Is the radicalization of liberals a good thing?

[RadioRaheem84]

Some liberals seem to growing a backbone and while I appreciate their staunch stance against the emerging right wing movement in the country, I do not know if I could really trust them to take their radicalism beyond even a social democratic tone.

Some progressive liberals might call for universal healthcare and free higher education, but it also seems as though they would turn their new found anger at Marxists too.

Right Wingers scoff or even get angry at the though of Marxists, but liberals get annoyed and irritated at Marxists or Socialists in a manner that is unseen among other groups.

Right Wingers, in their own twisted minds, expect to deal with Marxists since they continually confuse or conflate liberalism with socialism, but liberals know the difference and therefore try their best to shun Marxists in the most intellectually marginalizing ways.

They're the first to call us dogmatic, following old rhetoric and want us banned from the political debate so as to not be associated with us due to the erroneous right wing conflation.

They seem more desperate to purge us from politics, usurp our ideas, use our populist like rhetoric and claim to be the workers people.

I just do not look forward to the radicalization of rather smug and arrogant people.

[graymouser]

The thing is, radicalization is always going to be an uneven process, and take backward as well as useful forms. There might even be people who come all the way over, at least temporarily - like AJ Muste, who went from a Christian pacifist background to merging with the Trotskyists in the '30s, and later returned to his roots. Such liberals also bring interested followers left with them, and some of those might turn out to be potential real Marxists. After all, radicals have to come from somewhere.

Someone like Chris Hedges or Cindy Sheehan who goes left may at first call people "dogmatic" or what have you for using ideas that are not new and popular, but that's really their problem. The Marxist approach should be to welcome their leftward shift but critically, with an emphasis on the remnants of liberalism as well as the ultra-left elements that usually accompany this kind of transformation.

[devoration1]

Leftists & liberals require a more militant tone when the workers start engaging in a higher level of class struggle. Even in revolutionary times, leftists and liberals will speak the language of revolution. It is not a good thing, as it further mystifies the workers as to who their legitimate allies are, and whether or not they can still have faith in electioneering, parliamentarism, etc.

Though there has been some growth (that is rising) in the numbers throughout the working class political camp, so yes, these people do have to 'come from somewhere' and often break with liberalism, leftism, unionism, etc.

Our enemies are our enemies because of the class they serve. The goal of militant rhetoric and posturing on the part of liberals and leftists is to recuperate the extra-parliamentary groups and the workers who support them in times of active and open struggle back to the fold of voting for the left parties. We're just starting to see the beginnings of this process.

[MellowViper]

I think if we can get more social spending, like on healthcare, that's great. That's enough to make me want to side with liberals. However, I'd like to persuade them to go after sweat shop labor and the exploitation of the third world by the corporatist system too. That's where I think liberalism isn't radical enough. However, they're very brain washed by right wing media if they think I want gulags, and no free speech and no open elections and that sort of thing.

[L.A.P.]

I see what you're saying, Liberals don't want to look like Socialists so they would be quick to shun them away. The only way to solve the problem is education.

[The Red Next Door]

It could be a good thing; i came from a radical liberal background myself and that lead me to become further to the left. I start off with democracy now and free speech and link tv when i was 10

[Blackscare]

No, it's a terrible thing. We can't let them into our club that would be lame as hell :mad:

[Reznov]

Question, what are you basing your claims off of?

[TwoSevensClash]

Question, what are you basing your claims off of?
Some of the kids at Daily Kos are talking about class struggle.

[MellowViper]

It could be a good thing; i came from a radical liberal background myself and that lead me to become further to the left. I start off with democracy now and free speech and link tv when i was 10

I envy you. I wish I would have become a socialist sooner.

[Rusty Shackleford]

all i can say is i hate radical liberals.


but if they become radical socialists then its all good. cuz radical liberals are annoying as fuck.

[Salyut]

I think the Left needs to run a outreach program of sorts. Big public letters to Moore/Hedges asking them to ditch liberalism and chill with the far-left or something.

[Tzonteyotl]

Education, as xx1994xx pointed out, could help, I agree. For liberals who already know the difference between liberalism and socialism and chose to attack socialism however, I don't see it being of much use there (obviously). That being said, whether or not it's good or bad just depends. Regardless of that though, we communists/anarchists are likely going to point out any shortcomings such radical liberals might demonstrate. And through that, perhaps we can open some eyes and gain comrades from their ranks who come to see things as we do. Other than that, I don't see a reason to get too caught up in it. The liberals who keep to their anti-socialist stand we just have to keep fighting as we would the conservatives or anyone else spreading myths about socialism. That's all we can do about that, really.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Some of the kids at Daily Kos are talking about class struggle.
You're referring to that thread that confuses "class struggle" with "class conflict" and leaves out any reference to AAs and Native Americans. On the other hand, a number of bloggers have pointed that out already. On the foot ('cause I ran out of hands) the "kid" who posted this diary was on the anti-capitalist meetup a few weeks back (dailykos.com, Sundays at 6:00 pm est) jabbering how he didn't know anything about communism, and got himself schooled real fast. So, yeah, it's a relief that the libruls aren't beating up on the commies right this minute, after all, they need us. My tactic is more Marx than Jules Guesde: work with 'em, encourage others to work with 'em, but don't have any illusions and don't give others any illusions that they'll turn on you when they feel they can. At least some will. Others will have come over to the Red Side by then.

[Tzonteyotl]

You're referring to that thread that confuses "class struggle" with "class conflict" and leaves out any reference to AAs and Native Americans. On the other hand, a number of bloggers have pointed that out already. On the foot ('cause I ran out of hands) the "kid" who posted this diary was on the anti-capitalist meetup a few weeks back (dailykos.com, Sundays at 6:00 pm est) jabbering how he didn't know anything about communism, and got himself schooled real fast. So, yeah, it's a relief that the libruls aren't beating up on the commies right this minute, after all, they need us. My tactic is more Marx than Jules Guesde: work with 'em, encourage others to work with 'em, but don't have any illusions and don't give others any illusions that they'll turn on you when they feel they can. At least some will. Others will have come over to the Red Side by then.

This along with MellowViper's post raises a separate issue. At least, I think it's different from the original post asking whether radicalization of liberals is good or bad. As far as that goes, it just depends. Now however, is the question of whether or not we should work with liberals. It's pragmatic, sure. But even there, it just depends. Do the liberals any of us choose to work with know we're socialists? To what end does collaboration work if they intend to stay liberals? Seems like, given the fact they can turn on us as you mention, this is more a benefit for them; a greater compromise on our part than theirs. What exactly will the nature of such a collaboration be?

[RedZelenka]

My view of things is pretty much that the parliamentary parties are obsessed with cultural meddling and only intervene in the economy to achieve that. They've basically accepted an interventionist capitalist paradigm and don't even intend to socialize the economy. This is bad for two reason:; one because they have abandoned socialism even as an idea; two because interventionism is only acceptable as a method to destroying private capital, as an economic system it is vastly inferior to capitalism and can't work.

I have had a fair amount of experience talking to and observing different parliamentary liberal parties here, and many that call themselves socialists. They're basically just pushing a bunch of irrelevant loony-left stuff, they've diverted themselves away from the economic issues into bullshit that they can pursue forever without threatening the capitalist economy or the warfare agenda.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Comrade, we should welcome genuine radicalisation of anyone, in terms of a move over to our side.

However, I understand what you're saying as not to really be radicalisation, but a set of liberals with already long-defined (i.e. not in any process of sudden class awakening, but simply people of any class with certain views) left-liberal views on things like universal free healthcare and education, but nothing beyond that.

There's no war but the class war. Frankly, even 'left' liberals like Pelosi and Reid can fuck right off. They're not the working class, they don't represent the working class and we don't need to beg for crumbs off their table.

[palotin]

Any radicalization on the part of the libs is a good thing. I'm assuming a 'radical liberal' to be one who has reached the conclusion that treating their opponents with kid gloves and fetishizing 'bipartisanship' comes into irreconcilable conflict with their political program of civil liberties and the promotion of conditions in which individuals can be the authors of their own lives. Whenever libs start taking their own program seriously they become susceptible to genuine radicalization. It becomes much easier to demonstrate that true human freedom is not possible in a system of class dominance.

[The Red Next Door]

I envy you. I wish I would have become a socialist sooner.

Not I was a radical liberal dilettante socialist; who didn't even bother to study marxist until 18. I was a social democrat who wanted to live in a big mason with a benz in the drive way. I was no socialist back then and i even wanted to joining the DEA, so can fire so guns. but now i have became fully socialist and still trying to get rid of some of my bourgeoisness. which is ironic because i am a poor motherfucker.

[ckaihatsu]

Call me what you will from this, but I think that one's politics should not equate to personal identity and material goals. Part of liberalism does exactly that -- "lifestylism" -- while solidly Marxist-collectivist politics helps us to realize that society and politics are greater than any one of us, and in turn provides the common material base from which we can (or should be able to) live our own lives.

[RadioRaheem84]

I do not want anyone in here to get the impression that I discount any potential comrade from joining the ranks because he is a liberal. I am pragmatic to an extent.

My point is that it seems as though liberals, especially radical ones (radical in their own ideology) really believe that they're the last hope for mankind. They notice injustice and the acknowledge the growing gap between rich and poor but ultimately believe in a benign form of capitalism. At most they would go for social democracy.

But when red baited by the media, they would turn anti-socialist in a heartbeat.

I think of elite liberals like Tony Blair, who despise the hell out of radical socialism.

I think of Third Way positionists and American college Kids who religiously read The Economist and any wonkish Policy Review rag. I think of them literally getting frustrated at our rather uncompromising fashion toward big business. Out "dogmatic" theories about exploitation and the like.

I think of progressives who think they've accomplished so much to not want to lose all credibility by aligning themselves with Marxists.

All of these groups think they've done so much to bring credible left politics to DC or other major centers of powers and would hate to diminish their street cred by inviting Marxists to totally shred their reformist day dreaming.

What makes them liberal or progressive is a firm rejection of class struggle. They may dive in to class conflict, which usually doesn't entail more than a pleading for the middle class against the upper class. They never once care to mention the working class because they despise the old "dogmatic" maxim of working class vs. ruling/owning class.

I think that a radicalization of liberal can be a good thing in the sense that maybe they will do things to help the working class escape a mad cap right wing movement from taking full power, but at the same time, I think of the same people who salivate over Jon Stewart or Bill Maher, finding that their next target after right wing conservatives are Marxists.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

This along with MellowViper's post raises a separate issue. At least, I think it's different from the original post asking whether radicalization of liberals is good or bad. As far as that goes, it just depends. Now however, is the question of whether or not we should work with liberals. It's pragmatic, sure. But even there, it just depends. Do the liberals any of us choose to work with know we're socialists? To what end does collaboration work if they intend to stay liberals? Seems like, given the fact they can turn on us as you mention, this is more a benefit for them; a greater compromise on our part than theirs. What exactly will the nature of such a collaboration be?

Yeah, if it's going to be a pragmatic issue, then it has to be specific, e.g. to the USA. I respect the many Trots who've been boring from within for decades - I suspect quite a few liberals would be shocked to hear that their favorite progressive journalist is, for all intents and purposes, a red mole.

My pragmatic approach, for the present, is: be totally out about it, it will turn a few people off at first, but it will make it harder for the libruls to lower the boom. Anyone who thinks that Marxists are not witch-hunted in the universities and the unions, even today, is seriously mistaken. It's important, at this present time, to bring terms like Marxist and Socialist out into the open, so that they become accepted part of discourse, and give us all some room to operate out in the open.

[CAleftist]

I am suspicious of liberals, even "radical" ones.

The thing is, the foundation of liberalism is the right to private property and individual liberty. So really, capitalism and liberalism go hand in hand, at least in America.

The liberals just want a kinder, gentler capitalist society where there are small business owners and yeomen farmers. But that was a Jeffersonian utopia. Since then, capital has gone global, and monopolistic capitalism is the norm. So it's impossible to rewind the clock with current material conditions, because capital is only going to get more and more inter-connected, global, and monopolistic.

The foundations of liberalism-private property, individual liberty, and a government that protects those-are contrary to Marxist goals, especially with current material conditions.

[Property Is Robbery]

Without outside help liberals will remain liberals. My dad is a social democrat, he calls himself a "democratic socialist" but I doubt that. Most of them still love Obama way too much to become radical.

[ckaihatsu]

I am suspicious of liberals, even "radical" ones.

The thing is, the foundation of liberalism is the right to private property and individual liberty. So really, capitalism and liberalism go hand in hand, at least in America.





Without outside help liberals will remain liberals. My dad is a social democrat, he calls himself a "democratic socialist" but I doubt that. Most of them still love Obama way too much to become radical.





The liberals just want a kinder, gentler capitalist society where there are small business owners and yeomen farmers. But that was a Jeffersonian utopia. Since then, capital has gone global, and monopolistic capitalism is the norm. So it's impossible to rewind the clock with current material conditions, because capital is only going to get more and more inter-connected, global, and monopolistic.

The foundations of liberalism-private property, individual liberty, and a government that protects those-are contrary to Marxist goals, especially with current material conditions.


To the extent that one's politics are based in a yesteryear timeframe -- and not in current reality -- they're not really even being *political* at all...(!) Politics is about the current and future mass organization of the world's resources, including labor -- anything less is *cultural*. (It's no wonder, then, that liberalism feeds right into lifestylism and cultural obsessions -- those are the only remaining options for some semblance of social cohesion once real politics is off the table.)

[Wanted Man]

I definitely think it's a good thing. They just need to have their liberal tendencies beaten out of them on a regular basis. I recommend birching.

[RedZelenka]

I don't see how being radically crazy is better than just being crazy. All they seem to care about is 'cultural' BS and interventionism. I'd rather they not exist, if that's what they're going to push.

[Meridian]

This topic is quite US-centric. When I hear "liberal" I usually think of a right winger. I think the spectrum is completely shifted in the US, where even a right winger can be considered radical.

Overall though, I think any movement to the left is a good thing. Politically, that is.

[RedZelenka]

This topic is quite US-centric. When I hear "liberal" I usually think of a right winger.
Ehh, modern liberalism descends from classical liberalism. I don't even know if the term 'right winger' is useful in that context. Hell, I don't even know if 'right' or 'left' mean anything anymore; everyone is parliamentary middle-of-the-roaders. They're all interventionism lamers obsessed with cultural meddling.

[ckaihatsu]

I am suspicious of liberals, even "radical" ones.

The thing is, the foundation of liberalism is the right to private property and individual liberty. So really, capitalism and liberalism go hand in hand, at least in America.

The liberals just want a kinder, gentler capitalist society where there are small business owners and yeomen farmers. But that was a Jeffersonian utopia. Since then, capital has gone global, and monopolistic capitalism is the norm. So it's impossible to rewind the clock with current material conditions, because capital is only going to get more and more inter-connected, global, and monopolistic.

The foundations of liberalism-private property, individual liberty, and a government that protects those-are contrary to Marxist goals, especially with current material conditions.





This topic is quite US-centric. When I hear "liberal" I usually think of a right winger. I think the spectrum is completely shifted in the US, where even a right winger can be considered radical.

Overall though, I think any movement to the left is a good thing. Politically, that is.


The politics of liberals and libertarians blur together because of the premise they share in common, as well described by CAleftist, above. Also add in that much of the now-multipolar (Western) world *still* looks to the U.S. as the leading edge of civilization, and you can see the reason why the overall prevailing culture is one of perfectionistic king-of-the-hill types -- in politics this translates to national imperialism, and, in consumption, to being limitlessly ego-driven. Combine the two at the activist level and we see the "'cultural' BS and interventionism" that RedZelenka mentions.

Since we're covering the broad expanse of the political spectrum here come the diagrams....


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://i48.tinypic.com/1zxm51g.jpg


Political Spectrum, Simplified

http://i49.tinypic.com/ifzgr6.jpg

[The Red Next Door]

This topic is quite US-centric. When I hear "liberal" I usually think of a right winger. I think the spectrum is completely shifted in the US, where even a right winger can be considered radical.

Overall though, I think any movement to the left is a good thing. Politically, that is.

US liberal= Social Democrats in Europe. that what they really are here.

[RedZelenka]

US liberal= Social Democrats in Europe. that what they really are here.
American liberals aren't quite SocDems. They're still liberal in the European sense, they're just interventionist. They're like J.S. Mill, not Bernstein.