The Radical Left and Future-tense

[Magón]

Now before you read any further, I just want to say that all of the political spectrum does this, but since I agree and have done a hell of a lot more to achieve Radical Left goals, it's the Radical Left I want to address this issue with since I don't care about the rest.



So recently I've been thinking about how the Radical Left speaks to those who aren't so class conscious, or aren't at all, and how they go about expressing the goals all Radical Leftists look to achieve. Or more specifically, how they word those goals when speaking.

I've realized lately in my part of the world, and occupy movement, that when the Radical Left speaks to those not so class conscious, or at all, they always speak about their goals in the future-tense. Example being, "When we achieve this future goal, we'll ultimately have this other future goal," and, "We don't want that, the way it could be is this," and so on.

It seems to me that the Radical Left in all the speeches and rallies I've been to, always talks to the people they're addressing in this way. They're always talking about the future and what can be, not what currently is in the present. Now this is even something I see on here, and I'm sure everyone on here and out there in the world, is guilty of this. I'm guilty of it, we're all guilty of talking to people when explaining things, to speak to them as to what our end goal is, rather than what our current goals should be, and which are the most immediate to be tackled.

I think it puts a lot of people off, and/or makes a lot of people disillusioned with the Radical Left, because they're never given a clear definition of what should be done now to help make these ideas a reality down the road. What they can do in the present time, not the future, to make these ultimate changes. When someone asks, "Well this is like this, so how will it look under your idea," don't just say, "well it won't be that, it'll look like this." Instead we should address their question not only with how we think it could look, but also tell them what they can do today, tomorrow, and next week to get the ball rolling towards whatever it is.

On here, I see it as much as I see it out in the world when someone new comes along and asks something. And I think the Radical Left as a whole, needs to change from speaking future-tense, to present-tense. Like I said, the entire political spectrum does this, it's not just the Radical Left. If you bother to watch a political debate, you'll see the questions are always, "Well with you, how will this be different," etc. and the answer will simply just be their answer to that question, not, "It'll be this, but more importantly this is how we have to go about it." Instead of the Radical Left doing as all the others do, we should actually focus more on the present, rather than the future, because the future isn't going anywhere, it'll be here tomorrow, next week, and two hours from now the future will be here. But it's the present, that we need to worry and focus our energy and time on.




Anyway, just thought I'd contribute something a bit more constructive on here, and how I've been seeing things in the Radical Left as of late. Not to say I haven't felt or thought about this before, but this time I've had a outlet to get people across the world's feelings and opinions. Feel free to disagree if you want, I don't care, just thought I'd put this out there.

[Zav]

This is why I argue that we need to make a blueprint for how Communism will work on a global scale. We would be so much more popular if we had one. For instance, people want to know where to get their food. Saying that 'the Party will ensure that everyone gets bread' or 'bread will be given freely' does not provide a satisfactory answer, though they may be true. We should say instead 'you go to the bakery, show some ID, and ask for what bread you need'.

[blake 3:17]

Thank you Nin for thoughtful post. I think your criticism is absolutely right on. My only mild disagreement is that I think "wait until we get everything right" state of mind is very much of the Left and inclusive of both radicals and moderates. I've been doing this a while, and we're getting our teeth kicked in, and then the big buzz is some elaborate reform that might eventually reach people. Delay delay delay. And sometimes there's already things in place that work...

The Right understands storytelling where the Left doesn't, and comes out with pie diagrams or empty slogans.



We [I] really don't have a program for the present. I guess radical left includes reformists too, but for we who just want a revolution, we don't have much to say about the present beyond that it has to be done away with and replaced with.. fill in the blank. :S

Replacing the present with ________________ isn't very persuasive.

In English North America, I think the central demands should be for full employment at a living wage, a right to housing, food, healthcare and education, freedom from discrimination, and electoral reform in the direction of proportional representation.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Now before you read any further, I just want to say that all of the political spectrum does this, but since I agree and have done a hell of a lot more to achieve Radical Left goals, it's the Radical Left I want to address this issue with since I don't care about the rest.



So recently I've been thinking about how the Radical Left speaks to those who aren't so class conscious, or aren't at all, and how they go about expressing the goals all Radical Leftists look to achieve. Or more specifically, how they word those goals when speaking.

I've realized lately in my part of the world, and occupy movement, that when the Radical Left speaks to those not so class conscious, or at all, they always speak about their goals in the future-tense. Example being, "When we achieve this future goal, we'll ultimately have this other future goal," and, "We don't want that, the way it could be is this," and so on.

It seems to me that the Radical Left in all the speeches and rallies I've been to, always talks to the people they're addressing in this way. They're always talking about the future and what can be, not what currently is in the present. Now this is even something I see on here, and I'm sure everyone on here and out there in the world, is guilty of this. I'm guilty of it, we're all guilty of talking to people when explaining things, to speak to them as to what our end goal is, rather than what our current goals should be, and which are the most immediate to be tackled.

I think it puts a lot of people off, and/or makes a lot of people disillusioned with the Radical Left, because they're never given a clear definition of what should be done now to help make these ideas a reality down the road. What they can do in the present time, not the future, to make these ultimate changes. When someone asks, "Well this is like this, so how will it look under your idea," don't just say, "well it won't be that, it'll look like this." Instead we should address their question not only with how we think it could look, but also tell them what they can do today, tomorrow, and next week to get the ball rolling towards whatever it is.

On here, I see it as much as I see it out in the world when someone new comes along and asks something. And I think the Radical Left as a whole, needs to change from speaking future-tense, to present-tense. Like I said, the entire political spectrum does this, it's not just the Radical Left. If you bother to watch a political debate, you'll see the questions are always, "Well with you, how will this be different," etc. and the answer will simply just be their answer to that question, not, "It'll be this, but more importantly this is how we have to go about it." Instead of the Radical Left doing as all the others do, we should actually focus more on the present, rather than the future, because the future isn't going anywhere, it'll be here tomorrow, next week, and two hours from now the future will be here. But it's the present, that we need to worry and focus our energy and time on.




Anyway, just thought I'd contribute something a bit more constructive on here, and how I've been seeing things in the Radical Left as of late. Not to say I haven't felt or thought about this before, but this time I've had a outlet to get people across the world's feelings and opinions. Feel free to disagree if you want, I don't care, just thought I'd put this out there.
I've felt the same thing, that and not organizing as we should. If you don't mind me asking you, comrade, what do you think our present goals should be?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Good discussion Nin. Personally I think the trick is to try and unite the immediate practical "next step" with an overall larger goal or vision. If we only criticize the current liberal or reformist leadership and direction of the movement and offer only far-off "when the revolution comes..." then we might be able to attract a few more militant people, but mostly we will sideline ourselves. On the other hand if we only talk about the practical next steps, then we can't help bring radical politics into the existing movements, we will only be aiding reforms. From a revolutionary perspective, I don't think the short-term and long-term can be separated for us to be effective: we want the self-emancipation of the working class, but that means having a working class that has struggled and learned to work together and where the class lines in society are (i.e. a class that has engaged and learned from the short-term struggles).

But I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with talking about the bigger vision. In times of more class consciousness and struggle, it was this vision of possibility that helped motivate people; the Revolution and later even the existence of the USSR after it was apparent it wasn't a paradise was motivating for people in the 30s and 40s. Hell, Libertarians and Republicans motivate people with ideas of "one day" when regulations are gone, taxes have been lowered, and the social safety net abolished. Their vision is seen as plausible (if not desirable) and so it's clear to their supporters that when they are attacking this or that "entitlement", it's part of a larger vision of how things should be. (The difference between that and what we want to do is the architects of this larger vision sell one version of that to their followers - "freedom for the petty-bourgoise" when really their vision is a playground for business and austerity for everyone else and wage and rights reductions for workers.)

So really I think when there are actual workers movements with some confidence and independence, then the radical vision will hold more currency because it will present a possible direction for an existing movement.

[Manic Impressive]

I'd always rather be talking about capitalism than an abstract socialism. Unfortunately that's what people want to know. They say "well of course it's shit now, how's it going to be different?" I rarely ever get the response that capitalism is great. I don't know what you mean about what we can do now organize, educate and agitate but NEVER EVER submit to Reforms. Anyone who does so is just another agent of capitalism. Robbo put it great the other day all capitalist parties are essentially reformist. All of them look to tweak capitalism in some way or another to make it work better. Our job is NOT to make capitalism work better but to overthrow capitalism.

[Magón]

This is why I argue that we need to make a blueprint for how Communism will work on a global scale. We would be so much more popular if we had one. For instance, people want to know where to get their food. Saying that 'the Party will ensure that everyone gets bread' or 'bread will be given freely' does not provide a satisfactory answer, though they may be true. We should say instead 'you go to the bakery, show some ID, and ask for what bread you need'.

But we should even talk to them in more immediate circumstances. Yes, explaining to people, this is how you can get breads and other things, is important and gives them an idea of what kind of vision of the future we're shooting for, but we need to what's immediate on the table in front of them, making them realize that without these other goals to be achieved, we'll never get that system of getting bread or whatever it might be. Simply we won't get the egalitarian system of Communism most importantly.


I've felt the same thing, that and not organizing as we should. If you don't mind me asking you, comrade, what do you think our present goals should be?

I think our goals should, right now, be more localized to what our personal area's problems are, but directed of course towards more global development and internationalism of course. Let people understand that this here is the ultimate goal, but this over here in the present is how we have to get to this big goal with these smaller, still important goals that need to be undertaken.

Like for me, most of my time is spent on school campus, so I'm often talking to fellow students about what they can do as students, in the school system to change things and things like that. I work as an auto mechanic, so when the time is right I talk to them about what they can do as auto mechanics, to start to try and change how things should be run and operated. Especially since I work at a local auto shop, not some chain place which would be more difficult.


snip

Absolutely agree. We should let it be known when talking with people, what it is our ultimate goals are, but the next practical step should be emphasized more than it is in the Left. Talking about, "oh you won't have to worry about getting food," or "most crime will be nonexistent" is all well and good, but it doesn't come true if we don't do the immediate practical next step needed to reach towards those goals.

I agree that neither the current or future goals of revolution, can be separated from one another, but we can't just ignore one and talk about the other more, either. In either case we lose and we sideline ourselves to watching as the rest of the political spectrum goes up and down the field, promising this and that bullshit. We need a balance between the two, but not necessarily like we talk for half the time on the future, and half the time on the present. I think the balance should be we establish when talking, what it is in the discussion we want to achieve ultimately. Whether it's housing, jobs, food, etc., we should establish with the people, what exactly we think it could look like. When they've asked questions and we've established with them, a firm understanding of exactly what it is we're shooting for, then we focus on the current task at hand which is figuring out how exactly we get to what it was we just discussed.

Basically making the discussion a two parter in a way, even if we have to come back another day and talk about the first part some more. 1st being what we're shooting for and what it could look like, and the 2nd being this is how we get it. Right now it's, "this is what we're shooting for, but how we get there I'm still not so sure, I haven't really thought too much about it, I'm just looking to the end goal." That doesn't help us or anyone we're trying to help i.e. the Working Class break it's chains from Capitalist slavery.


I'd always rather be talking about capitalism than an abstract socialism. Unfortunately that's what people want to know. They say "well of course it's shit now, how's it going to be different?" I rarely ever get the response that capitalism is great. I don't know what you mean about what we can do now organize, educate and agitate but NEVER EVER submit to Reforms. Anyone who does so is just another agent of capitalism. Robbo put it great the other day all capitalist parties are essentially reformist. All of them look to tweak capitalism in some way or another to make it work better. Our job is NOT to make capitalism work better but to overthrow capitalism.

No, I'm not talking about reforms or supporting them. Far from it, I want to see Capitalism go down as much as anyone, but I feel with the way the Radical Left is going, those that come after us will never see what their goals are either because all they did was talk about the future, rather than the present and what they can do to make that change from Capitalism to Communism. The whole slogan, "Agitate, Educate, Organize," has been trampled on and torn apart by even the Radical Left. They've done very little to uphold that slogan, and this is one of the reasons why. They can agitate, but when they get to the educate they practically skip over it, and try to organize. Having 2/3rds isn't going to get us the full spectrum view, only parts of it.

When we educate, we should discuss both future and present, but as I said above, not just ignore one and focus on the other. It won't and hasn't helped in all these years.

[Raúl Duke]

I personally shy away from speaking in "future-tense," if I talk politics to a non-political crowd I tend to address it in criticisms of the current system; for the most part. My approach is to break down any hope in "what there is."

I think I've kinda noted this as well, maybe not from the same angle.