how do we defeat right-wing ideology?

[campesino]

I think it is mostly the media's fault, I guess I can also blame the culture, which is influenced by the media. I became a communist when I lost the desire for wealth, and valued freedom, and learned what true freedom was. wage-slavery is not freedom. all the inequities and foolishness of capitalism is just icing on the cake.

[Dunk]

By communizing production

I know that's a pretty short and simple response but liberalism doesn't exist unless the capitalist mode of production exists. Conditions determine consciousness and all that

[Questionable]

I wouldn't say it's that easy. There will still be bourgeois ideology after the revolution that will have to be combated, even if its just briefly.

[Eagle_Syr]

The success of modern liberalism has been the biggest bane on the left in the recent past.

The masses do want change. But the problem is, they perceive liberal change as fundamental change. The Democratic Party champions workers' rights and equality and fairness, and the people buy it. But calling for higher taxes and throwing concession to workers does not fundamentally change the fact that the bourgeoisie is in control of the means of production.

Liberalism is a bourgeoisie attempt at pacifying the working class with concessions, and unfortunately, the people buy it.

The middle class, the largest class in the States, thus does not support revolution because revolution brings about risks and requires effort. They are comfortable. They are the buffer between those who do want to revolt, the working poor, and those who want to stay in power, the bourgeoisie.

[Revolution starts with U]

We agitate for worker's power over the state and their workplace, and create new mouthpieces to overtake the current ideological battleground. If worker power has begun to supersede the functionality of capitalism, right wing propaganda would become akin to calling for feudalism now.

[Eagle_Syr]

We also need to be aggressive. Pacifism will be the death of socialism.

[Revolution starts with U]

We also need to be aggressive. Pacifism will be the death of socialism.

I tend to think neither MLK nor Malcom X would have been as effective without each other; we need to be passive at times to invite their aggressive attacks, which we can use as righteous justification to our response.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

The success of modern liberalism has been the biggest bane on the left in the recent past.

The masses do want change. But the problem is, they perceive liberal change as fundamental change. The Democratic Party champions workers' rights and equality and fairness, and the people buy it. But calling for higher taxes and throwing concession to workers does not fundamentally change the fact that the bourgeoisie is in control of the means of production.

Liberalism is a bourgeoisie attempt at pacifying the working class with concessions, and unfortunately, the people buy it.

The middle class, the largest class in the States, thus does not support revolution because revolution brings about risks and requires effort. They are comfortable. They are the buffer between those who do want to revolt, the working poor, and those who want to stay in power, the bourgeoisie.
Marx described the middle class as a form bourgeoisie. The majority of Americans are proletariat, since they don't own the means of production. What I agree with you on is the American proletariat is pretty happy, albeit this isn't becoming the case any longer, as private debt (higher levels now than the Great Depression) has plagued the American economy. The value of their homes have diminished, pay-cuts, lost pensions, loss of work hours, and many are aware of the fact the two dominate political factions in the country aren't present to help.

@OP : In the US, we have to let the supreme court destroy the two party law, and get the government and corporations to stop spreading propaganda. In other words, we're going to have to put a massive effort into combating the 'right-wingers'. This is to be done with education, and letting the proletariat know Capitalism isn't working, which the economy of the West is doing that for us.

[Eagle_Syr]

What we really need, more than anything, are examples. I think we should focus our efforts geographically on a particular, local region and try to find success for socialism and build from there.

Has anyone heard of the Free State Project, or other proposed libertarian "experiments"? We need something similar. Not a commune of ten hippies sitting sitting around, but a successful example of socialism on a scale of 100,000-500,000 people, at a municipal level.

[o well this is ok I guess]

In general, or case by case?

[jookyle]

We also need to be aggressive. Pacifism will be the death of socialism.

It's not about taking one over the other. It's about picking the right tactic for the right situation.

[Revolution starts with U]

What we really need, more than anything, are examples. I think we should focus our efforts geographically on a particular, local region and try to find success for socialism and build from there.

Has anyone heard of the Free State Project, or other proposed libertarian "experiments"? We need something similar. Not a commune of ten hippies sitting sitting around, but a successful example of socialism on a scale of 100,000-500,000 people, at a municipal level.

The idea is that we need proles to start dropping out of the current system. It cannot function without them.

But instead of hippie "let's all dance and get high way" (tho, we can do some of that too) to just pursue who they want to be. Create a wholly competing society right in the heart of it all, and use it to actively reject the very existence of the old order. The bourgeoisie did not wait for feudalism to fall to practice what they felt in their class interest. Neither should the proletariat.

[eric922]

The idea is that we need proles to start dropping out of the current system. It cannot function without them.

But instead of hippie "let's all dance and get high way" (tho, we can do some of that too) to just pursue who they want to be. Create a wholly competing society right in the heart of it all, and use it to actively reject the very existence of the old order. The bourgeoisie did not wait for feudalism to fall to practice what they felt in their class interest. Neither should the proletariat.
Indeed if I recall correctly, the modern day bourgeois grew out of the town merchants of the middle ages, which had been developing within the Feudal economy for centuries before they eventually replaced feudalism.

[eric922]

Marx described the middle class as a form bourgeoisie. The majority of Americans are proletariat, since they don't own the means of production. What I agree with you on is the American proletariat is pretty happy, albeit this isn't becoming the case any longer, as private debt (higher levels now than the Great Depression) has plagued the American economy. The value of their homes have diminished, pay-cuts, lost pensions, loss of work hours, and many are aware of the fact the two dominate political factions in the country aren't present to help.

This whole thing is why i hate talking about American politics at times, because when people say middle-class most of them aren't thinking of it in Marxist terms, but rather in terms of working class people who have a good job, nice house, etc. For instance, even most college educated people are likely working class in Marxist terms, but they are usually considered to be "middle-class." It's really confusing.

[Revolution starts with U]

Sorry to ramble, but it appears to me that logically a class society, as a thing, must serve some broad function to gain the consent of the masses; ie, "capitalism isn't broken, it's designed to work like this." Like all issues you must get to the heart. What function does it serve collective society, and how can we overcome that?

EDIT: skipped a step :lol:
The issue, I think, is legitimacy. As long as the ruling class has the ability to express its dominance, the antagonist class faces the problem of the system being seen as natural. We know that the working class has to take dominance over society, and how do they do that?
We know it's not just about higher wages and free healthcare. So what is the issue? Alienation seems to be at the root of it all. Alienation; the realization that one is both the axis on which the whole thing turns, and the farthest one autonomy.


"If one identifies proletarian with factory worker (or even worse: with manual labourer), or with the poor, then one cannot see what is subversive in the proletarian condition. The proletariat is the negation of this society. It is not the collection of the poor, but of those who are desperate, those who have no reserves (les sans-réserves in French, or senza riserve in Italian), 5 who have nothing to lose but their chains; those who are nothing, have nothing, and cannot liberate themselves without destroying the whole social order.

The proletariat is the dissolution of present society, because this society deprives it of nearly all its positive aspects. Thus the proletariat is also its own destruction. All theories (either bourgeois, fascist, stalinist, left-wing or "gauchistes") which in any way glorify and praise the proletariat as it is and claim for it the positive role of defending values and regenerating society, are counter-revolutionary.

Worship of the proletariat has become one of the most efficient and dangerous weapons of capital. Most proles are low paid, and a lot work in production, yet their emergence as the proletariat derives not from being low paid producers, but from being "cut off", alienated, with no control either over their lives or the meaning of what they have to do to earn a living."

~Gilles Dauve

So it seems logical that if more proletarii become aware of just who and what they are, the less consent the standing order has on which to stand. Without consent, the ruling class is forced to acquiesce at least some power over society. As time goes by they give and give and give until their debt to the new society forces them into compliance.

[jookyle]

The idea is that we need proles to start dropping out of the current system. It cannot function without them.

But instead of hippie "let's all dance and get high way" (tho, we can do some of that too) to just pursue who they want to be. Create a wholly competing society right in the heart of it all, and use it to actively reject the very existence of the old order. The bourgeoisie did not wait for feudalism to fall to practice what they felt in their class interest. Neither should the proletariat.

I have to disagree. I don't think that dropping out is going to solve anything unless you can get everyone to do it at once. What we need is active tactics to radicalize the masses by whatever means you can. I've found that going to where the people are is not a bad idea and people are more open to socialist ideas than you'd think. Whether we take a a more peaceful tactic(such as massive civil disobedience) or a more violant approach we need numbers. Especially if we're taking a violant approach considering the Tea Party probably outnumber and out gun us five to one if not more. Let's be honest, if occupy actually occupied wall-street we'd see more results. Not camping out across from buildings but occupying the buildings, stuff ourselves into the lobbies and what not and stop people form getting in. Massive civil disobedience, taking an active approach, in America will have great results and will at least be a good start. But we need the numbers, not just to be against bankers or wall street but be against capitalism itself and united towards socialism.

[Revolution starts with U]

I didn't phrase myself correctly. In dropping out of the system, I meant totally; meaning gaining subsistence through entirely non-legitimate means. That would include both not taking part in the system, fighting against it, and creating a system that better suits our class nature.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think it is mostly the media's fault, I guess I can also blame the culture, which is influenced by the media. I became a communist when I lost the desire for wealth, and valued freedom, and learned what true freedom was. wage-slavery is not freedom. all the inequities and foolishness of capitalism is just icing on the cake.

In times of relative stability ruling classes generally want to rely on their own social hegemony rather than direct repression to keep their order in society intact. They want us to think there is no alternative either because nothing could be better or that the system is simply too ingrained in the people or the society to change. This goes for despots as well as capitalist bosses and parliamentary politicians.

So most people turn to some version of liberal or conservative ideas just because they are ubiquitous and "the most realistic" given that the system can't be changed or that there is no viable alternative according to "common sense" in society.

We can try and battle idea for idea against ruling class or specifically right-wing ideas and that's important and we can make small gains either by winning individuals closer to our point of view or winning specific arguments about this or that policy or feature of society in a more generalized way. But fighting in the world of ideas alone is a Sisyphean task because every argument we knock down is replaced by dozens of other arguments by the media or right-wing intellectuals or think tanks and other organizations dedicated to shaping popular ideas for the benefit of the establishment. Just think things like evolution - there is no debate about this idea in general (there are many specific debates about how evolution works, etc) in academics and sciences, yet in the mainstream it is treated as a debate. So ideas can't be fought just by better ideas.

So if people are pulled to ruling class ideas out of just lack of faith in any alternatives being possible, the thing that changes how ideas are perceived in society is class struggle. Engaging in these struggles causes people to begin to challenge some of the "common sense" ideas about how society inevitably is. Even a street march can begin to do this by showing the participants the solidarity of thousands of determined people who hold a view that the mainstream says is "unreasonable". Obviously more intense actions like major strikes and workplace occupations and general strikes etc show a lot more about how society might be different.

And in mass uprisings, suddenly everything that was thought to be impossible seems possible and often becomes more "realistic" than the idea that society could ever go back to "normalcy". People begin to think, "hey I never thought this was possible, but now things are different" or they say "Oh well I always thought there had to be a better way, but I thought I was the only one". Things like Occupy or the Seattle WTO protests give a small taste of that, and Egypt gives a little more.

So I don't think right-wing or ruling class ideas can be "defeated" but I think we can outflank them and marginalize them by organizing people who are already on the way to challenging the idea that "there is no alternative". Then it won't just be one idea vs. another, but ideas backed by social forces (revolutionary groups, networks of activists and militant unionists etc) - which is what the ruling class has going for it normally and why we also need to organize ourselves.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

By antifascist actions, propaganda posters, and violence to anyone who attacks immigrants and comrades of ours. Sounds simple though, It ain't.

[Eagle_Syr]

I have to disagree. I don't think that dropping out is going to solve anything unless you can get everyone to do it at once. What we need is active tactics to radicalize the masses by whatever means you can. I've found that going to where the people are is not a bad idea and people are more open to socialist ideas than you'd think. Whether we take a a more peaceful tactic(such as massive civil disobedience) or a more violant approach we need numbers. Especially if we're taking a violant approach considering the Tea Party probably outnumber and out gun us five to one if not more. Let's be honest, if occupy actually occupied wall-street we'd see more results. Not camping out across from buildings but occupying the buildings, stuff ourselves into the lobbies and what not and stop people form getting in. Massive civil disobedience, taking an active approach, in America will have great results and will at least be a good start. But we need the numbers, not just to be against bankers or wall street but be against capitalism itself and united towards socialism.

I have to agree, but we still need projects aimed at creating sustainable socialism in order to demonstrate that socialism can succeed. The problem is, most people don't understand it and don't believe it can "work", i.e, that it is "utopian". That is a massive problem, along with liberalism, the natural enemy of the true left-wing

[ckaihatsu]

The issue, I think, is legitimacy. As long as the ruling class has the ability to express its dominance, the antagonist class faces the problem of the system being seen as natural. We know that the working class has to take dominance over society, and how do they do that?





propaganda posters


Here's a particular conception / illustration of this area....


Ideologies & Operations -- Bottom Up

http://postimage.org/image/1d4wy29dw/