How to convince liberals?

[Tim Cornelis]

The first thing to do in mostly economically tranquil countries such as Western Europe is to convince people of the need for a different system before we mobilise them and before they will act.

Therefore, how do we convince "liberals"?

By "liberals" I mean the social capitalists, social democrats, and those who acknowledge capitalism is not a good system, but fail to see the necessity or need to overthrow it.

For example, my parents and sister are all left-wing, but don't see the necessity to do away with capitalism. What is some cohesive, short, but powerful arguments that could push them over the edge?

Though even if they could be convinced they wont act until there is a material need to do so (after all, why would they risk their job in relatively tranquil times? They have too much to lose), but convincing people of the need for a post-capitalist society, imo, is a requisite for working towards such a society.

A related question, do any of you know any impressive statistics one can use? About inequality or whatever? (and also statistic you can tie to a credible story).

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I do not think there is anyone point to push them towards anti-capitalism but that only through systematic debate concerning a wide variety of subjects will people be brought over.No one converts another person with a single debate anyway, it is about planting seeds for the next.I think giving dedication and reliable sources for your claims will, in time, due quote a bit. Sometimes people just need to know and than they will gradually move to a new position.

[Revolution starts with U]

Most left-libs (american democrats, for example) are already prone to working class sympathy. I've found that one should avoid labeling themselves as socialist, but when called out as one to unapologetically accept it. Mostly just focus on what the interests of the average worker are, and how the existence of a bourgeois, no matter in what form, works directly against that.

Don't focus too much on theory, they can get to that later. Focus on how it impacts them, or the people they sympathize with. We may not want idealism to exist, but it would be dumb to think most people aren't idealists.

[Revolution starts with U]

And don't, as I sometimes do (tho I've gotten much better), patronize and belittle them. I know it's easy to do so. But it only closes their mind further.

Good luck comrade :D

[Firebrand]

The first thing to do in mostly economically tranquil countries such as Western Europe

Economically tranquil??????

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

When I was a liberal, it took me lots of time and reading before I became where I'm at now. Have333333 and Workers-Control-Over-Prod worked with me extensively (mainly showing me how I was wrong), using Marxist text. There is no sure way to convert a Liberal to a Socialist unless they're willing, like I was to learn more.

[Raúl Duke]

Most left-libs (american democrats, for example) are already prone to working class sympathy. I've found that one should avoid labeling themselves as socialist, but when called out as one to unapologetically accept it. Mostly just focus on what the interests of the average worker are, and how the existence of a bourgeois, no matter in what form, works directly against that.

Don't focus too much on theory, they can get to that later. Focus on how it impacts them, or the people they sympathize with. We may not want idealism to exist, but it would be dumb to think most people aren't idealists.

This, this, and this

Here's how I go about it.
Talk about the short-comings of capitalism, explain that capitalism's problems are structural/systematic (endemic, inherent to capitalism; this point is important because liberals, etc, particularly Occupy types, like to talk about "corruption" as in how money has corrupted the political process like it was something separate from capitalism rather than a symptom of capitalism.), how capitalism is opposed to democracy, etc. Of course, I'm talking in general terms, but that about covers it.

Don't bother with theory, save that for later; also, discussing left theory is perhaps more difficult than discrediting capitalism. So, if you reach that point, do so cautiously.

[jookyle]

First, we have to go to them instead them coming to us.

Second, I think we need to go a little old-school here. Gathering in public places and soapboxing, handing out leaflets.

We need to put ourselves where they are and make noise and refuse to stop making noise.

[cb9's_unity]

Previous posters have given some really good guidelines on how to go about debating liberals. Now on to some more specific arguments I think are useful.

I live in America, so one of my main goals is to chips away at peoples faith in the democratic party. A few facts are helpful here. The democrats have basically been getting less "progressive" (if you could ever call them that) since FDR died. Every successive democrat has been worse than the last. People say the democrats at their heart are the working class party, and that recent developments are only regressions caused by reactionary republicans. The problem with this line of thinking is that the New Deal was 75 years ago. 80 years before that the democrats were still the pro-slavery party. What does it say about the democrats that its been the same time from their (still pretty bad) best days to now than from their best to their pro-slave state days? My point isn't that the New Deal was satisfactory or progressive, its that liberals can only keep their reforms temporarily, and they can only initiate them at times of existential crisis in the capitalist system.

The point is that liberals have never been able to reform capitalism without the existence of strong socialist parties or strong conditions for socialism. Supporting capitalism, even a "reformed" version of it, always hands power to the most powerful economically. At this very moment history is proving that liberal parties can't maintain power and even the slightest progressive character at the same time for any extended amount of time. So the question isn't capitalism, reformed capitalism, or socialism. It's chaotic capitalism or socialism. At the very least socialist parties cause reforms better than liberal parties, even if socialist parties should by no means treat reforms as significant goals.

At this moment its also just incredibly easy to trash Obama as the neoconservative heir to Bush that he actually is. Seeing that Obama has basically been a republican it's time to ask democrats if they honestly think the democratic party will be able to field any candidate to the left of Obama in the foreseeable future. It's getting clear progressives need to turn elsewhere.

Honestly, revleft should probably focus more on criticizing the developments of modern liberalism than debating which barely distinguishable theoretical sect is more flawless. That would actually help in the real world.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

In my personal experience, liberals are nearly impossible to turn to socialism. One could retort, undoubtedly with some justification, that I am simply bad at convincing others of my views. But in my opinion the task is not so much convincing liberals as exposing deeply held prejudices and convictions that will already place the socialist at a disadvantage. Here is a list of those issues that the liberals I've known will absolutely not budge on:

-Emphasizing race and identity politics in general over class.
-Pacifism.
-The lesser of two evils mindset.
-The illusion that capitalism can be reformed.
-Only recognizing failings of individuals as opposed to obvious systemic failings.
-Philistinism and elitism regarding the proletariat; the ones I've known lump them in with South Park's "rabblers" and the redneck auto workers.

As I see it, the only way to possible to win liberals to socialism is to personally bring them to strikes and other events of working class struggle. Frank Brenner and Alex Steiner have an interesting observation about how one develops socialist consciousness. The quote can be found in the spoiler: http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/mwhh_ch05.pdf
This is the real tradition of Trotskyism – where the fight to mobilize the working class in defense of its rights is at the center of the political life of the revolutionary movement. Unlike [David] North, Cannon did not see any distinction between organizing this strike and conducting a “political fight.” The Trotskyists were able to raise the great political issues of the day – above all the treachery of the Democratic ‘friends of labor’ – in the context of the strike itself. And their position was powerfully confirmed when the Farmer-Labor Governor of Minnesota, Floyd Olson, who was supposedly even more of a ‘friend of labor’ than Roosevelt, ended up declaring martial law and having the organizing committee arrested. This is the sort of lesson as to who your real friends are that thousands of workers could readily understand, and it powerfully enhanced the political authority of the Trotskyists and brought an important new layer of working class militants into the party.15 This is what building bridges to socialist consciousness is all about: it happens by Marxists fighting for leadership in the mass movement of the working class and by demonstrating through the struggle that the defense of jobs and basic rights can only happen through a revolutionary offensive against capitalism.
I think we should carefully consider what Steiner and Brenner have to say here. If the proletariat must acquire consciousness through the actual struggle, than this could apply to the liberals as well as every other member of the revolutionary party.

[cb9's_unity]

MEGAMANTROTSKY (I enjoyed typing that as a single word), I could engage you in some overarching theoretical debate about economic struggle versus political agitation (I recently read the first half of What Is To Be Done and found it enlightening), but I think we should really focus on how examples from the politics of today can be used against those liberal assumptions.

I don't think the current over emphasis on identity politics is a disease as much as it is a symptom. It emanates from the bounds of liberal conceptual frameworks more than it underlies them. I'm also going to have to flat out disagree with you on the pacifism issue. Very few liberals I know did anything but cheer Obama's actions in taking out bin Laden and Gaddafi.

There is no better time than now to show liberals how flawed the 'lesser of two evils' mindset is. Obama hasn't stopped Bush era conservatism in the least, he has turned "compassionate" conservatism into mainstream liberalism. It doesn't take a socialist perspective to see that democrats can solidify the gains of conservatives as much as they oppose them.

After Obama labelled health care reforms previously proposed by the Heritage Foundation and motherfucking Paul Ryan (both supported the individual mandate) as "progressive" what hope should liberals have of serious reform of the capitalist system. Even when Obama had the filibuster-proof 60 seats in senate and congress he still didn't do much more than hand the banks free cash. Once republicans got 41 seats in the senate even discussion of non-private options were done. Obama and Clinton have proved beyond doubt that democratic presidents will always make the political move before they make the leftward reform one.

In the past few years democrats have done a remarkable job of fucking up liberal conceptions of what the democratic party should be. The easiest thing we can do as socialists is to point those out. Most liberals can only defend liberalism through attacking conservatism. And while most liberals have their cliche critiques of socialist theory, few can honestly defend the currently elected crop of democrats from leftist criticism. They know mainstream liberals are failing them, its our job to step up and tell them what won't.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

@cb9's_unity: Thank you for your response. I will try to respond as best I can. If I end up misunderstanding some of your arguments in doing this, I apologize.

MEGAMANTROTSKY (I enjoyed typing that as a single word), I could engage you in some overarching theoretical debate about economic struggle versus political agitation (I recently read the first half of What Is To Be Done and found it enlightening), but I think we should really focus on how examples from the politics of today can be used against those liberal assumptions.

I don't think the current over emphasis on identity politics is a disease as much as it is a symptom. It emanates from the bounds of liberal conceptual frameworks more than it underlies them. I'm also going to have to flat out disagree with you on the pacifism issue. Very few liberals I know did anything but cheer Obama's actions in taking out bin Laden and Gaddafi.
First, I should have been more specific in what I meant by "pacifism". In using that term I was referring to how it was used in regard to the possibility of proletarian revolution itself. Due to the petty-bourgeois mindset of those I know, the prospect of capitalism completely collapsing alone makes their figurative fur stand on end. But they fear the actual revolution more, mostly because of the uninviting possibilities it raises. If, say, the American state were to fall in socialist hands tomorrow, there would be a high chance that the country could be plunged into civil war due to the aggression of the counterrevolution. This, above all, is something they do not want. Their pacifism adopts a duality here, and a completely hypocritical one. One the one hand they see fit to "support our troops" in the imperialist war, but for the workers at home on the other they suddenly feel the need to don the the robe of a priest and the lackadaisical attitude of a hipster. Pointing out these flaws in logic has done nothing for me.

Of course, I understand that liberals are hardly homogenous, and I have no doubt that there are many who are sympathetic to socialism and the proletariat. These are simply the ones I have had to personally deal with, and they naturally do not represent the whole. As for being "symptoms" of the liberal framework rather than underlying causes, I agree. But we'd be doing ourselves a disservice if we only looked at the problem in that light.

The basic Marxist truth regarding ruling ideas was only the first step in the attempt at understanding how those ideas are reflected in the very minds and hearts of man. Here we are stepping somewhat into the psychological realm. At times it is not simply a question of logic and debate to correct errors, though it is undoubtedly important. What I mean is that it is one thing to note the role of bourgeois institutions like the Catholic Church in their spreading of lies and distortions. It is quite another to investigate how people can personally adopt such lies and distortions, make it their own, and carry it with them. Identity politics is a symptom of the liberal framework, but I would argue that it is far more deeply felt than a mere symptom. Nor is this restricted to identity politics alone. For example, there are liberals I know who believe that abortion is the only important thing in the world, and all else be damned. Because of this, any attempts to present race and abortion as problems which are part of a cohesive whole will fall upon deaf ears. Noting the problems of the framework does not easily account for how that framework is personally adopted and espoused in practice.

There is no better time than now to show liberals how flawed the 'lesser of two evils' mindset is. Obama hasn't stopped Bush era conservatism in the least, he has turned "compassionate" conservatism into mainstream liberalism. It doesn't take a socialist perspective to see that democrats can solidify the gains of conservatives as much as they oppose them.
Naturally, I agree with you here.

After Obama labelled health care reforms previously proposed by the Heritage Foundation and motherfucking Paul Ryan (both supported the individual mandate) as "progressive" what hope should liberals have of serious reform of the capitalist system. Even when Obama had the filibuster-proof 60 seats in senate and congress he still didn't do much more than hand the banks free cash. Once republicans got 41 seats in the senate even discussion of non-private options were done. Obama and Clinton have proved beyond doubt that democratic presidents will always make the political move before they make the leftward reform one.
The political move before the leftward reform one? What exactly do you mean by this? It's not as if they will ever make any kind of real "leftward" reform. Just more austerity. You might as well photoshop Bush's head onto Obama's at this point. You won't be able to tell the difference.

In the past few years democrats have done a remarkable job of fucking up liberal conceptions of what the democratic party should be. The easiest thing we can do as socialists is to point those out. Most liberals can only defend liberalism through attacking conservatism. And while most liberals have their cliche critiques of socialist theory, few can honestly defend the currently elected crop of democrats from leftist criticism. They know mainstream liberals are failing them, its our job to step up and tell them what won't.
Pointing out how liberal conceptions have been perverted is certainly something socialists can do. But it is also by far the very least we can do. This is why I currently believe that personally involving liberals in the thick of the class struggle could also be effective. One does not simply obtain socialist consciousness through attending meetings, reading pamphlets, or even memorizing entire Marxist works. Marxism's practical component should never be overlooked, for it too has a good deal to say. We need all the help we can get for dispelling the Stalinist poltergeist that appears each time the word "socialism" is uttered, and this goes for workers just as much as it does liberals.

Finally, allow me to say upfront that I am not saying that it is pointless to try and convince liberals. As I said, it is only currently pointless for me to do so. I have burned myself out in this area, really. All I wanted to do was point out the arguments that I encounter the most often, that are the most intransigent. If you have anything else to add I'd be happy to listen.

[Delenda Carthago]

If you want to convince anyone on anything you have to know. To have knowledge. In order to have someone change his mind on politics you have to have answers on history, philosophy, economy and others. What happened, where, why, and how could it be done.

And you have to give the everyday struggle with people. Thats class war. From working place terrorism of your boss, to cop harrasment, to anything. People wont follow you because of your great lines, but because you give them answers to their problems.

[Tim Cornelis]

I do not think there is anyone point to push them towards anti-capitalism but that only through systematic debate concerning a wide variety of subjects will people be brought over.No one converts another person with a single debate anyway, it is about planting seeds for the next.I think giving dedication and reliable sources for your claims will, in time, due quote a bit. Sometimes people just need to know and than they will gradually move to a new position.

This is what I usually do. Arguing against capitalism from different angles, hoping one of such angles will stick and that the person will develop his or her new found anti-capitalist sentiment further. Sometimes this is more successful than others.

However, I've always debated people who were enthusiastic about politics. All the comments seem to implicitly presume people who are interested in politics more than average. However, I would like to engage those who are only moderately interested in politics as well.

What I mean to say is that the "seed planting" for those really interested in politics is done by giving a basic critique of capitalism and a brief explanation of socialism. They will then, of their own accord, research further. However, those who are only moderately interested in politics will not research further.

Thus, the "seed planting" for those moderately interested in politics is more as in convincing them that capitalism is a bad system, and that this seed will grow only when an economic crisis hits them personally.

Moreover, it is much more easy to bore someone who is only moderately interested in politics and come across as preachy. So I need cohesive, short, but powerful arguments that will immediately plant the seed and then let it rest.

I guess what I'm asking is whether there a quick way to demonstrate that capitalism cannot be reformed to someone who is moderately interested in politics? As to plant a seed that will grow when the socio-economic necessity arises.


Economically tranquil??????

Most Western European countries (Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Belgium) are at present economically and socially tranquil with only a moderate recession, next to zero chance of social unrest, and generally a relative satisfaction with the current system.

Here is a map of terrorism and political violent risk assessment for 2012:

http://i.imgur.com/3wIEH.png

As you can see there is not even a low chance of strikes, etc. in countries like Finland, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.

You can request the map here (http://www.aon.com/risk-services/terrorism-risk-map/register.jsp).

[Firebrand]

Most Western European countries (Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Belgium) are at present economically and socially tranquil with only a moderate recession, next to zero chance of social unrest, and generally a relative satisfaction with the current system.

Here is a map of terrorism and political violent risk assessment for 2012:

As you can see there is not even a low chance of strikes, etc. in countries like Finland, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.


Netherlands, sweden, norway and belgium are famed for being politically tranquil, economically stable and economically and politically not being very significant.
If you look at Spain, France, UK, Portugal for example you get a very different picture, Youth unemployment in Spain for example is 50%. And In the UK the prevailing economic feeling is that we are standing at the top of a very high cliff about to be pushed over the edge. And in any case it is almost impossible to predict level of social unrest, no one predicted that a short protest march at the police shooting of mark duggan would spiral into days of rioting across the country. Trust me the situation in Europe is not stable, the phrase tinderbox comes to mind.

BTW since when is Finland western europe?

[Tim Cornelis]

Netherlands, sweden, norway and belgium are famed for being politically tranquil, economically stable and economically and politically not being very significant.
If you look at Spain, France, UK, Portugal for example you get a very different picture, Youth unemployment in Spain for example is 50%. And In the UK the prevailing economic feeling is that we are standing at the top of a very high cliff about to be pushed over the edge. And in any case it is almost impossible to predict level of social unrest, no one predicted that a short protest march at the police shooting of mark duggan would spiral into days of rioting across the country. Trust me the situation in Europe is not stable, the phrase tinderbox comes to mind.

BTW since when is Finland western europe?

I always considered Western Europe to be Ireland, UK, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, and sometimes Norway, and Sweden. Indeed, Finland is not Western Europe.

Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc. are Southern Europe.

[TrotskistMarx]

Hello, damn man to convince social-democrat centrist liberals to become marxist leftists socialists and to vote for marxist socialist political parties is real real hard. To convince people of any thing is real hard. The psychoanalyist Eric Fromm said that humans behave by traditions, by habits, and humans tend to have the same ideology, doctrines and behaviour philosophy of life all the way since childhood till adult life. And specially people in USA who are very psychorigid, very square, very rational, very legalists, and who behave like robots, like robocop. Man specially in America, where people have this super extreme psychorigid mentality.

Man, in this country some people even celebrate weddings with lemonade, because they claim alcoholic drinks are evil. The people of this country are very mind-controlled by an excess of legalism, by worshipping things like sports teams, the US constitution etc.





The first thing to do in mostly economically tranquil countries such as Western Europe is to convince people of the need for a different system before we mobilise them and before they will act.

Therefore, how do we convince "liberals"?

By "liberals" I mean the social capitalists, social democrats, and those who acknowledge capitalism is not a good system, but fail to see the necessity or need to overthrow it.

For example, my parents and sister are all left-wing, but don't see the necessity to do away with capitalism. What is some cohesive, short, but powerful arguments that could push them over the edge?

Though even if they could be convinced they wont act until there is a material need to do so (after all, why would they risk their job in relatively tranquil times? They have too much to lose), but convincing people of the need for a post-capitalist society, imo, is a requisite for working towards such a society.

A related question, do any of you know any impressive statistics one can use? About inequality or whatever? (and also statistic you can tie to a credible story).

[TrotskistMarx]

Hello, another great impediment for a socialist government in USA to rise toward the White House with the formation of a United Socialist Front for the 2016 elections in USA is that some people because of their extreme-individualism worldview they have, twist things around. In the way, that if you try to teach somebody about socialism and politics. They twist it and they would think that you are trying to mind-manipulate that person, or to try to control them, or that you are an intruder, an invader, a stalker, that is trying to *force* an ideology on somebody. This is a country of paranoid people. In this country a guy that is flirting with a nice girl can be accused of "stalking" or "sex predator".

So some people reject any tips, opinions, suggestions about any thing in life, because of their different feelings of paranoia as a self-defense mechanism against strangers, and also their inflated egos and narcissism, their inflated egos do not let them be humble enough in order to take suggestions, tips, ideas from other people specially from anti-war, 911 truthers, grass roots activists, and marxist political activists

I see that a lot in America. In this country people in the lower classes, in the opressed sectors are not very friendly, outgoing and open minded to new ideas and to new formulas on how to get out of poverty. They are very anti-socials, social-phobics, they are very introverted, and they have this idea that they can control their own reality by their own selves. They don't need any "big government", any "nany state" any "fat government" to get out of poverty. They have this extreme-narcissism idea ingrained by the american libertarianism anti-social philosophy of life, that states that people can get out of poverty and become rich like the owner of Facebook, Donald Trump and The Rockefeller Family by their own selves, usually thru garage sales and side businesses. They think they can get out of poverty better that way with their own pure muscle powers and will-power than with marxist grass roots political activism. They have a sort of "Do it yourself" ideology, a "self service" philosophy of life !!



The first thing to do in mostly economically tranquil countries such as Western Europe is to convince people of the need for a different system before we mobilise them and before they will act.

Therefore, how do we convince "liberals"?

By "liberals" I mean the social capitalists, social democrats, and those who acknowledge capitalism is not a good system, but fail to see the necessity or need to overthrow it.

For example, my parents and sister are all left-wing, but don't see the necessity to do away with capitalism. What is some cohesive, short, but powerful arguments that could push them over the edge?

Though even if they could be convinced they wont act until there is a material need to do so (after all, why would they risk their job in relatively tranquil times? They have too much to lose), but convincing people of the need for a post-capitalist society, imo, is a requisite for working towards such a society.

A related question, do any of you know any impressive statistics one can use? About inequality or whatever? (and also statistic you can tie to a credible story).

[Pretty Flaco]

the best way to convince a liberal is to show them old videos of soviet military parades and tell them how great the leadership of great comrade hoxha was.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's a waste of time putting our effort into 'convincing' liberals of Socialism. We need only the working class.

When the revolution comes, people will be mostly divided by their class character. Obviously, some partisan non-workers will take the side of the Socialists, and some workers will take the side of the reactionaries, but in general, class struggle is what it says on the tin. It's really a lot less ideological than we all make it out to be.

[Deicide]

I always considered Western Europe to be Ireland, UK, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, and sometimes Norway, and Sweden. Indeed, Finland is not Western Europe.

Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc. are Southern Europe.

This is a slight off-topic rant, but sorry, I couldn't resist.

The UN defines 'Northern Europe' as including the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Iceland.

'Western Europe' as including France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco and the Netherlands.

[Ismail]

the best way to convince a liberal is to show them old videos of soviet military parades and tell them how great the leadership of great comrade hoxha was.The same Hoxha who compared the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia to fascist aggression and whose followers called on the Soviet military to rise up in 1980 and turn the war in Afghanistan into a civil war against the Soviet occupiers (with the clandestine KPD/ML in the GDR actively working (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv5n1/gdrkpd.htm) to ensure that Soviet Army personnel read such appeals)? The same Hoxha whose leadership saw the abolition of military ranks?

But you're right, in the 70's and 80's there was a definite interest in Albania. As one anti-communist source recalls (http://wwrn.org/articles/7182/) of Radio Tirana:

In its heyday, the station tried hard to convince the world to follow Albania's example -- in 22 languages from English to Indonesian and with more than 80 hours of programming a day....

Still, the station received thousands of letters from all over the world. A Swede learnt Albanian just by listening to the radio. Others wrote to commend speech programmes and folk music.

An English farmer in 1979, after hearing about an earthquake that hit northern Albania, wrote a letter saying he wanted to come and help with his tractor and his family, Taylor said.One British listener (http://www.network54.com/Forum/393207/message/1241999735/Radio+Tirana) of Radio Tirana in the 80's:
Radio Tirana, the voice of Marxism-Leninism was a firm favourite of mine. I recall with joy listening to such delights as "Marxism-Leninism - an Ever Young and Scientific Theory" "For National and Social Liberation" "A Review of the Marxist-Leninist Movements Across the World". In the review programme you got to hear roundups of the actvities of the all the pro-Albanian M-L parties including our very own RCP-ML.Radio Tirana quoted "Workers Weekly" back in 1985 announcing the formation of the Trade Union Revolutionary opposition(a bloody good idea)by the RCP-ML...

On Radio Tirana they used read extracts from the latest works of Comrade Enver such as "The Two Superpowers" and later on from Ramiz Alia (His memiors "Our Enver"). Due to the revolutionary influence of Radio Tirana and their calls for militant class struggle aganist US Imperialism and Soviet Social Imperialism i for a brief time flirted with Hoxhaism.And Bill Bland, head of the Albanian Society, recalled in 1985:

Enver Hoxha would not have been surprised at his obituaries in the British media. When the British press praises someone who call himself a "socialist", it is time to question the genuineness of his "socialism". And, of course, this hostile propaganda does not have entirely the results it aims at. In the week in which these obituaries were published, the Albanian society received more applications for membership than in any month in the past twenty-five years. One miner from South Wales wrote to me:

"Having read the newspaper reports on the death of Enver Hoxha, my experience of the press over the twelve months of the miners’ strike leads me to want to know more about Albania".I have indeed spoken to people (liberal and conservative) about the Albanian example. Most anti-communists are impressed by Albania's economic and social progress.

[Ocean Seal]

Ask them how much Obama has done in the face of almost absolute victory in the houses of congress and compare that to the number of proposals that Bush got through during his years despite public opposition.
Next they'll say well all Republicans are like that, they don't compromise or listen.
Say I agree, and neither should you, because not compromising is obviously working for them.

When you say free healthcare, mean free healthcare. When you say fight the prison system, mean fight the prison system.

[GPDP]

Some liberals are beyond convincing, largely due to their class standing. Consider this post I made some time ago:


Assuming by liberal, you are using the term as employed in the US (social liberal or Democrat), I would say there's basically three types.

The first kind is what I would classify as "closet socialist" liberals. Were it not for socialism having had its name driven through the mud, these liberals would almost certainly adopt it as their political identity. I often find these liberals don't actually have very defined or coherent politics, usually identifying with some vague specter of anti-capitalism, being pro-personal freedoms, gay rights, environmentalism, etc. I would consider these liberals our friends, which is neat because I believe they are by far the most common type of liberal, as they tend to be found within the ranks of the working class and IMO a good chunk of students. They may be social-democrats at worst, but are otherwise on the right track.

The second type is the yuppie "elitist" liberal. These liberals hold more refined politics, and buy into the system for the most part. Whereas "closet socialist" liberals usually only apply the liberal label due to having no other good term to use save perhaps social-democrat (a term nigh-nonexistent in the US), the "elitist" liberal wears his label with pride. This liberal is more educated and well-read in politics and actual liberal thought, and is usually found among the petit-bourgeoisie. This is the archetype that RadioRaheem already outlined in his post. Basically, they're really annoying, and think dealing with the "issues" is a matter of applying the right policy. These guys are usually our foes, though some can be turned.

The third type are the "ruling class" liberals, or liberals in power. This is the "left" wing of the bourgeoisie. They are our foes through and through. Not much else to say.

Working class liberals tend to be sympathetic to socialist politics, and in fact only accept the liberal label in lieu of a socialist label that has not been dragged through the mud by decades of propaganda. Petty-bourgeois liberals are a different story, because most of them actually buy into the system and only wish to reform it. And I needn't even get into why convincing ruling class liberals is a wasted effort.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Some liberals are beyond convincing, largely due to their class standing. Consider this post I made some time ago:



Working class liberals tend to be sympathetic to socialist politics, and in fact only accept the liberal label in lieu of a socialist label that has not been dragged through the mud by decades of propaganda. Petty-bourgeois liberals are a different story, because most of them actually buy into the system and only wish to reform it. And I needn't even get into why convincing ruling class liberals is a wasted effort.

That post of yours that you quoted is really good stuff. Very helpful categorisation, comrade.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, petit-bourgeois liberals can be quite insufferable and are usually the first to give up socialist minded liberal comrades when there right wingers start to red bait.

[ckaihatsu]

So I need cohesive, short, but powerful arguments that will immediately plant the seed and then let it rest.

I guess what I'm asking is whether there a quick way to demonstrate that capitalism cannot be reformed to someone who is moderately interested in politics? As to plant a seed that will grow when the socio-economic necessity arises.


Here's a good resource for pro-communist types of arguments:


Need help rebutting typical anti-communist arguments

http://www.revleft.com/vb/need-help-rebutting-t172065/index.html


And, there's a strength to the revolutionary leftist position that's too-often overlooked, and that's its *consistency* -- what drives *us* up-the-wall is all of the political positions to the right of us that *necessarily* have to *attempt* to reconcile contradictory positions, as with national foreign and domestic policies.

If one has the knack for this, you can simply keep counterposing the "right side" of the person's own politics to their "left side", over and over. Be patient, draw out the points of their position, and repeat back their main points to confirm it and to show that you understand where they're coming from. Then note that -- strictly according to their own theory -- they *can't* 'hold it together' because they'd *have* to let in aspects of their 'further-right' and 'further-left' wings, by definition.

- So, for example, let's say we have someone who thinks that there's enough development to allow social programs for the public good to be funded with tax dollars.

"Great," you say. "I agree that social services are important and that the government can definitely afford them. But why are we allowing [nationalist] *politicians* to oversee all of this? Are they really the most appropriate professionals for relating to those who work in *providing* those social services, or should maybe those actual *providers* be the more appropriate persons for tending to how those programs are funded and administered -- ?"

- Or, how about someone who's more sympathetic but holds illusions in parliamentarism:

"That's excellent -- of course workers can run society better than the bourgeoisie. And we can definitely make a plan to get to there from here. And how *would* the [nationalist] parliaments of the various countries coordinate it, exactly? Or what is it that [revolutionary] people and workers should be doing in the streets to speed this along?"

(Etc.)


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://postimage.org/image/34modgv1g/

[Igor]

I always considered Western Europe to be Ireland, UK, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, and sometimes Norway, and Sweden. Indeed, Finland is not Western Europe.

Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc. are Southern Europe.

Finland is definitely part of Western Europe if we're going by the west/east division, which is fairly typical part of dividing up Europe politically. Finland is an EU member country and was never part of the Eastern Bloc which puts it fairly solidly in the west. This is more relevant to analyzing situations like this than sometimes rather arbitrary geographic areas.

But yeah, geographically, it's Northern Europe, as are Norway and Sweden, none of these are Western Europe geographically.

[Mr. Natural]

Talk is indeed cheap. How to convince liberals or anyone else? The talk must be modeled by practice, and in the US, for instance, there is no left praxis.

What might such praxis be? The opportunities to begin something based in left principles in your local community are many. The American people don't have a political party representing their interests. Why not start one rooted in local issues. Why not start a community party?

Do you think this is impossibly abstract, utopian, liberal, whatever? Hardly. The Tea Party is in the process of taking over my town. It will happen with tomorrow's elections.

I cannot adequately express how angry and depressed I become on a daily basis as I watch the far right successfully organize and then come on Revleft to find I cannot even engage others in scientifically discussing the organization of life and communism.

Such discussions/talk should not be so cheap at Revleft.

My red-green, raging best.