Are we really effective?

[superborys]

Now, before I begin this thread, let me preface this by saying that I still am staunchly socialist, and every day, whether or not they're really signs of the coming revolution, I see things that must be such signs. But I don't really know why I'm even precautioning this because it's going to happen anyway.

How effective are we really? I've been with RevLeft for a while now but don't ask me precisely how long because I couldn't tell you, and all the while I can get excited for a few weeks at a time, but during my stay here I haven't seen any particular increase in socialist chatter. I am aware that we're just a forum and we're not an enormous one at that... but are we growing? Are we spreading the word of leftism and egalitarianism? I'm hoping to be wrong with this and I would be glad to have someone shove examples in my face, but have any of us here really done anything impacting in the real world that's not a Occupy protest? Have any of us organized a march, or a strike, or a protest? Have any of us started organizations that are more than 10 people strong? Have any of us caused any policy changes in our locales to be more socialist? Have any of us converted someone to socialism, and not the "soft" conversion where they'll tacitly agree with you in conversation because they're tired/afraid you'll browbeat and dialectic them to death?

I have shown one friend of mine socialism in such a way that he actively pursues it. But does a 1:1 ratio really qualify as "effective?" The rest of my friends, tight-knit and close as we are, all share similar beliefs, but none of them are willingly, self-spoken socialists. Only the one, and consider myself raving on some days.


I'll concede that until a revolution of any kind occurs, doing anything socialist constitutes mostly of activism and small organizations, but is that at all justification to sit around and not do just that?



Because no one wants to hear it because we know how many differing opinions we already have but because I insist, here's my opinion:
Sectarianism is ruining the leftist movement.

I'd like some input and I'll ask no one flame me, but that's a lost cause.

[Deicide]

No, we're a bunch of useless idiots.

[Raúl Duke]

For the most part, it seems, we have not been so effective.

There may be a myriad of reasons for this, both from within the milleu and from outside.

Another issue is presentation and there's also the issue of insularity.

I imagine one of the unstated purpose of the site is to discuss how to be effective; but we haven't really reach much consensus on this idea; some are dead-set on repeating old patterns. Others are all for "purism." Also, there's the issue of insularity I mentioned and lack of outreach.

[roy]

sectarianism's good. different sects exist because leftists have different ideas. by no means has the 'left' ever been anything approaching homogeneous. it doesn't matter anyway, because it's abundantly clear at this stage that proselytism isn't gonna bring about communism. i mean, there are tendencies that i recoil at the thought of aligning myself with and i'm sure the feeling's mutual.

[superborys]

Is there such a pervasive compulsion to "purity" and traditionalism that we can't even set a margin of overlap in what we all consider "good method" so that we can actually get something done? I said this in a blog I wrote over a year ago, that the first thing we need to do is, like you mentioned Raúl, outreach. Outreach and the betterment of the socialist name.

I wish we could all just get together on that topic. We don't need to be leftist history scholars and dialectical masters to reach out to our communities.

[superborys]

sectarianism's good. different sects exist because leftists have different ideas. by no means has the 'left' ever been anything approaching homogeneous. it doesn't matter anyway, because it's abundantly clear at this stage that proselytism isn't gonna bring about communism. i mean, there are tendencies that i recoil at the thought of aligning myself with and i'm sure the feeling's mutual.

I don't want to offend, but I've never heard sectarianism used in a non-hostile sense. It would be like if the Tea Partyers decided that less-conservative Republicans were villains and they refused to have anything to do with them. In my opinion, the Republican party would collapse in under a year. I'm not a huge fan of Stalinism, as I imagine most non-Stalinists are, but if I were in a situation where Syndicalists controlled 40% of the Congress (oh what a dream), and Stalinists controlled 12%, and the rest of the Congress was ultra-rightists, I would deal with the Stalinists in order to further socialism in that context.

I just don't personally think that in this day and age where people are far more educated (relatively speaking here...), that factionalism and sectarianism are tenable policies. You have to compromise, you have to sacrifice.

[roy]

a stalinist is gonna want to spread an entirely different word from what a leftcom advocates, for example. all the theory's available for those who want to learn about communism. doing practical work in the community and anti-capitalist protest is something that socialists in general can do, although it doesn't advance 'the cause'.

[superborys]

a stalinist is gonna want to spread an entirely different word from what a leftcom advocates, for example. all the theory's available for those who want to learn about communism. doing practical work in the community and anti-capitalist protest is something that socialists in general can do, although it doesn't advance 'the cause'.

Well it would be acceptable to adhere to different labels if, when needed, we all united under the "leftist" banner. But we don't. We all insist on always being Maoists, or Leninists, or Stalinists, or Syndicalists. We can't just be leftists.

[roy]

because we are maoists, leninists, stalinists and syndicalists. the first three want to perform coup d'etat and lord over state capitalist regime until the revolution comes, anarcho-syndicalists oppose the state altogether. incompatible, but that's fine, because if all the 'left' was united we'd be no closer to communism.

[Eagle_Syr]

We should never, ever, ever make compromises with the right. It's all or nothing, do or die. The good shall prevail over the evil.

Among each other, however, there is alot of disconnect which weakens our movement. The biggest reason why socialism hasn't taken root, however, is because of liberalism.

[superborys]

But we would have a larger force to utilize in whatever way we can. Sure there will never be a united left under one banner; I explained poorly. But having more labels than I, an active, intelligent socialist, can count is largely detrimental. I understand the differences. It's like parents who say, "Well my kid gets a timeout." versus, "Well my kid gets a timeout and he has to miss dinner." Yeah there are different, albeit not-well-defined factions of parents, they still will agree that punishment should follow bad behavior. The only ground I can see common to leftist groups is that equality should reign and that work should be democratic, at least at some stage. Other than that, every other aspect I can think of varies.

[roy]

I don't want to offend, but I've never heard sectarianism used in a non-hostile sense. It would be like if the Tea Partyers decided that less-conservative Republicans were villains and they refused to have anything to do with them. In my opinion, the Republican party would collapse in under a year. I'm not a huge fan of Stalinism, as I imagine most non-Stalinists are, but if I were in a situation where Syndicalists controlled 40% of the Congress (oh what a dream), and Stalinists controlled 12%, and the rest of the Congress was ultra-rightists, I would deal with the Stalinists in order to further socialism in that context.

no offence taken. the problem with the idea of syndicalists controlling congress is that they wouldn't be syndicalists if they controlled congress. they would be co-opted into perpetuating the mess that is bourgeois democracy. screw dealing with stalinists anyway sorry.


I just don't personally think that in this day and age where people are far more educated (relatively speaking here...), that factionalism and sectarianism are tenable policies. You have to compromise, you have to sacrifice.

meh. to what end? i'm not gonna make concessions to stuff that i disagree with so we can have a big old united front. i don't see the practicality.

[superborys]

Then I personally can't see how anything will ever get done. In order to have members and socialists, the public has to support the movement. I don't think a general public is going to support 30-something labels that are all only vaguely and intricately different. I think if we want to get something done, we have to, maybe begrudgingly, band together to garner public support.

[roy]

But we would have a larger force to utilize in whatever way we can. Sure there will never be a united left under one banner; I explained poorly. But having more labels than I, an active, intelligent socialist, can count is largely detrimental. I understand the differences. It's like parents who say, "Well my kid gets a timeout." versus, "Well my kid gets a timeout and he has to miss dinner." Yeah there are different, albeit not-well-defined factions of parents, they still will agree that punishment should follow bad behavior. The only ground I can see common to leftist groups is that equality should reign and that work should be democratic, at least at some stage. Other than that, every other aspect I can think of varies.

i'm responding to stuff out of order sorry. it simply does not advance the struggle for communism to consciously dilute communist theory for the sake of a comprise which would only serve the purpose of creating a large ineffectual group.

[roy]

Then I personally can't see how anything will ever get done. In order to have members and socialists, the public has to support the movement. I don't think a general public is going to support 30-something labels that are all only vaguely and intricately different. I think if we want to get something done, we have to, maybe begrudgingly, band together to garner public support.

the public doesn't need to support anything. it's not up to socialists to lead the people to socialism, it's up to workers to get sick of constantly deepening crisis and flip the shit with capitalists, thereby establishing a new mode of production which serves their interests. no bourgeoisie = no proletariat.

[superborys]

the public doesn't need to support anything. it's not up to socialists to lead the people to socialism, it's up to workers to get sick of constantly deepening crisis and flip the shit with capitalists, thereby establishing a new mode of production which serves their interests. no bourgeoisie = no proletariat.

Would you agree that today there is far more pacification and/or suppression to the proletariat than there was when leftism had its heyday in the US? Today, you're either middle class where you can afford luxuries to an extent that you've been lulled into believing what you've got is enough, or you are so incredibly poor you don't have free time to spend learning about socialism. You have to work several jobs to make end's meet.

Maybe what's needed isn't public support as I said, but an education of the public of the crimes of capitalism. We still can accomplish this by having outreach and volunteer work. With most amicable people they'll ask why you're volunteering or they'll ask about your organization, and then you can go from there. Or maybe you can just try to pass out pamphlets on a street and hope they read the madman's dementia-on-paper.

I think, fundamentally, outreach is necessary.

[roy]

despite constant consciousness-raising from the left, workers have generally become less conscious. the unions have been co-opted, there is less revolutionary zeal, right. and i didn't say everyone has the time to read theory, but that's the unfortunate reality of capitalism. and there's nothing wrong with outreach, it's just that it tends to be ineffective. i'll be damned if i'm gonna do outreach with a bunch of maoists or w/e, though. there's never gonna be a united front. world sucks you know.

[superborys]

But the outreach has to be constant to work. The movements have to grow and span generations until kids are growing up with socialist parents and their parents aren't weird, slightly-ostracized people that raise their kids to be weird as well. (That's not an offense to us, but you see the point). That's when people will turn to the alternative system of socialism when a depression hits or when a war starts. Unfortunately we need crises for people to look to other sources for help.

[The Idler]

If sectarianism was holding the left back, then we could expect to see victorious revolution during the period when the left was relatively homogenous, Second International etc. Likewise, during crisis, although this does have some effect, we don't see socialist consciousness overwhelmingly in poor countries with very low living standards.

A 1:1 ratio is effective because a socialist society is so starkly different to anything previous, that it requires a lot of thought to agree with it. It would be rash to conclude someone hastily vaguely agreeing with it, counts as someone who agrees with socialist positions. If this sounds hard its because it is, which is why its called the class struggle rather than class shortcut or something similar.

I wouldn't get too much of a downer on Occupy. Whats holding back the left is the same as has long held it back, partly dubious Soviet objectives (which aren't popular anyway), but also strategies (often outside of Soviet apologists) preferring to take protests/marches/strikes/communes (which aren't taken that seriously by the public) over democratic political action challenging the power workers hand to capitalists every democratic election cycle (which is taken seriously by the public).

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I am prety sure anarchism is spreading in Portugal, the number of political symbols and messages on the streets has been increasing, not sure if authoritarian socialism is spreading though.

#NOTE#
With authoritarian socialism I mean the theories of socialism that want to use a state for dictatorship of the proletariat.



Unfortunately we need crises for people to look to other sources for help.

Look no further, Europe is sufering a big economic crisis.

[campesino]

don't get discouraged, most people who vote democrat or republican do so, because they have no choice. most people don't even vote, so one socialist is a lot better than 9 non-voting politically apathetic persons.

[Eagle_Syr]

We need to get people to see that liberalism, and the "Democrats", are nothing more than strategic capitalists

[superborys]

If sectarianism was holding the left back, then we could expect to see victorious revolution during the period when the left was relatively homogeneous, Second International etc. Likewise, during crisis, although this does have some effect, we don't see socialist consciousness overwhelmingly in poor countries with very low living standards.

A 1:1 ratio is effective because a socialist society is so starkly different to anything previous, that it requires a lot of thought to agree with it. It would be rash to conclude someone hastily vaguely agreeing with it, counts as someone who agrees with socialist positions. If this sounds hard its because it is, which is why its called the class struggle rather than class shortcut or something similar.

I wouldn't get too much of a downer on Occupy. Whats holding back the left is the same as has long held it back, partly dubious Soviet objectives (which aren't popular anyway), but also strategies (often outside of Soviet apologists) preferring to take protests/marches/strikes/communes (which aren't taken that seriously by the public) over democratic political action challenging the power workers hand to capitalists every democratic election cycle (which is taken seriously by the public).

If it seemed like I meant the sort-of socialists I considered victories that's not at all what I was getting at. I meant something more along the lines that I've only really convinced one of my friends that socialism is unequivocally the right way for humanity to progress towards.

I agree with 3 of the 4 examples of action that's not taken seriously by the public. I think strikes, if large enough, are taken seriously by the public. When the Wisconsin public sector workers struck, the state almost went bankrupt and the governmental offices almost shut down. I think people took that strike very seriously.


I am pretty sure anarchism is spreading in Portugal, the number of political symbols and messages on the streets has been increasing, not sure if authoritarian socialism is spreading though.

#NOTE#
With authoritarian socialism I mean the theories of socialism that want to use a state for dictatorship of the proletariat.

Look no further, Europe is suffering a big economic crisis.

Yes, but will the economic crisis really stir up that much? In Germany where the people are suffering a loss of luxury, they're so jaded by the USSR's control of half the nation and so afraid of the fascists resurging that they cling to capitalism like flies to carrion.


don't get discouraged, most people who vote democrat or republican do so, because they have no choice. most people don't even vote, so one socialist is a lot better than 9 non-voting politically apathetic persons.

I think the best choice we have is to try to win local elections first and let that affect the local populace. Even if they are small victories like city alderman or mayor, they're still places.


We need to get people to see that liberalism, and the "Democrats", are nothing more than strategic capitalists

Which I think we could accomplish with outreach programs. Actions speak louder than words, and outreach to inform people of socialism and what it really is, if done correctly, can only, at worst, make people skeptical.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Sometimes I wonder if the modern Left is a cult considering the way in which a lot of young cats speak of the "upcoming revolution," and whom wait and search for signs of the glorious revolution in which all pure revolutionaries will partake in the rapture and be lifted up.

[MotherCossack]

we can argue about all these matters until we are blue in the face or until birnham wood comes marching towards the big place at Dunsinane......
we can bicker..... exchange clever political points..... parade our understanding of the theories of communism....conduct artificial battles baring our teeth at those who are politically almost identical to ourselves..... we can make enemies out of those that should be our allies...... while away the time play-fighting with only those that pose no threat... thus ignoring the real enemy......
we can grumble and whine about the corruption and the injustice, watch while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.........

wait for the proletariat to finally realize that it is all a lie and that , communism, after all, is the best way forward.
and.... despite being told that communism failed..... comprehensively...... and spelled tens of years, decades..... of persecution, dictatorship, hardship.... denial of basic human rights.... despite being fed lies and mis-truths about behind the so-called 'iron curtain' and the failure of soviet commun ism........expect them to be capable of rejecting what they have always swallowed whole-heartedly... turn to an ideal that they have always been told and believed to be evil......

i dearly hope it will be so .... with all my heart..... but..... i also quite like the idea of reincarnation and life after death... but i do not seriously think for a moment that it is actually going to happen.... it is merely wishful thinking.....obviously.

divide and rule.... is it not a tactic?....we are playing directy into their hands...... clearly........
and none of it means a thing...... until we can organise ourselves and come together in some way.... on the same side.... then we might as well be practising origami

[Sea]

How effective are we really? I've been with RevLeft for a while now but don't ask me precisely how long because I couldn't tell you, and all the while I can get excited for a few weeks at a time, but during my stay here I haven't seen any particular increase in socialist chatter. I am aware that we're just a forum and we're not an enormous one at that... but are we growing? Are we spreading the word of leftism and egalitarianism?


Maybe it's just me, but I've never really considered forums as a means to get people interested in ideas. Ideas can be spread on forums -- I'm sure there are plenty of people here that when they joined weren't very knowledgeable about this whole commie thing and have since learned more about it, but they had to be already interested. Propaganda is an effective deterrent; it's feasible that quite a few people who would otherwise be receptive to the ideas discussed here wouldn't even consider joining a forum like this in the first place, if for no other reason than it didn't cross their mind. All this considered, when you boil it down RL is simply an internet forum, and the internet is soaked with forums, and the people here are (as one aspect of them) internet users, and the internet is absolutely saturated with internet users; it makes sense that you would perceive on this forum a bunch of leftist people talking rather than a bunch of people talking leftist.

[Q]

I think we're relatively effective. It just so happens that we ban at about the same rate as we gain.

[Eagle_Syr]

The forum is a place where we can have discussions and talk about ideas, but since this is a self-proclaimed revolutionary leftist site, it isn't exactly the best place to try to convince people of anything. We are already leftists, we don't need convincing.

Activism will fare better. Over on Ron Paul Forums, they organize pamphlets, meetups, and campaigns to promote Ron Paul and they have had some good success.


I think we could benefit from a pamphlet that sorta "explains it all"; it would have to discuss socialism, distinguish socialism from liberalism, and provide concrete examples and historical analysis to back up our claims.