oppression and discrimination faced by Arabs and Muslims in America, and every time she does, I feed her some lines on how racism is a tool used by the ruling class to divide the proletariat, etc. I also posted for her Lenin's speech on Anti-semitism and a WSWS article on the "Ground Zero Mosque". I'm pleased to say she's actually started using some of the arguments made in the article.:cool:

I'm not really sure if she's converted, but my point is, you gotta go for the people who are the worst off under capitalism and those who have problems with really obvious socialist solutions that don't take a lot of Marxist jargon to explain, like racism. Also, avoid calling it "communism" because it sets off an automatic sub-conscious trigger deeply embedded in America's collective psyche that says "COMMUNISM=DICTATORSHIP=BAD!!!"

Some people in this thread have suggested purposefully using confusing tendency-based terminology to obscure their position. That doesn't work either, it just makes you fucking boring. When people ask you what you are, say you advocate the democratic and communal ownership of the means of production. That's easy enough to understand, and it gives them the right message without setting off the COMMUNISM=BAD trigger. The problem is, does anyone actually know a shorthand way to say "democratic and communal ownership of the means of production" that isn't communism?

[ckaihatsu]

a shorthand way to say "democratic and communal ownership of the means of production" that isn't communism


* economic democracy *


Props on the Al Jazeera, btw -- that goes a long way, for *anyone* -- fuck, the U.S. was *bombing* them, fer chrissakes...!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think I might have a potential convert.

How to never appeal to anyone with a spine.

[ckaihatsu]

I think I might have a potential convert.





How to never appeal to anyone with a spine.


x D

x D


Yes, the *preferred* terms here are pilgrim, acolyte, or C'm'ere!


x D

[Jimmie Higgins]

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a256/Emperor_Diello/Album2/50df7e69-d850-474d-bfee-58de8e96e50.jpgWhy do the people who fetishize "individualism" under capitalism all look and think the same? I mean white, 55-70, gray goatee, wrap-around sunglasses... maybe an old baseball cap and a white t-shirt with an American flag or eagle on it and all with the exact same vapid political talking points they got on Fox News. These people came from pods.

By the way, insulting people is not the way to make socialism palatable, but damn, nothing against middle aged white people in general (more people fit that description above than support the tea party stuff) but it's just so apparent that all the tea-party people are coming from the same place in society. They are all the tax-revolters and new-righters from the 1970s in their retirement phase when they have time and pensions and "big-government socialist" checks to cash so they can protest "big government".

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't think it has to be made palatable, if you were discuss these things afresh then of course people would support it. It is the stigma and the right wing media which blocks our politics.

[Rafiq]

How do you explain Socialism to the average joe?

In General, you can't.

The Average Joe doesn't care about Political Ideologies.

However, to someone who is eager to learn, the best way of Explaining Socialism is by first explaining Capitalism.

80% of the World is in poverty.

Almost the whole world is Capitalist.

Something is wrong..

[Rafiq]

I think I might have a potential convert. She's a devout Muslim, but not an extremist. She's got this massive crush on Anderson Cooper, she listens to Democracy Now, NPR and Al Jazeera. She talks a lot about the oppression and discrimination faced by Arabs and Muslims in America, and every time she does, I feed her some lines on how racism is a tool used by the ruling class to divide the proletariat, etc. I also posted for her Lenin's speech on Anti-semitism and a WSWS article on the "Ground Zero Mosque". I'm pleased to say she's actually started using some of the arguments made in the article.:cool:

I'm not really sure if she's converted, but my point is, you gotta go for the people who are the worst off under capitalism and those who have problems with really obvious socialist solutions that don't take a lot of Marxist jargon to explain, like racism. Also, avoid calling it "communism" because it sets off an automatic sub-conscious trigger deeply embedded in America's collective psyche that says "COMMUNISM=DICTATORSHIP=BAD!!!"

Some people in this thread have suggested purposefully using confusing tendency-based terminology to obscure their position. That doesn't work either, it just makes you fucking boring. When people ask you what you are, say you advocate the democratic and communal ownership of the means of production. That's easy enough to understand, and it gives them the right message without setting off the COMMUNISM=BAD trigger. The problem is, does anyone actually know a shorthand way to say "democratic and communal ownership of the means of production" that isn't communism?


If she Isn't an extremist, leave her Religious views be :)

Try to convert her Politically.

Trust me, she won't feel comfortable if you try to convert her religiously, make her aware that she can keep her religious views and still be a Marxist.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's not going to be palatable to people unless something is done to not only change their minds but also their hearts.

Think about it. Most of the world is capitalist, most of the world is poor.

People know the problem is with a ruling class, but think the answer is to give them more power and limit ours (cutting government, i.e. public power and giving more to corporations).

There is something wrong here and it stems not from a rational point of view but an emotional one.

There is no more reasoning with people on this subject. All the evidence is out there and when confronted with the evidence they turn to right wing pundits to get more delusional juice for their crazed beliefs.

People want to be ideologically right. They reject the facts and insist that it's intellectual jargon with no "common sense".

Some love the alternative reality the right has created and in some cases it makes sense if you rationalize from the policies that have been enacted by the ruling class. There is no more money in the system to fund public expenditures. They raided it all. From an owner of industries perspective, raising taxes would hurt jobs, because he or she would pull out of said town.

There is substance in right wing arguments but it's only because they set up the framework and from that framework it is hard to argue against it without looking like an outsider.

That is why Noam Chomsky, Parenti or Zizek or any intelligent person on the left would sound like a loon on FOX, CNN or MSNBC.

[ckaihatsu]

The Average Joe doesn't care about Political Ideologies.


Well, not when we talk about stuffy "political ideologies" when we talk about the news of the day....

More to the point is that we *all* live *in the world* and the world happens to move by certain known forces, which we call 'politics' -- *anyone* is open to understanding and agreeing with *that* much....

So the rest of it is just whether people think that the world is moving in a good direction or not -- if so, why? If not, why not? What do they know of current politics? Who or what do they praise? Who or what do they blame? Etc....

And, at some more advanced level of understanding the more-abstract political discussions of 'political ideologies' among more-explicitly-political people *are* descriptions of the *actual* world....

[Amphictyonis]

(gross stereotype) Promise a free TV and six pack under socialism? But seriously, a four hour work day campaign wouldn't hurt. I'm not sure how that would work in a service sector economy though.

[ckaihatsu]

Some love the alternative reality the right has created and in some cases it makes sense if you rationalize from the policies that have been enacted by the ruling class. There is no more money in the system to fund public expenditures. They raided it all. From an owner of industries perspective, raising taxes would hurt jobs, because he or she would pull out of said town.


More to the point here is why should we allow our civilization's productivity to be held hostage by the likes of ownership? They're just teasing the world into wanting the status quo to continue at any cost, even if it means that financiers and factory owners are the ones we keep on the throne by default....

[Armchair War Criminal]

If you were to talk to any a-political group of workers and discuss Marxism and Socialism with them without mentioning the terms, they will agree with you.
Not to play the cynic, but the same applies to almost any stance. (Hence why you can prove anything with polls, &c.)