Getting real damn tired of reactionary views being mainstream....

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't know if perhaps I am just too absorbed in leftist thinking or that the state of education in the United States is that bad and people are just too damn misinformed, under-educated, and uniformed, but the reactionary views I've heard come out of so many people concerning the London riots are obscene.

Everything from kill em all let god sort em out to niggers will be niggers! It's just sickening.

The level of reactionary views about society has reached it's zenith in my opinion, especially in the States, where the State can give money to big banks, gut our social services, tell us not to retire, we're not working hard enough, we need to tighten our belts, take personal responsibility, shoot at us, arrest us, etc. and the view still seems to be that people are thugs if they break down and react violently.

We have to start challenging the root cause of this reactionary-ism in workers.

It really stems from a lack of systemic critical thinking, the lack of a real grounded materialist perspective and instead most people resort to their "common sense" intuition, their religious superstition, and their hatred of anything deemed "intellectual".

They employ this ultra subjective outlook to society and then couple it with either an authoritative answer to it all found in Scripture or one found in "human nature". Then they brush off any real concrete evidence that may disagree with their narrow outlook.

They do this because they believe that since they've been swindled, hurt or victimized by other people that people must then be evil, and no amount of scientific data is going to convince them otherwise. And plus the Bible tells them this is so or humans have been this way for ages, therefore they're right and the expert social scientists are wrong.

The healthy skepticism of power people have has been turned around on it's head and become a disdain for all authority, like how a troubled youth reacts to anyone in a position of power including people who want to help him.

Any thoughts? Perhaps we can help others by understanding the root cause of the turn to reactionary views and politics to solve or understand society's woes.

[Fulanito de Tal]

I really think that the population in the US is seriously lacking in self-awareness. They don't realize that they are programmed to not think for themselves.

Here's an example. People that are in love with the founding fathers...they say that the founding fathers stood for freedom. What a load of shit. And that they built this country. No they didn't; the slaves did! I had a fellow student give a presentation in a graduate class on the Federalist Papers. The whole time she was like "I mean, aren't you guys excited?! This was the birth of a new free country!" The whole time I was thinking, "How can you be excited when you would have been a slave?" The student's physical appearance was of dark Asian Indian female. How can she completely omit that the economy was based on slave labor? and that her role would have been of a slave?! I think it's because she only applied the parts that she liked in order to get along with the group. Historical analyses have to be applied entirely. You can't omit stuff just because you want to believe in it.

It's like one huge group think. Like that RevLeft member said in the Tottenham thread, "Either get on board or GTFO". People are not allowed to think independently. Who doesn't allow them? First, it starts with others, and then they inhibit themselves.

[MattShizzle]

Definitely true - though to be nitpicky an Indian wouldn't have been a slave (in the sense of who you were talking about. Native Americans were enslaved and the target of genocide through the 19th century - another reason not to look kindly on earlier times in the US.) And of course out and out racism is completely unacceptable.

[Cynic]

Whether or not they want to admit it the people of the United States are afraid of any real change. I think some of the reactionary elements stem from Judeo-Christian beliefs of some Americans. Also they have had U.S. propaganda shoved down their throats, that the U.S. is equated with freedom and the personality cult of the "Founding Fathers". It is quite sad really. I think if there were to be a serious revolution in in America there will be a strong reactionary presence.

[Kiev Communard]

Actually in post-Soviet space it is even more severe, as here the mainstream ideologies of the so-called "middle class" are actually national-liberalism (i.e. economically liberal neo-Nazism) and "anti-revolutionary" paternalistic conservatism. I do not know what is actually worse. More likely, they are both worse.

[Ilyich]

I am still learning about the theories of Antonio Gramsci so I do not know if my analysis of this problem is correct, but is it possible that that the reason American workers hold the reactionary views of the bourgeoisie is because of cultural hegemony? Could the ruling class in the United States be using the superstructure to impose their interests on the masses? If so, then we leftists can combat the problem of reactionary views being accepted as the norm by fighting the superstructure as well as the base. The base may determine the superstructure, but the superstructure definitely influences the base. We must "march through the institutions" as German leftist Rudi Dutscheke put it. We can start with education and influence the youth of the nation.

[Blackburn]

What I've noticed as a Non-American dealing with Americans is two problems: 1. Americans in general are too culturally arrogant to think other coutries would currently know how to manage government better and 2. there does seem to be something deficient in a general way with the education system.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

What I've noticed as a Non-American dealing with Americans is two problems: 1. Americans in general are too culturally arrogant to think other coutries would currently know how to manage government better and 2. there does seem to be something deficient in a general way with the education system.
As an American dealing with Americans, I agree.

[DinodudeEpic]

While there is a rise of far right views within the American populace, respect for the founding fathers have NOTHING to do with it.

They were revolutionaries for their time. Racist? All the leaders of the world were racist. Even the UK still had slavery at the time. In fact, the main support for slavery and other such reactionary programs came mostly from the South. The Northern states already abolish slavery by the 1810s.

The problem is not the American revolutionaries.(Which were respected for making the country independent.) The real problem is the rise of Conservatism, and the decline of Liberalism.

[Ilyich]

The real problem is the rise of Conservatism, and the decline of Liberalism.

Liberalism can be just as bad as conservatism. Liberals in the United States often champion reforms. In this respect the are better than conservatives. However, they will never advocate going beyond reforms. In addition, liberals themselves are reactionary because they act with the intention of drawing revolutionary energy away from the working class.

[Cynic]

While there is a rise of far right views within the American populace, respect for the founding fathers have NOTHING to do with it.

They were revolutionaries for their time. Racist? All the leaders of the world were racist. Even the UK still had slavery at the time. In fact, the main support for slavery and other such reactionary programs came mostly from the South. The Northern states already abolish slavery by the 1810s.

The problem is not the American revolutionaries.(Which were respected for making the country independent.) The real problem is the rise of Conservatism, and the decline of Liberalism.

I do respect them for breaking away from Britan but they are overly glorified by the American right wing .

And just because the North outlawed slavery doesn't mean that it was sunshine and lollipops for black people in the North. There were several lynchings in the North.

[CAleftist]

The real problem is the rise of Conservatism, and the decline of Liberalism.

Well that's got everything to do with the end of the post-WWII economic boom, during which liberals were dominant in U.S. politics. But since the 1970s, where capitalism entered its modern period of crisis, restructuring, and globalization, liberal "welfare state" Keynesian policies were jettisoned in favor of "neoliberal" free-market policies.

But really, since liberalism as a political project has been dead for decades now (as every alternative to it has been eliminated), the only people left are reactionary right-wing "conservatives" who defend the capitalist status quo at all costs. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties are racing to the bottom of the barrel on that.

[RadioRaheem84]

Liberalism = Cold War Warriors, vehemently anti-Communist, preaches free speech at home while crushing dissent abroad.

Noam Chomsky's deepest ire is reserved for liberals, whom he spent most of his earlier career criticizing.

[MarxSchmarx]

Read George Lakoff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics

To fight the right-wing meme machine, you need to understand why it works so well that it overpowers economic self-interest of many working people.

[CAleftist]

My view: the biggest reason for reactionary views being mainstream is racism and racial privilege.

Notice that it's not black, Hispanic, or Asian people, for the most part, who have those reactionary right-wing views.

[Rafiq]

People will start to worry when they realize the 'rights' they have written down on paper are just that: Scribbles on pieces of paper with no realistic effect.

[Parvati]

First, I think it's a mistake to divide the United States from other imperialist countries (the division is with the countries dominated by imperialism). The United States is the largest imperialist country, so the contradictions are exacerbated and therefore larger, but remain the same. If some other imperialist countries appear to be more liberal or less reactionary, it's a misconception - it's usually the state acts as a support for the local bourgeoisie through all kinds of subsidies (including what is considered as "public services"). States act out of necessity and not by good will. In United States, the State maintains this role of cohesion among the bourgeoisie especially through the war of imperialist aggression.

Second, for the general state of mind, it must be admitted that the superstructure (what is cultural, media, educational, religious, moral, etc.) is very strong. But that's normal, and it is not something new. Today in the imperialist countries, it gives the impression to people that they have a choice. But what is the right choice is to stay in line, for all sorts of reasons. However,, it is usually possible to those who want to live differently (and I include here all the "other" ways of living) to do so without major problems. Being gay / bisexual / transgender / queer / etc., the fact to remain single and have no children, the act of creating a cooperative work with progressive values​​, being voluntarily without shelters, living in a commune, to be a hippie, read Marx, not working, seeing ourselves as an artist, etc etc etc. - all this does not conflict with the capitalist mode of production. However the ideological superstructure tends to support the lifestyle that allows more support to capitalism, in addition to being full of hints of old ideas. And it makes no difference in any case for those who are exploited.

Then many things belong to the class struggle. We can not just say "people" when speaking of a general opinion. It would be too easy to play the game of the bourgeoisie. We can say that we were just in time when the class struggle is lower - but in my opinion this is changing. If the bourgeois superstructure is very strong in the United States is among other things also because the internal contradictions are very strong which will in one way or another always bring revolutionary situations. The capitalists then launch their ideological apparatuses. Unfortunately I think that - consciously or not - many people who claim to be communists or revolutionnaries, do not rely enough, or not really, on the thoroughly revolutionary class, the proletariat - in a lot of situations. By a communist investigative work, we learn to understand that the masses are far from believing everything the media or the petty bourgeoisie say.

The traditionally more hostile environments proletarians are decaying - one can think of working-class town where everyone was guaranteed a good job in a car factory. Several key concepts in the history of communism allow to understand many things. Those who said that racism had something to do there - in USA for example - are on the right track. Because as the principal contradiction of the United States was once based on the exploitation of black slaves and the colonization of indigenous peoples, they have become an important part of the proletariat, especially the poor proletariat today. And it is the mass line that tells us that these people already rejected an important part of the capitalist system of today. The poorest, the most precarious ones, reject the system already. They do not vote - they do not endorse political decisions largely reactionary of the bourgeois democracy. And they are right. I don't want to start a discussion of vote here (it will be my pleasure to do so elsewhere), but when you see that everywhere in the imperialist countries, including the United States, almost half of people do not vote (and it is generally poor and ordinary people - including youth and black community), there is something important to grasp here. And these people (poor proletariat) are completely excluded from wrong media representation of the world , even if they represent like 40% of the population. So it can be discouraging to meet many anti-communist people, but in reality, when you go to a proletarian neighborhood, and you talk in the street with the single mother, the grocery clerk, the waitress at the restaurant, the unemployed, the precarious employee of the warehouse, the young dropout, etc etc etc, and you told them how we should organize and fight, speaking of communism and revolution, many people agree in principle.


Now, to pass from the agreement in principle to the agreement in acts, we must prove that we are able to (really) fight for the working class. That, no communist party is currently able to do it in the imperialist countries. But as I said, time will soon change. This is by no means a prediction - we can see the discontent in many parts of the world, poverty is increasing dramatically, the food and employment are increasingly rare. And we also know that there are moments of intensity in the class struggle. But if you stay there waiting, to say that people are not ready or are reactionary, it is useless. Attention, this is not at all a judgment - it's really something hard to go against the current bourgeois culture.

So one can imagine that working around a good political line (which is also another debate), you can pick up 3000 revolutionary people in the U.S, organized for revolution, in, let say, 20 years. But You're crazy! In fact, it is certainly ambitious. But mathematically, it is not much. I will not demonstrate it, but if a comrade brings another one, and we start with a group 25 people who repeat the same thing every time you double, the first ones would have about 7 individuals to form politically. This is roughly what the Black Panthers done. It may sound silly, but 3000 revolutionary people is a nice change in the class struggle in itself.

Finally, as I said, it's not a clear path, nor a prediction, but I think this is how we should consider the fight. It is a lively and exciting perspective not something condescending, or remaining in the books. We must take the part of the working class and fight compromises with the bourgeoisie and its culture.

[Blackburn]

My view: the biggest reason for reactionary views being mainstream is racism and racial privilege.

Notice that it's not black, Hispanic, or Asian people, for the most part, who have those reactionary right-wing views.

I disagree with that generalisation. Having spent a fair amount of time with Asian communities in Australia, reactionary behaviour is just as strong with them. Sometimes stronger.

[CAleftist]

I disagree with that generalisation. Having spent a fair amount of time with Asian communities in Australia, reactionary behaviour is just as strong with them. Sometimes stronger.

What is the economic class of those communities? I'd be curious to know.

[MarxSchmarx]

First, I think it's a mistake to divide the United States from other imperialist countries (the division is with the countries dominated by imperialism). The United States is the largest imperialist country, so the contradictions are exacerbated and therefore larger, but remain the same. If some other imperialist countries appear to be more liberal or less reactionary, it's a misconception - it's usually the state acts as a support for the local bourgeoisie through all kinds of subsidies (including what is considered as "public services"). States act out of necessity and not by good will. In United States, the State maintains this role of cohesion among the bourgeoisie especially through the war of imperialist aggression.

Second, for the general state of mind, it must be admitted that the superstructure (what is cultural, media, educational, religious, moral, etc.) is very strong. But that's normal, and it is not something new. Today in the imperialist countries, it gives the impression to people that they have a choice. But what is the right choice is to stay in line, for all sorts of reasons. However,, it is usually possible to those who want to live differently (and I include here all the "other" ways of living) to do so without major problems. Being gay / bisexual / transgender / queer / etc., the fact to remain single and have no children, the act of creating a cooperative work with progressive values​​, being voluntarily without shelters, living in a commune, to be a hippie, read Marx, not working, seeing ourselves as an artist, etc etc etc. - all this does not conflict with the capitalist mode of production. However the ideological superstructure tends to support the lifestyle that allows more support to capitalism, in addition to being full of hints of old ideas. And it makes no difference in any case for those who are exploited.

Then many things belong to the class struggle. We can not just say "people" when speaking of a general opinion. It would be too easy to play the game of the bourgeoisie. We can say that we were just in time when the class struggle is lower - but in my opinion this is changing. If the bourgeois superstructure is very strong in the United States is among other things also because the internal contradictions are very strong which will in one way or another always bring revolutionary situations. The capitalists then launch their ideological apparatuses. Unfortunately I think that - consciously or not - many people who claim to be communists or revolutionnaries, do not rely enough, or not really, on the thoroughly revolutionary class, the proletariat - in a lot of situations. By a communist investigative work, we learn to understand that the masses are far from believing everything the media or the petty bourgeoisie say.

The traditionally more hostile environments proletarians are decaying - one can think of working-class town where everyone was guaranteed a good job in a car factory. Several key concepts in the history of communism allow to understand many things. Those who said that racism had something to do there - in USA for example - are on the right track. Because as the principal contradiction of the United States was once based on the exploitation of black slaves and the colonization of indigenous peoples, they have become an important part of the proletariat, especially the poor proletariat today. And it is the mass line that tells us that these people already rejected an important part of the capitalist system of today. The poorest, the most precarious ones, reject the system already. They do not vote - they do not endorse political decisions largely reactionary of the bourgeois democracy. And they are right. I don't want to start a discussion of vote here (it will be my pleasure to do so elsewhere), but when you see that everywhere in the imperialist countries, including the United States, almost half of people do not vote (and it is generally poor and ordinary people - including youth and black community), there is something important to grasp here. And these people (poor proletariat) are completely excluded from wrong media representation of the world , even if they represent like 40% of the population. So it can be discouraging to meet many anti-communist people, but in reality, when you go to a proletarian neighborhood, and you talk in the street with the single mother, the grocery clerk, the waitress at the restaurant, the unemployed, the precarious employee of the warehouse, the young dropout, etc etc etc, and you told them how we should organize and fight, speaking of communism and revolution, many people agree in principle.


Now, to pass from the agreement in principle to the agreement in acts, we must prove that we are able to (really) fight for the working class. That, no communist party is currently able to do it in the imperialist countries. But as I said, time will soon change. This is by no means a prediction - we can see the discontent in many parts of the world, poverty is increasing dramatically, the food and employment are increasingly rare. And we also know that there are moments of intensity in the class struggle. But if you stay there waiting, to say that people are not ready or are reactionary, it is useless. Attention, this is not at all a judgment - it's really something hard to go against the current bourgeois culture.

So one can imagine that working around a good political line (which is also another debate), you can pick up 3000 revolutionary people in the U.S, organized for revolution, in, let say, 20 years. But You're crazy! In fact, it is certainly ambitious. But mathematically, it is not much. I will not demonstrate it, but if a comrade brings another one, and we start with a group 25 people who repeat the same thing every time you double, the first ones would have about 7 individuals to form politically. This is roughly what the Black Panthers done. It may sound silly, but 3000 revolutionary people is a nice change in the class struggle in itself.

Finally, as I said, it's not a clear path, nor a prediction, but I think this is how we should consider the fight. It is a lively and exciting perspective not something condescending, or remaining in the books. We must take the part of the working class and fight compromises with the bourgeoisie and its culture.

That's a great point - I agree that the case for "American exceptionalism" with regards to the left has been grossly exaggerated, and that the sorry state of the left in the United States is to some extent mirrored in the majority of first world countries.

The issue I have with your analysis is the suggestion that we should brush aside serious concerns about the reactionary ideologies that persist. For example, in some working-class communities of color in the UK, certain reactionary Islamic views still hold some sway. The same is true for white evangelicals in rural America or deeply devout catholics in Italy. We cannot simply ignore the failure of Islam/evangelical protestantism/catholicism on issues like woman's rights.

How does one organize among such groups when they see the primacy of their religious/cultural heritage, and when the broader society holds them in contempt not for being "workers" or "hicks" or some such, but for their issues of identity like religion or national origin? I don't think this is a problem the left has managed to crack yet. Imperfect though it is, condemning such views as reactionary are a necessary, but hardly sufficient, first step towards engaging the very vibrant residue of ruling class ideology that permeate all levels of social organization.

[Os Cangaceiros]

My view: the biggest reason for reactionary views being mainstream is racism and racial privilege.

Notice that it's not black, Hispanic, or Asian people, for the most part, who have those reactionary right-wing views.

Much of the black, hispanic and Asian working class have incredibly reactionary views.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class. When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence." - Marx

"The working class did not expect miracles from the Commune. They have no ready-made utopias to introduce par decret du peuple. They know that in order to work out their own emancipation, and along with it that higher form to which present society is irresistably tending by its own economical agencies, they will have to pass through long struggles, through a series of historic processes, transforming circumstances and men. They have no ideals to realize, but to set free the elements of the new society with which old collapsing bourgeois society itself is pregnant." - Marx

"Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration that can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; the revolution is necessary, therefore, not only the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew." - Marx

"Marx believed that the conditions of life and work of the proletariat would force the working class to behave in ways that would ultimately transform society. In other words, what Marx said was: We’re not talking about going door-to-door and making workers into ideal socialists. You’ve got to take workers as they are, with all their contradictions, with all their nonsense. But the fact that society forces them to struggle begins to transform the working class. If white workers realize they can’t organize steel unless they organize black workers, that doesn’t mean they’re not racist. It means that they have to deal with their own reality, and that transforms them. Who were the workers who made the Russian Revolution? Sexists, nationalists, half of them illiterate." - Martin Glaberman

[Reznov]

You get use to it after awhile, this is why I don't even care to watch T.V. much anymore.