What of apolitical people?

[Beeth]

I have many friends who are apolitical. They don't take sides, they don't fight for any cause. They say they are just trying to survive, not by changing the system but by adapting to the system. Practicality, not politics. That's their motto.

Are such people part of the problem?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I think there is no such thing, it is more apathy than being apolitical. Both are part of the problem, because they usually want to have things stay as they are, they don't want any change.

I think the concept of being “apolitical”, is rather strsnge. How can someone not care about his or her future? Because, that is mostly what politics is, making sure the outcome is best for you or your class. That is why the bourgeoisie fights us. because when workers have power, the outcome is bad for them.

So, yes I think they are part of the problem.

[Prinskaj]

I have many friends who are apolitical. They don't take sides, they don't fight for any cause. They say they are just trying to survive, not by changing the system but by adapting to the system. Practicality, not politics. That's their motto.

Are such people part of the problem?
People who do not engage in political discussions are not a problem, they are the result of a system which creates a dismotivational atmosphere around the political process. They see a political scene which they have next to no influence over and which goes about doing the same old thing. So they see no reason to participate, since they do not see any alternative.

[Beeth]

I think there is no such thing, it is more apathy than being apolitical. Both are part of the problem, because they usually want to have things stay as they are, they don't want any change.

I think the concept of being “apolitical”, is rather strsnge. How can someone not care about his or her future? Because, that is mostly what politics is, making sure the outcome is best for you or your class. That is why the bourgeoisie fights us. because when workers have power, the outcome is bad for them.

So, yes I think they are part of the problem.

Not everyone thinks in terms of their class. They only think of their future as individuals.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have many friends who are apolitical. They don't take sides, they don't fight for any cause. They say they are just trying to survive, not by changing the system but by adapting to the system. Practicality, not politics. That's their motto.

Are such people part of the problem?

No, not a part of the problem really - such people are the norm. It's a problem that most people aren't self-confident and conscious revolutionaries :D, but I don't think they are to blame for that. Most people most of the time always go along to get along. If we could travel back in time we could probably go back to the days of slavery or feudalism and go a very long time without stumbling across a lot of open revolt: in retrospect, historically, it there were obviously a lot of revolts, but our own time would seem even more explosive in comparison because while subjectivly we have been in a downturn for decades, objectively there is a lot of struggle all the time in modern industrial capitalism.

But still, most of the time, people accept that this is the only choice of worlds. This is how (any) ruling class hegemony works. They can convince a few of the non-eliete to fully buy that our rulers deserve to be our rulers (the "house-slave types" who truly believe that the system is the best of all possible arrangements and will defend it) but they will never convince us all and they don't have to. More than convincing people that they SHOULD rule over us, they only need to convince us that this is our only viable choice and this is how most people operate in most non-revolutionary times.

What becomes explosive in society and what appears to us as "spontaneous uprisings" is really when this illusion breaks down in either a positive way (people challenge the standard order and show that how things are is not the only way) or in a negative way (the rulers can't rule in the way they want to, also exposing that their system is not infallible or inevitable). So in Egypt, it wasn't as if people "woke up" to the idea that Mubarak's rule was not desirable; what changed was not "apolitical to political" but that people saw that a protest could happen and not get squashed and it's members rounded up as has been the case. Suddenly the widespread idea among the Egyptian population of a sort of "Egyptian exceptionalism" (which argued that Egypt was different and the people too mellow and apathetic to revolt) was moot and we saw formerly apolitical football ultras in the streets and the square fighting regime thugs official and unofficial along with underground trade-unionists and seasoned activists.

Almost every account I've read of a real popular revolution included anecdotes of regular people challenging inherited ideas and conceptions of the world because the world is suddenly less certain and ordered so seemingly solidly from above. A major revolution would not be something people watch on TV passively, buy would have to involve many many people even if indirectly. If you are apolitical and there is dual power in society, it's going to have an impact on you if you want it to or not - you are going to be effected if you think. This can work both ways and so this is why spontaneous uprisings can suddenly and quickly deflate. There's a certain momentum of revolution and if people see the whole world changing, formerly apolitical people will be inspired by the new possibilities... but then if it looks like the old order is going to win out, then people have to start thinking of practicalities of the system again like, "shit, the landlord's coming back and demanding back rent for the last 3 months he didn't collect because of the revolution... shit, the general strike has been defeated, I need to find a new job".

I wouldn't worry about it too much because, as I said, in non-revolutionary times, this attitude is going to be more the norm than not. People get revolutionary ideas in non-revolutionary times, but not all at once and so people have to come to these ideas at their own pace and from their own experiences. A rational revolutionary argument will only find fertile ground if someone has already though, "hey this racism is fucked up/the situation with work doesn't seem fair to me on a basic level" etc. So it's best to be patient when talking to people individually about politics - maybe an argument can make some inroads, maybe not, the best you can do is offer a good argument and maybe it has some resonance. I think a better strategy on a larger scale is to try and work with the people who already have begun to challenge the status quo and hopefully convince them that the revolutionary approach is the best way to deal with the social and economic problems that they ALREADY recognize to be serious issues.

These smaller circles of radicals or even rank and file trade-unionists or independent grassroots activists can build movements which then have a much larger impact on the population and can begin to reach wider layers of people. Most people in unions have been demobilized by the bad politics and tactics of the union leaders and are "apathetic" themselves, but I think we can see how action and movements can turn that around as people see that there are alternatives out there and things they can do themselves rather than waiting for some politician or some movement leader to come along.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Not everyone thinks in terms of their class. They only think of their future as individuals.

They might not think in those terms, but their interests are shaped by their class.

[theblackmask]

Being apolitical is understandable, as the entire Left/Right spectrum is dominated by Capital. I can see why people would want nothing to do with it. We need to teach people to be anti-political, and stress the fact that there is no answer within politics, only in moving away from them.

[Comrades Unite!]

It is impossible to be apolitical.

You can say it all you like but once you give your opinion on a matter related to politics, then that opinion will push you further down either the Left or Right according to the opinion given.

People that call themselves 'apolitical' are quite frankly ridiculous, there is simply no such thing as an apolitical person.

[Ostrinski]

They often come across as kind of elitist, I think.

[Thirsty Crow]

I have many friends who are apolitical. They don't take sides, they don't fight for any cause. They say they are just trying to survive, not by changing the system but by adapting to the system. Practicality, not politics. That's their motto.

Are such people part of the problem?
No, they're not.
At least not if you do not limit communism to electoralism - and head counting. And if you don't limit communism to the numbers of guerillas the vanguard has command over.

But the point is that it is not so difficult to be apolitical in certain kinds of situations. For example, I think we could rationally expect a more significant polarization - and less apolitical and apathetical attitudes - in the wake of a revolutionary situation or a political crisis. And no, I don't take the quarrel between the Republicans and Democrats about the debt ceiling as a political crisis (so that tells you something about the kind of situation I'm talking about).



People that call themselves 'apolitical' are quite frankly ridiculous, there is simply no such thing as an apolitical person.
Yes there is.
I could provide some stories about people I know but then you'd pull the "anecdotal evidence" on me (though I could legitimately present such evidence since you dispute the possibility of a single legitimately apolitical person).

Being apolitical is understandable, as the entire Left/Right spectrum is dominated by Capital. I can see why people would want nothing to do with it. We need to teach people to be anti-political, and stress the fact that there is no answer within politics, only in moving away from them.
Such attitude muddies the waters I'm afraid.
Class politics, the politics of the emancipation of the working class - both goes beyond the political in the sense of bourgeois parliamentary democracy and remains political, and not anti-political.

That and the fact that the term "anti-politics" has been used to describe basically anti-organization currents which could be called properly spontaneist (which is a dead end in my opinion). So unless you wish to state something like that, "anti-political" is pretty misleading I think.