Young and good looking: the saviours of Europe’s Left

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.opendemocracy.net/marina-prentoulis-lasse-thomassen/young-and-good-looking-saviours-of-europe’s-left



By MARINA PRENTOULIS and LASSE THOMASSEN

They are young. They are good looking. They are well spoken. They may just be the saviours of the European Left.

Alexis Tsipras (38), the leader of the leftist Syriza in Greece, has been the subject of much attention, both inside and outside Greece. As leader of Syriza, he managed to take them within striking distance of government power in the latest Greek elections, as the electoral percentage of Syriza soared from under 5% in 2009 to 27% in June 2012.

The appeal of the party and Tsipras himself goes far beyond the usual suspects of old communists, social movement activists and anarchists. Syriza, with the new acronym Unified Social Front (EKM) added to its name, is a much broader democratic left coalition, prepared to go places where no true lefty would have dared to step. Although based on a populist discourse that divides society into the corrupt (political and financial) elites and the people, the language of Syriza is also cast in universalist terms. Anyone in favour of justice, equality and freedom is a potential Syriza voter.

Despite a relentless series of attacks by the Greek media, ‘sexy Alexis’, as he was nicknamed by infatuated audiences tired of old, stuck up men with white hair (and beards), has it all: his good looks, socialist principles and easy, media friendly manners. He attracts a part of the electorate that would otherwise never have been available to a leftist party: the young women who want to be with him, the young men who want to be like him, and the older women who would not mind him for a son-in-law.

Above all, Tsipras attracts many of those whose former nightmares about the ‘reds’ taking their home has lately been substituted by the possibility of having no home at all. Tsipras – and the people around him – have been able to repackage socialism over the last couple of years. Although some of the parties in the coalition still use the language of revolution and communism, it remains to be seen how the party will position itself on the centre/left spectrum.

In Denmark, the small leftist party Enhedslisten (‘the Unity List’) has recently enjoyed a lot of success. Not only did they do well in the last general election, but they stand to gain even more seats in the current opinion polls. They have profited from the impact of the right turn on the rest of the centre-left. And, like Syriza, they are fronted by a young and good-looking leader, this time a woman, Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen. She just turned 29 and is known to most people as Johanne.

It was not always so. The Unity List was created as a coalition of a number of small parties on the left in 1989, and mostly they just scraped into parliament. Their spokespersons – they do not have ‘leaders’ – came out of the old parties, and were often male. Some of those people remain, but gradually the party has been taken over by the young guard, who tend not to enter the party through the old parties. They have become politicised through protest movements, above all the alter-globalisation movement. Their way of thinking politics suits the current media-scape much better than the old guard from the amalgamation of Marxists/Leninists/Maoists/Trotskyite groupings. What’s more, like Schmidt-Nielsen, many of the young ones are women. And, like Schmidt-Nielsen, good looking.

As good-looking women, the media cannot present them in such a way that they appear threatening to a wider electorate – and during the last general election, Schmidt-Nielsen was consistently perceived as the most trustworthy party leader, despite the fact that the party programme is packed with revolutionary language. Schmidt-Nielsen’s language, however, is middle-class and based on references to justice and fairness rather than class. Because of internal rules about rotation, Schmidt-Nielsen will soon have to hand over her spokespersonship. Luckily there is already another young and good-looking woman, Pernille Skipper, ready to take over.

In another corner of Europe, Izquierda Unida (‘the United Left’) and Alberto Garzón in Spain are set to do a Tsipras or a Schmidt-Nielsen. Izquierda Unida is a party like Syriza and the Unity List: created in 1986 from among a motley combination of small parties on the left who used to hate one another more than they hated the class enemy. Traditionally it was dominated by older men, such as the current leader, the 61 year-old Cayo Lara.

In the wake of the indignados protests in 2011, like Syriza, it was only natural that Izquierda Unida would pick up some of the disaffection with the bigger parties, even if, for the protesters, the party was just one party among others. Although individual members of Izquierda Unida took part in the protests, the party is faced by a gap between them and the extra-parliamentary left.

Within the party, however, the young and photogenic Alberto Garzón – who is 27 – is on the rise, and he could easily become their next leader. He was part of the indignados movement and has since won a seat in the national parliament. Like Tsipras in Greece and Schmidt-Nielsen in Denmark, Garzón does not articulate his policies in terms of class or revolution, but in terms that combine social indignation with the language of justice and democracy, a language that may reach well beyond the traditional Izquierda Unida voters.

Good looks always help nowadays. So does youth, packaged in a more middle-class-friendly language and dress. Some on the more traditional left complain that it’s no more than a pretty face as a front to policies that are no longer truly leftist. What the future holds depends on the extent to which these parties are able to turn what may be only a precarious attraction into changes in voters’ deeper-lying attitudes, thereby building the basis for a longer-term change in the political landscape.

[Crux]

*big yawn* So what's your point, DNZ? Why the bolds?

[Taters]

The Pretty Proletarian Revolution™

Not sure what this is about. Of course people like attractive, young politicians.

[melvin]

The Pretty Proletarian Revolution™

Not sure what this is about. Of course people like attractive, young politicians.Attractive young politicians are the fucking worst.

[Die Neue Zeit]

*big yawn* So what's your point, DNZ? Why the bolds?

I don't like the questionable language and bias of some parts of the article, but I think the specific words "well-spoken" and "media-friendly manners" have to be emphasized in terms of good ways vs. bad ones of getting agitational points across.

[Crux]

I don't like the questionable language and bias of some parts of the article, but I think the specific words "well-spoken" and "media-friendly manners" have to be emphasized in terms of good ways vs. bad ones of getting agitational points across.
As opposed to being media-unfriendly and badly spoken? Sorry, I still fail to see the point, besides some empty platitudes amounting to nothing.

[#FF0000]

I don't like the questionable language and bias of some parts of the article, but I think the specific words "well-spoken" and "media-friendly manners" have to be emphasized in terms of good ways vs. bad ones of getting agitational points across.

These people, though they might appeal to other wealthy young people, are the absolute worst, though. "Media-saavy" people are raging assholes who are only likeable to people in media. If you go out there with cogent and relatable arguments and are honest about your revolutionary aims, then at the very least people will respect your group, rather than just writing them off as a pack of detached dorks.

EDIT:
As opposed to being media-unfriendly and badly spoken?

I think it depends on what you mean by "media-friendly". When I think of "media-friendly" leftists, I think of the young, wealthy PR douchebags who were so prominent in OWS.

[RadioRaheem84]

Don't be so quick to judge. Camilla Vallejo from Chile was a great student leader.

[TheEmancipator]

I've got time for Tzipras, but not for ridiculous media sensationalisation.

[Ravachol]

Communism: brought to you by well-groomed populists on TV shows!

[Paul Pott]

The better it looks, the less honest it is.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This is idiotic.

If you want to set up New Labour mark 2 in their stupid suits and capitalist conformity, go ahead. If that's what the left is, then I hope it's not saved but fucking sent to the dustbin of history.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

What ever happened to the middle aged greasy chain smoking and alcoholic socialist you could trust?

[LewisQ]

A frivolous comment on a frivolous subject; if Tsipras is a sex symbol, there's hope for us all. :confused:

[l'Enfermé]

this is really stupid.
And this is a verbal warning for spamming.

[RadioRaheem84]

It wouldn't hurt to give in a little to the glam of the media since a lot of young people or people in general tend to look at things like looks but it is a bit senseless. We all know it, but you have to work within the medium you have.

Besides I don't know if they should be considered "sexy" per se.....

http://caliperwake.com/tempurpedic-mattress/young-stalin-2/

This is a hot Commie, LOL.

Anyone notice that the young Commies Lenin, Trotsky, Che, Stalin, the July 27th movement all looked like hipsters?

[slum]

"As good-looking women, the media cannot present them in such a way that they appear threatening to a wider electorate"

i'm sure once they say something that is perceived as actually dangerous by the ruling class instead of charmingly novel they'll find a way.

this article seems kinda dumb but w.e
the revolution will be ugly

[Crixus]

What ever happened to the middle aged greasy chain smoking and alcoholic socialist you could trust?
I'm still around.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What ever happened to the middle aged greasy chain smoking and alcoholic socialist you could trust?

He became Christopher Hitchens.

Seriously though physical attractiveness is a factor in politics probably always has been.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

Anyone notice that the young Commies Lenin, Trotsky, Che, Stalin, the July 27th movement all looked like hipsters?

Yeah definitely hipsters, but they are all pretty attractive as well. As such they are a definite improvement on the absurd facial hair/beard combos present in so much of the early left (Joseph Dejacque's in particular is quite horrendous). Unfortunately, such factors have been growing more important for a while.

[Ravachol]

Behold, the left: on the importance of grooming as a factor for the abolishment of capital! :rolleyes: This place is a joke.

[Yuppie Grinder]

He became Christopher Hitchens.

Seriously though physical attractiveness is a factor in politics probably always has been.

Only if you are a woman.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Are there people on revleft left who still take DNZ seriously?

[La Guaneña]

Whoa, dude, how have we missed this important factor in the Greek happenings?

I mean, this is the most relevant thing going on in Greece in the next few days, it's not like the Communist Party's congress is coming up or something like that. :crying:

[RadioRaheem84]

Only if you are a woman.
JFK was a man.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As was Reagan and currently Alexis Tsipras. Having said this it would seem that the majority of politicians and "statesman" whether they are men or woman, are not all the physically attractive, however one sees this. The conventionally good looking ones (mostly male) to seem to rise quicker (umm, yeah no pun intended).

[Crux]

Are there people on revleft left who still take DNZ seriously?
Sadly, yes. DNZ himself for instance. I wonder what this new "the left must be media-friendly" turn will do to the social-proletocrat worker party alternative culture project. Of course I guess it could be argued that his wonky terminology is a failed attempt at PR, or to quote his old profile: "Interests: Reformulating Marxist language in order to connect with the workers' movement."

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't get why it's so bad to be relevant? Granted the media is 99.9% full of shit and will treat any rising interest in Marxism as a fad but I think it can work to our favor regardless to build a bigger base. In the end no one cares about looks. It's superficial and ridiculous and extremely bougie if you ask me but I think it's transcending the medium they use to build legitimacy.

[Crux]

I'm not saying it's bad to be relevant. I am saying that "being relevant is good" is essentially a truism.

[#FF0000]

I don't get why it's so bad to be relevant?

I don't think anyone's saying this. Just that having a slick focus-group tested image isn't necessary.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't think anyone's saying this. Just that having a slick focus-group tested image isn't necessary.

Yes I agree. I was only saying that if an attractive and effective leftist were to mobilize people I think it would only be a plus considering how the media acts. Focusing on the looks to attract people to the movement is silly. Let the mainstream media babble on with that like they did with Che, but appealing to looks will get a movement no where.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Are there people on revleft left who still take DNZ seriously?

The title of this thread is not my handpicked title. I would have been more OK with "Young and well-spoken: the saviours of Europe's Left." :rolleyes:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The title of this thread is not my handpicked title. I would have been more OK with "Young and well-spoken: the saviours of Europe's Left." :rolleyes:

Are you trolling or something? You realise that, due to cities existing in many places with a strong regional dialect and educational inopportunity and inequality of outcome, that 'well-spoken' effectively hones in towards the middle and upper classes and away from the working class?

You really are a crass operator sometimes. In case you hadn't noticed, anyway, most people are sick of politico-robot v2.0 in their suits, with their perfect, media-trained enunciation.

You're pretty much towing the line of class collaboration, you know, they have suits and appreciate idle posh chit chat, so we have to conform to their social norms to fit in. :rolleyes:

[RadioRaheem84]

Are you trolling or something? You realise that, due to cities existing in many places with a strong regional dialect and educational inopportunity and inequality of outcome, that 'well-spoken' effectively hones in towards the middle and upper classes and away from the working class?

You really are a crass operator sometimes. In case you hadn't noticed, anyway, most people are sick of politico-robot v2.0 in their suits, with their perfect, media-trained enunciation.

You're pretty much towing the line of class collaboration, you know, they have suits and appreciate idle posh chit chat, so we have to conform to their social norms to fit in. :rolleyes:

Hold on, so you're saying working class people are boorish and need someone boorish who can deliver the goods in real talk?

I get that someone needs to be clear and concise and not deliver a pre packaged speech but at the same time what the hell is wrong with being articulate?

Is it really class collaborationist to understand the political game and use it to your advantage? Their social norms dominate and you can't just be punk rawk and come into the scene without an a sound strategy that can beat the ruling class using their own rhetoric against them while explaining it in lucid manner to the working class. I mean are we not supposed to educate and give the working class the tools and rhetoric to talk back to the ruling class and have it be affective?

The ruling class love to obfuscate and fill their rhetoric with pompous language. They love looking like experts and the best speakers are the one that challenge their presupposed notions and explain it back to people in plain language. But there is nothing wrong with being articulate about it either so people won't just assume you're saying "the rent is too damn high".

I love it when Chomsky or Parenti decipher and explain what politicians and businessman really mean when they're saying XYZ. If I were debating a right winger or a liberal politician I would use less stats because as technocratic as they are they'll pull a study proposing their worldview on a heartbeat,
So instead I would debate their philosophical presuppositions and try to get them to admit where their interests truly lie.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Radioraheem - incidentally, one of the arguments I read about Hugo Chavez's popularity was that his bombastic crassness helped him connect with the working class. That, of course, could just be the elitism of a press quick to imply that the "masses" and their supposed savior are simplistic minds, but Chavez did revel in the crude and crass. It gave him a certain human charisma.

That said, expertise is not to be devalued either. You need to be relevant and content-rich.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=RadioRaheem84;2605187]Hold on, so you're saying working class people are boorish and need someone boorish who can deliver the goods in real talk?

I didn't say working class people are boorish. I said that, due to a variety of environmental factors most of which are beyond our control, people like us are more likely to not be some media-trained i-robot, and are more likely to talk like normal people.


I get that someone needs to be clear and concise and not deliver a pre packaged speech but at the same time what the hell is wrong with being articulate?

There's nothing wrong with being articulate, I didn't say there was. This thread is saying that the saviours of the left will be young, good looking/well-spoken. I was pointing out that this is a position which would likely exclude some working class people just for their appearance/voice, which seems ridiculous to me (hopefully not just me).


Is it really class collaborationist to understand the political game and use it to your advantage?

No, but it edges towards class collaboration to play the game according to their (presumably we're talking about the bourgeoisie) rules. We are trying to abolish their rules, their whole social order and political dominion, not play some political game by their rules.



Their social norms dominate and you can't just be punk rawk and come into the scene without an a sound strategy that can beat the ruling class using their own rhetoric against them while explaining it in lucid manner to the working class.

But - and i'm just going to be edgy and presume i'm talking for you too - assuming that we are the working class, why do we need to elect some middle class asshole to speak for us?

You don't need to have a certain accent, or wear certain clothes, or have an establishment attitude as opposed to a punk one, to be intelligent and articulate and, as you say, 'lucid'.



I mean are we not supposed to educate and give the working class the tools and rhetoric to talk back to the ruling class and have it be affective?

I would presume that most working class people aren't so stupid that they can't call a spade a spade. Politics doesn't work as some sort of two step process where we, some abstract leftie liberals, tell the working class that this evil spade is in fact an evil spade because they are too stupid to see that, and then they go and inform the ruling class politely that this evil spade is an evil fucking spade and they want to replace it with something that's not a spade.


The ruling class love to obfuscate and fill their rhetoric with pompous language. They love looking like experts and the best speakers are the one that challenge their presupposed notions and explain it back to people in plain language. But there is nothing wrong with being articulate about it either so people won't just assume you're saying "the rent is too damn high".

Again, I don't think anybody's saying that being articulate is a bad thing. The point is that the OP is idiotic in conflating age, attractiveness and attire with having anything to do with being articulate. It's not.


If I were debating a right winger or a liberal politician I would use less stats because as technocratic as they are they'll pull a study proposing their worldview on a heartbeat,

I think this is a crass generalisation, effectively saying that capitalists are good with stats and working class people have to be spoken to in plain English. The very notion that working class people need posh wankers in suits to explain things to them in simple terms is so classist and condescending, i'm actually surprised this is a bone of contention.


So instead I would debate their philosophical presuppositions and try to get them to admit where their interests truly lie.

Really? I'd just allow debating them and get out on the streets/out of the workplace. After all, we're not in the business of trying to convert capitalists or show them that their way of thinking is wrong. We are trying to defeat them and their entire fucking system. Debates are interesting and you know, it's lovely to explain that on the one hand X and on the other hand Y, but really political action is about action, not just words. If talking shops really changed anything, i'm fairly sure they'd be cracked down on. Seriously.

[Ocean Seal]

I've always found that communists who rise to prominence tend to be quite ugly, while the rank and file are generally more attractive (the exact opposite of libertarians).

[RadioRaheem84]

I think this is a crass generalisation, effectively saying that capitalists are good with stats and working class people have to be spoken to in plain English. The very notion that working class people need posh wankers in suits to explain things to them in simple terms is so classist and condescending, i'm actually surprised this is a bone of contention

I agreed with everything you were saying in response to my post except this ^. I wasn't saying that working class people cannot understand charts or stats but that the ruling class has an arsenal of data at their disposal from several think tanks working in their favor. We can come up with our own all we want but they will just retort with another study countering ours.

If there is a debate at all it must be a philosophical one that cuts straight the bone and to the chase and reveals the gaping hole in their logic. I love listening to Stokey Carmichael and Malcolm X rip into American society and showing that it is deeply racist and hypocritical.

What makes the left strong, at least in my opinion is that it articulates best all those nagging doubts that the working class has about the system and actually puts it into a fine tuned rhetoric all can understand. Working people are not stupid, they know something is wrong, they know they're getting the wrong end of the stick but many cannot explain it outright or understand the analysis that leftists provide.

What surprised me about Marxism and leftism in general is how humbling it is in a way. It breaks down all the stuff I assumed was only for experts in a way that any person can learn. The ruling class specializes in obfuscating and expertizing their rhetoric to purposefully exclude others. Even when politicians "plain speak" it's appealing to common sense notions which are really canards that simplify their worldview.

I love reading Brendan M Cooney, Michael Parenti, Chomsky, etc. because they tend to have pretty brilliant analyis of things but they're overall plain in their speak while still remaining somewhat articulate.

What turned me on to leftism hearing the speeches of Michael Parenti and Stokey Carmichael, Malcolm X. We need those types of speakers.

To answer another poster regarding Chavez. I tend not to like the trolling caudillo talk of populists like Chavez and Castro. Chavez tended to teeter on strongman language.

[Desy]

Are you trolling or something? You realise that, due to cities existing in many places with a strong regional dialect and educational inopportunity and inequality of outcome, that 'well-spoken' effectively hones in towards the middle and upper classes and away from the working class?

You really are a crass operator sometimes. In case you hadn't noticed, anyway, most people are sick of politico-robot v2.0 in their suits, with their perfect, media-trained enunciation.

You're pretty much towing the line of class collaboration, you know, they have suits and appreciate idle posh chit chat, so we have to conform to their social norms to fit in. :rolleyes:


What? What does suits have to do with anything? And if he's for the workers he's not going to be politico-robot v2.0. He's a leader for the working class. Also, he is good looking, well spoken, and young, which is a bonus for his PR - Not what makes him a leader for the left. PR is going to be needed before, during, and after the revolution.

It is starting to get a little annoying hearing of this anti-revolution rhetoric. This lazy strategy of left-comm type thinking is almost elitists. "If the revolution doesn't happen how I believe, then it's wrong for everybody. Listen to me, or you support the bourgeois." I mean if the revolution happens the way you believe... GOOD. But if it doesn't... don't slam everything about the attempt to make the world a better place. Have your concerns, but show some optimism.

If you're worried about the working class that is uneducated. Let someone pull them from the clutches of the capitalists and be treated as equals. Don't worry that they didn't have a fair chance to be the leader of the opposition. Titles are not what the revolution is about.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And if he's for the workers he's not going to be politico-robot v2.0

That's a non-sequitor. Communism is about the self-emancipation of the working class; its emancipation cannot be any other way, for no bourgeois leader will every truly emancipate the working person from their shackles. So, yes it's nice to hear people spouting pro-worker rhetoric, but at the end of the day if they are not workers themselves, then they are of little political use to the working class in the long-run.


He's a leader for the working class.

Just what the working class has been looking for, a strongman in a suit.


Also, he is good looking, well spoken, and young, which is a bonus for his PR - Not what makes him a leader for the left. PR is going to be needed before, during, and after the revolution.

PR with who? You mean the establishment media? Communism is never going to be good with establishment media, so you know, you can have the best looking person, most sartorially elegant and eloquent speaker in the world, but when the words 'I am a communist' come out of their mouth, they may as well look like a pig and talk like my backside. Pandering to the establishment media is the last thing needed before, during and after the revolution. Proper punctuation, on the other hand. ;)


It is starting to get a little annoying hearing of this anti-revolution rhetoric.

I am a revolutionary. So what you say next...


This lazy strategy of left-comm type thinking is almost elitists. "If the revolution doesn't happen how I believe, then it's wrong for everybody. Listen to me, or you support the bourgeois."

Is somewhat hypocritical.



I mean if the revolution happens the way you believe... GOOD. But if it doesn't... don't slam everything about the attempt to make the world a better place. Have your concerns, but show some optimism.

Making the world a better place is not necessarily the same as a revolution that ends capital's hegemony. I don't diss people for wanting to make the world a better place; it's great that people want to initiate reforms and get good PR for their left-wing parties, but we are on a revolutionary leftist forum and so, ultimately whilst we are here, I will be judging against revolutionary standards, not against 'does wearing a nice suit and looking good in the media make things slightly better' sort of standards.

Let someone pull them from the clutches of the capitalists and be treated as equals. [/QUOTE]

That's not really how Marxism works, i'm afraid. Nor anarchism. As I said earlier, communism (and by extension the freeing of the worker from wage-bondage) can only be achieved by the working class; they can't be led. I'm sure 'natural leadership' may emerge democratically and fairly from within the class, but let's not pretend that some suit-wearing, middle class white man pandering to the capitalist media is going to achieve more than a few petty reforms.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You really are a crass operator sometimes. In case you hadn't noticed, anyway, most people are sick of politico-robot v2.0 in their suits, with their perfect, media-trained enunciation.

You're pretty much towing the line of class collaboration, you know, they have suits and appreciate idle posh chit chat, so we have to conform to their social norms to fit in. :rolleyes:

In case you didn't notice, Boss, nowhere did I write or imply in my own words that wearing suits and ties was necessary to look appealing. IIRC, French NPA activist Besancenot was well-spoken enough to appeal to a broader audience while wearing jeans and especially business casual attire. If you wish to think that business casual attire is elitist, then be my guest, considering how attire has become less and less formal over the decades.

Also, you of all people claim to stress agitation more than education, yet "media-trained enunciation" should be nearer and dearer to you than to me.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Die Neue Zeit;2605471]In case you didn't notice, Boss, nowhere did I write or imply in my own words that wearing suits and ties was necessary to look appealing.

It was actually so unclear what you were saying that I presumed that you'd posted something you agreed with. Posting something you disagree with, without actually stating you disagree with it, makes it quite hard to infer that you've actually disagreed with what you've posted.


If you wish to think that business casual attire is elitist, then be my guest, considering how attire has become less and less formal over the decades.

It is elitist in the sense that it professionalises politics. Why do you need a fucking suit and tie to do your job as a minister or whatever? It in no way helps, aside from making other bourgeoisie people think you're a respectable person or whatever. Attire has not become less formal; in fact it's fucking condescending to see Cameron, Clegg et al. walking around town in a shirt and jeans thinking that they look like normal people. It just shows the divide between them and us; if you want to emulate them, be my guest.


Also, you of all people claim to stress agitation more than education, yet "media-trained enunciation" should be nearer and dearer to you than to me.

I don't stress anything over education, but good education, delivered properly. Not the sort of nonsense spouted from most of the left these days which seems to have 'the left' as its intended audience rather than the working class and is totally inaccessible to most people.

[l'Enfermé]

Are there people on revleft left who still take DNZ seriously?
You will find that in the FAQ, it's written:


...posts containing little but personal insults, name-calling and/or threats are not permitted.

So get the fuck out of this thread with your bullshit unless you have something to contribute and consider this a verbal warning.

[l'Enfermé]

Sadly, yes. DNZ himself for instance. I wonder what this new "the left must be media-friendly" turn will do to the social-proletocrat worker party alternative culture project. Of course I guess it could be argued that his wonky terminology is a failed attempt at PR, or to quote his old profile: "Interests: Reformulating Marxist language in order to connect with the workers' movement."
Comrade, is there any reason why instead of giving King Jong a warning you encouraged his asinine flaming?

[Desy]

First lets get your petty stuff out of the way. I probably have a bunch of punctuation errors, but it's funny to see the one you pointed out. You see, you can learn to put the comma there or not during a list; they are both correct. Now if you're saying proper punctuation as how society looks as the more professional way, you are correct, but didn't you just go off on someone for regional dialect and some dribble about thinking one way of being "well spoken" is bad for the working class? Now that's hypocritcal, and hypocrtical used in the right context. -insert philoraptor meme here-


That's a non-sequitor. Communism is about the self-emancipation of the working class; its emancipation cannot be any other way, for no bourgeois leader will every truly emancipate the working person from their shackles. So, yes it's nice to hear people spouting pro-worker rhetoric, but at the end of the day if they are not workers themselves, then they are of little political use to the working class in the long-run.

That's a non-sequitor? Wow.. no that's a difference in revolution theory. I don't put on my pompous douche hat and go, "Every person in the working class has to come together before a revolution can even begin. That's a non-sequitur." No, that would be awesome if it did, but I think other steps have to be taken before that can happen, and there's nothing wrong with that. Who are you to say any of these leaders are bourgeois? (I'll answer this soon) I can almost see your green glow. Most of these leaders joined the opposition in college. They also had jobs before joining. I can already tell what you're going to say. "They had a petit bourgeois job and don't know what the working class needs." Maybe, but you can see class oppression from anywhere. Also, I work in production factory with horrible wages, long hours and questionable safe work conditions, and I would shoot myself if this working class united with no positive leader to point them in the right direction. It would be a reactionary mob at best.


Just what the working class has been looking for, a strongman in a suit.

What is this phobia of people wearing suits? I promise they are not one-eye, one horn, flying purple people eaters if they wear a suit. I'm also not going to have bias opinion of someone because of the way they dress.


PR with who? You mean the establishment media? Communism is never going to be good with establishment media, so you know, you can have the best looking person, most sartorially elegant and eloquent speaker in the world, but when the words 'I am a communist' come out of their mouth, they may as well look like a pig and talk like my backside. Pandering to the establishment media is the last thing needed before, during and after the revolution. Proper punctuation, on the other hand. ;)

PR with who? Maybe the public.. maybe get a positive public relationship with the fellow workers. I said nothing about pandering to the media. Also, the workers joining together are going to be able to pick out right wing propaganda. The non reactionaries, are going to be able to, I guess. Media isn't bad, bias journalism is, so we can have media. Media is an important tool. It will help pick out the opportunist feel good scum every step of the way.


I am a revolutionary.

Sticking feathers up your butt DOES NOT make you a chicken.


Making the world a better place is not necessarily the same as a revolution that ends capital's hegemony. I don't diss people for wanting to make the world a better place; it's great that people want to initiate reforms and get good PR for their left-wing parties, but we are on a revolutionary leftist forum and so, ultimately whilst we are here, I will be judging against revolutionary standards, not against 'does wearing a nice suit and looking good in the media make things slightly better' sort of standards.

I guess I don't know why you want a revolution in the first place? You're right this a leftist revolutionary forum, but there is more theorys than just a lazy left-comm perspective of a revolution.


That's not really how Marxism works, i'm afraid. Nor anarchism. As I said earlier, communism (and by extension the freeing of the worker from wage-bondage) can only be achieved by the working class; they can't be led. I'm sure 'natural leadership' may emerge democratically and fairly from within the class, but let's not pretend that some suit-wearing, middle class white man pandering to the capitalist media is going to achieve more than a few petty reforms.

Man. You just jump around your own holes with your theory. How are you going to make it fair if some small changes don't happen first then? Lol I mean its not going to be a fairy tale like it seems you're hoping. It's lazy thinking. Not only do you judge someone on the clothes they wear, but their sex?? And their race?? Now to answer why you think you can judge who bourgeois and who's not is because, I believe, you have some prejudice towards some people.

Also, DNZ Thank you for the article.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Man. You just jump around your own holes with your theory. How are you going to make it fair if some small changes don't happen first then? Lol I mean its not going to be a fairy tale like it seems you're hoping. It's lazy thinking.

So, how do small changes happen? Is it because of the activity of bourgeois politicians? Or, as the case may be, ostensibly proletarian politicians playing the game of bourgeois politics? What is precisely lazy thinking is not digging deeper to try and understand how these people end up in ties in the media, and it's relationship to the dynamics of class struggle. When the bourgeois media say, "Look! Here are your good looking and well-spoken leaders!" one ought to take pause.


Not only do you judge someone on the clothes they wear, but their sex?? And their race?? Now to answer why you think you can judge who bourgeois and who's not is because, I believe, you have some prejudice towards some people.

While neo-colonial reality is such that being a white male is no longer, as it once was, a more-or-less necessary prerequisite for being a capitalist, white supremacy and heteropatriarchy are still fundamentally entwined with capitalism. I can only speak to North America, but, here, most people are socialized for the better part of their lives to obey orders from white men, and most white men are socialized to give orders. As a result of this, there are practical reasons for capital to use white men accordingly. Of course, this is by no means universal (Obama, 5/10 Canadian Premiers, etc.), but, none the less, in a world where workers are disproportionately not white men, a certain degree is skepticism is warranted when white men present themselves as workers' leaders.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm much more handsome than Alexis "Crude Faced" Tsipras.

[Os Cangaceiros]

As was Reagan and currently Alexis Tsipras. Having said this it would seem that the majority of politicians and "statesman" whether they are men or woman, are not all the physically attractive, however one sees this. The conventionally good looking ones (mostly male) to seem to rise quicker (umm, yeah no pun intended).

My favorite (and probably the most classic) example about how image matters in politics was the Nixon/JFK debate, when Nixon got up there on stage and sweated like a pig. They did polls afterwards that found that people who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon won, but everyone who was watching TV just saw the flustered, sweating profusely Nixon, in contrast to the smooth JFK, who supposedly everyone wanted to bang back then.

After that debate Nixon supposedly would smear antiperspirants all over his face whenever he made TV appearances.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

My favorite (and probably the most classic) example about how image matters in politics was the Nixon/JFK debate, when Nixon got up there on stage and sweated like a pig. They did polls afterwards that found that people who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon won, but everyone who was watching TV just saw the flustered, sweating profusely Nixon, in contrast to the smooth JFK, who supposedly everyone wanted to bang back then.

After that debate Nixon supposedly would smear antiperspirants all over his face whenever he made TV appearances.

Point being, in either case the proles lost.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It was actually so unclear what you were saying that I presumed that you'd posted something you agreed with. Posting something you disagree with, without actually stating you disagree with it, makes it quite hard to infer that you've actually disagreed with what you've posted.

Fair enough. I didn't do a lead-in indicating a mixed opinion.



If you wish to think that business casual attire is elitist, then be my guest, considering how attire has become less and less formal over the decades.
It is elitist in the sense that it professionalises politics.

Professionalizing class politics is not a bad thing. It's about gaining credibility from fellow workers of diverse backgrounds and occupations, not just from stereotypes.


Why do you need a fucking suit and tie to do your job as a minister or whatever?

That's not business casual attire. I think you've got your attires really mixed up here. :confused:


Attire has not become less formal; in fact it's fucking condescending to see Cameron, Clegg et al. walking around town in a shirt and jeans thinking that they look like normal people.

Didn't you just contradict yourself? You're saying it's "fucking condescending" to see leading politicians going around in shirt and jeans, and then you're asking why they need suits and ties to do cabinet work.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Media isn't bad, bias journalism is, so we can have media. Media is an important tool. It will help pick out the opportunist feel good scum every step of the way.

Given Boss's "professionalizes politics" catch, I wonder what your attitude would be towards a left-leaning worker's use of PowerPoint or similar software for a political presentation. ;)

[vizzek]

yeah, uh, i don't want to stir up shit after just joining the site, but a lot of what i'm seeing in this discussion is really asinine.

there's no value in having 'young and good looking' or 'young and well' spoken left politicians. thinking that supporting attractive politicians who hold communist positions or whatever is going to bring us any closer to revolution sounds like the ramblings of a illusioned social democrat. subjecting the working class to some asshole wearing a suit sitting in washington or parliament is an extremely counter-revolutionary and offensive stance. if revolution's going to succeed it's going to be brought about by the commonfolk - the "unwashed masses" as the op would probably put it - striking, assembling, sabotaging, and communizing, not casting a ballot in a voting booth. the ancient leninist hope for some political party to represent the working class is ridiculous.

[Desy]

Given Boss's "professionalizes politics" catch, I wonder what your attitude would be towards a left-leaning worker's use of PowerPoint or similar software for a political presentation. ;)

Could care less. I'm a left-leaning worker and I had to use it when I tried to get a union started in my right to work state. I failed, but it's a professional way to spread information so people will listen. I'm not sure who's signature it is, but it had a quote to do with strategy and tactics and it's pretty good. (Tim Cornelis - Signature.)

Virgin Molotov Cocktail: I had a response to your post, but my phone crapped out on me and deleted what I was writing. Sorry. I will do a quick response to it though.

Now, I don't think that site the article came from was bourgeois. I think the reporter over romanticized his excitement of the left image changing from; Old cranky looking men - with kick ass facial hair I will add. To this new generation of well groomed men and strong beautiful women taking center stage. It's lazy to automatically assume and judge from an article from a excitable journalist, but don't blame the journalist, because I find it refreshing to see some optimism within the left opposition. With your second statement on my criticism of The boss's prejudice all I have to say is;

I live in the USA. Our African-American brothers have the highest gun violence statistics and highest incarceration rate. Now, if I'm walking down the street and there is an African-American walking towards me, and we are alone. I'm not going to blow my rape whistle while screaming bloody murder in fear of him gunning me down to steal my grape juice box.

This example shows the same prejudice, OK, and borderline racism, but I hope the same point is made of how that type of thinking is wrong within the leftist movement.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Desy;2605735]First lets get your petty stuff out of the way. I probably have a bunch of punctuation errors, but it's funny to see the one you pointed out. You see, you can learn to put the comma there or not during a list; they are both correct. Now if you're saying proper punctuation as how society looks as the more professional way, you are correct, but didn't you just go off on someone for regional dialect and some dribble about thinking one way of being "well spoken" is bad for the working class? Now that's hypocritcal, and hypocrtical used in the right context. -insert philoraptor meme here-

The oxford comma is apparently more common in american english. Across here it is unconventional, I rarely see it used outside of oxford and a couple of badly written journals. So, apologies, clearly a cultural mix-up there. Now to move on to the serious stuff:


That's a non-sequitor? Wow.. no that's a difference in revolution theory. I don't put on my pompous douche hat and go, "Every person in the working class has to come together before a revolution can even begin. That's a non-sequitur." No, that would be awesome if it did, but I think other steps have to be taken before that can happen, and there's nothing wrong with that.

You're putting words in my mouth. What I actually said was that a revolution needs to be the working class' own making, not that of some detached leader from their ivory tower/parliamentary seat.


Who are you to say any of these leaders are bourgeois?

Do they sell their labour for a wage to survive? If not then they are certainly not workers...


(I'll answer this soon) I can almost see your green glow. Most of these leaders joined the opposition in college.

Why the fuck does that matter? Who even are this 'opposition' you speak of? The Labour Party? The Green Party?


They also had jobs before joining.

Again, so fucking what?


I can already tell what you're going to say. "They had a petit bourgeois job and don't know what the working class needs." Maybe, but you can see class oppression from anywhere.

You're right, you can see working class oppression from anywhere, but only the working class is going to emancipate...the working class from the rule of those who are not the working class. Isn't that obvious? Nobody else is going to do it, and if they say they are, then i'd be bloody suspicious!


Also, I work in production factory with horrible wages, long hours and questionable safe work conditions, and I would shoot myself if this working class united with no positive leader to point them in the right direction. It would be a reactionary mob at best.

That's where education comes in; something the left are failing at spectacularly right now, partly because there are those, like you, who are waiting for some figure to anoint themselves the next Lenin in a suit and waltz the working class to wonderful Socialism. :rolleyes:




PR with who? Maybe the public.. maybe get a positive public relationship with the fellow workers. I said nothing about pandering to the media.

What happened to being able to talk eloquently, passionately and, you know, being a decent human being as a PR strategy? Besides, if you aren't bothered about the media, then why do you need all this glitzy suit shit to get along with fellow workers? I've honestly never seen a positive reaction to a politician wearing a suit when normal clothes would do. The suit and media-training thing actually seems to put distance between a politician and normal people; it singles them out as 'one of them' (the professional politicians) rather than 'one of us'. Surely when it comes to leadership - for the sake of democracy and accountability - we want as little distance between 'leaders' and 'led' as possible?



Sticking feathers up your butt DOES NOT make you a chicken.

As well as being a shit analogy, it's useless. A human with feathers up their butt is a human not a chicken. In fact I can't even be arsed to deal with this crass bit of sectarianism, it's really rather pathetic. If you want to just deny a whole branch of communist theory then be my guest, it's really your loss as has been shown by what you've written in this thread.


I guess I don't know why you want a revolution in the first place? You're right this a leftist revolutionary forum, but there is more theorys than just a lazy left-comm perspective of a revolution.

Brilliant. What is less lazy than what you've just written?


Man. You just jump around your own holes with your theory. How are you going to make it fair if some small changes don't happen first then? Lol I mean its not going to be a fairy tale like it seems you're hoping.

Really? Damn.


It's lazy thinking. Not only do you judge someone on the clothes they wear, but their sex?? And their race??

Who are you, the fucking revleft men's and white person's advocate or something? Don't even try and play that game with me, it's pathetic. Grow up.


Now to answer why you think you can judge who bourgeois and who's not is because, I believe, you have some prejudice towards some people.

I'm a white male. You think I am prejudiced against myself? No. The only thing i'm prejudiced against is strongmen in suits who 'lead' the working class despite not even being a fucking member of the class! And that, sonny, is called Socialism. And even if it weren't, then i'd fucking denounce Socialism, shove a few feather up my ass and run around clucking like a chicken.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I will also not be preached to on my revolutionary credentials by a borderline fucking racist.

[Desy]

I will also not be preached to on my revolutionary credentials by a borderline fucking racist.

Thank you. This is probably the nicest thing anyone on revleft has said to me. I'm just glad that you don't see me as a racists, borderline, but not a racist. Because, like you, I would hate to have some sort of prejudice towards someone because of their skin color.

I'm not an advocate for any race or gender. I'm just an advocate for the equality among humans. And very against prejudice against some one because of skin color, sex, or sexual orientation.

So, rock on, and keep the reactionary race rhetoric coming. (That's a joke. Please stop.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Do they sell their labour for a wage to survive? If not then they are certainly not workers...

We're talking about worker-class activism (not generic "left activism"), so by definition such activists have to sell their labour for a wage to survive.


That's where education comes in; something the left are failing at spectacularly right now, partly because there are those, like you, who are waiting for some figure to anoint themselves the next Lenin in a suit and waltz the working class to wonderful Socialism. :rolleyes:

Education is about the "programmatism" of revolutionary program and revolutionary strategy.


What happened to being able to talk eloquently, passionately and, you know, being a decent human being as a PR strategy?

That's what I'm writing about here. Being boorish doesn't help on the "eloquently" and "decent human being" aspects of PR tactics. Presentation software like PowerPoint may help on the "eloquently" front.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Thank you. This is probably the nicest thing anyone on revleft has said to me. I'm just glad that you don't see me as a racists, borderline, but not a racist. Because, like you, I would hate to have some sort of prejudice towards someone because of their skin color.

I'm not an advocate for any race or gender. I'm just an advocate for the equality among humans. And very against prejudice against some one because of skin color, sex, or sexual orientation.

So, rock on, and keep the reactionary race rhetoric coming. (That's a joke. Please stop.)

It's reactionary to recognise the historical (and continuing) dominion of the white male in society? :confused::confused::confused:

[Desy]

It's reactionary to recognise the historical (and continuing) dominion of the white male in society? :confused::confused::confused:

No, I never said any of that. I'm starting to get bored of repeating myself. I don't agree how you present your theories, but you're a lot more intelligent than this. /endofintrestinthisthread.

[vizzek]

That's what I'm writing about here. Being boorish doesn't help on the "eloquently" and "decent human being" aspects of PR tactics. Presentation software like PowerPoint may help on the "eloquently" front.

i'm sure showing a bunch of people who just got home from working 8 hours a powerpoint presentation on the benefits of socialism is going to turn out real nicely.

but in all seriousness, revolution is not going to be made through 'education' by enlightened individuals (if you can really call them that). you cannot instigate a revolutionary situation.

[Ravachol]

yeah, uh, i don't want to stir up shit after just joining the site, but a lot of what i'm seeing in this discussion is really asinine.

there's no value in having 'young and good looking' or 'young and well' spoken left politicians. thinking that supporting attractive politicians who hold communist positions or whatever is going to bring us any closer to revolution sounds like the ramblings of a illusioned social democrat. subjecting the working class to some asshole wearing a suit sitting in washington or parliament is an extremely counter-revolutionary and offensive stance. if revolution's going to succeed it's going to be brought about by the commonfolk - the "unwashed masses" as the op would probably put it - striking, assembling, sabotaging, and communizing, not casting a ballot in a voting booth. the ancient leninist hope for some political party to represent the working class is ridiculous.

Oh believe me you're in for a treat with the jokers on this site and their cosplaying lego-socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

i'm sure showing a bunch of people who just got home from working 8 hours a powerpoint presentation on the benefits of socialism is going to turn out real nicely.

but in all seriousness, revolution is not going to be made through 'education' by enlightened individuals (if you can really call them that). you cannot instigate a revolutionary situation.

There goes the charge of "voluntarism" again. Who said anything about a revolutionary situation? We're talking basic political struggle and its class-based derivative here, which require "volunteers" the likes of past party organizers.


the "unwashed masses" as the op would probably put it - striking, assembling, sabotaging, and communizing

And how exactly do fetishes for such action indicate public policymaking awareness on the part of those participating in such action, or even those instigating it?

[vizzek]

There goes the charge of "voluntarism" again. Who said anything about a revolutionary situation? We're talking basic political struggle and its class-based derivative here, which require "volunteers" the likes of past party organizers.

for what purpose do these lectures and education services serve then? if you're not trying to create the conditions for revolution then what are you doing?


And how exactly do fetishes for such action indicate public policymaking awareness on the part of those participating in such action, or even those instigating it?

they don't. no one besides you cares about "public policymaking awareness." the actions of some polysci majors is not revolution. if you think communization is a "fetish" then i've got bad news for you.

[MarxSchmarx]

Here's another way to think about all this - who is selling capitalism? Most capitalist commercials feature precisely the sort of people listed in DNZ's original post - young, reasonably successful, passionate, and charismatic. Reinforcing the idea are chief beneficieries of capitalism, including celebrities. In some contexts, notably America (paul ryan), Mexico (pena nieto), and Italy (berlusconi's boast that his parliamentarians are more attractive than the left's), the right makes open appeals to these glamour candidates.

The left has not historically been above such frivolties. Interestingly, the images of a "capitalist" in propaganda posters tend to be decrepit old men, very often austere, lean uncle sams and top-hatted bulldoggish fatcats with union-jack vests. These have been juxtaposed against robust, muscular young (almost always) men weilding a hammer or something and a firm determination in their chiselled dreamy faces.

Ultimately I think it is important for the left to have a conversation about the role of capitalist aesthetics in its propaganda, and particularly how it can inadvertently reinforce capitalist modes of oppression in doing so (e.g., by glorifying politicians as tabloid centerpieces). The issue is particularly stark for visual imagery, and the left needs to be critical of its own propensity to internalize capitalist aesthetics.

[Rurkel]

The night was so dark and exceedingly stormy,
The winds and the rains - they just went on and on.
It seemed - the Left is completely defeated,
Its sun had long setted to never return.

But then, like a glimmer of light in the darkness,
They came, very smart, very skilled and deft,
(Their suits were all clean and their nails were all trimmed)
The saviours of workers and radical left.

Aware of all public promotion techníques,
They cried "Educate! Organize! Agitate!
We really do need a mass labour party
If we want to crush the vile bourgeios state!"

Seriously, sometimes I think that DNZ deliberately presents his ideas in such an alienating, bureaucratic language because he's a secret ultra-left hater of revolutionary social-democracy who wants to discredit it. I am not an ultra-leftist, but after reading a DNZ thread I suddenly wish to be one.

[Revenant]

What ever happened to the middle aged greasy chain smoking and alcoholic socialist you could trust?
:D I'm not middle aged yet!

[Flying Purple People Eater]

i'm sure showing a bunch of people who just got home from working 8 hours a powerpoint presentation on the benefits of socialism is going to turn out real nicely.

Why not? Wouldn't you be interested in what someone who believed that you shouldn't have to do the eight-hour-a-day schedule just to survive had to say?

You make it seem as if people have a natural negative response to attempts of bettering one another, which is in all honesty complete horseshit. I haven't seen this sympathy in anyone other than the most afflicted narcissists.

[Ravachol]

Why not? Wouldn't you be interested in what someone who believed that you shouldn't have to do the eight-hour-a-day schedule just to survive had to say?

Yes, maybe. But whatever interest they have sure is gonna evaporate like snow before the sun once confronted with some douche and his 'eloquent PR tactics' and his 200 slide powerpoint blabla.

Let me put it this way: I'm a communist and even if I had the day off I wouldn't go to some guy holding a snoozefest powerpoint presentation laying out a 'realistic socialism for tomorrow' or whatever the fuck. Have you guys ever even tried anything close to real world political activity? Take a look around you man, nobody cares about that shit and they're damn right to.

[Die Neue Zeit]

for what purpose do these lectures and education services serve then? if you're not trying to create the conditions for revolution then what are you doing?

Spreading political awareness.


they don't. no one besides you cares about "public policymaking awareness." the actions of some polysci majors is not revolution. if you think communization is a "fetish" then i've got bad news for you.

Your admission is says it all, really. Lack of basic public policymaking awareness has historically led r-r-r-revolutionaries to brick walls, and the rest of the population to unproductive activities (like parochial "worker-controlled" production for the immediate needs of the facility workers and not the broader workforce). That's also why assemblies and councils have always deferred to cabinets!


Interestingly, the images of a "capitalist" in propaganda posters tend to be decrepit old men, very often austere, lean uncle sams and top-hatted bulldoggish fatcats with union-jack vests. These have been juxtaposed against robust, muscular young (almost always) men weilding a hammer or something and a firm determination in their chiselled dreamy faces.

Also opposed to scrawny, large-headed, heavily bearded, academic-suited figures? ;)


The issue is particularly stark for visual imagery, and the left needs to be critical of its own propensity to internalize capitalist aesthetics.

Comrade, do realize that the fundamental difference here is education vs. agitation. Agitation can certainly appropriate the good looks to be more popular, but I am of the opinion that being well-spoken is more fundamental to education than it is to agitation. The failure of not being well-spoken for education flows to a large extent towards agitational failure.


Aware of all public promotion techniques,
They cried "Educate! Organize! Agitate!
We really do need a mass labour party
If we want to crush the vile bourgeios state!"

Two fundamental points you've got wrong there: the order of the slogan, and the mention of the word "labour" vs. "workers" or "workforce.

Also, we're not arrogant in stressing awareness of basic public promotion techniques (and also basic public policymaking techniques).


Seriously, sometimes I think that DNZ deliberately presents his ideas in such an alienating, bureaucratic language because he's a secret ultra-left hater of revolutionary social-democracy who wants to discredit it. I am not an ultra-leftist, but after reading a DNZ thread I suddenly wish to be one.

I used to be an ultra-left, but the "alienating, bureaucratic language" for my political evolution is inspired by harsh realities and also by the "Push" in Push-Pull Promotional Strategies used in the business world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push–pull_strategy

Deal with it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, maybe. But whatever interest they have sure is gonna evaporate like snow before the sun once confronted with some douche and his 'eloquent PR tactics' and his 200 slide powerpoint blabla.

You just reminded me of an instructor's anecdote about an academic professor who had a lengthy presentation, and who was nowhere near finishing it when his time was up.

In my OP, part of being "well-spoken" is coughing up and delivering concise slide presentations.


Have you guys ever even tried anything close to real world political activity?

If you're referring to strike actions, then I must break it to you that 99% of such isn't political.

[Philosophos]

OK seriously SYRIZA is not left. It has some very worthy people inside of it (that are not FULL of bullshit that's what I mean), but after that NOTHING. They don't call themselves communists. I haven't seen or heard any of them going on the media and say:"Yeah I'm a communist". They say they are left but I think they are social-democrats (of some sort of).

I can't really think them as a revolutionary party because they change their minds like snakes change their skin. The one day they say this the other day they say the other. It's good to change your views but not every god damned day. Also FYI the members of this coalition anounce to the media different opinions. For example Synaspismos members might say that we should leave the EU and AKOA members might say that we should stay. When this comes to the table SYRIZA says that they like the variaty of opinions. Yes of course you should like the variaty of opinions when you have a meeting not when you go to the media and try to convince people to vote for you.

Also they haven't said anything about socialism as KKE means it. I still believe they want to stay under capitalism but have a "friendly" to the people face (oh look the social-democrat thing I said). Well on the other hand they might be some sort of geniuses that I can't understand and they have some sort of master plan that nobody should know of...

In addition Tsipras is a coward. I don't know if he doesn't take responsibility for his previews actions (he said some big words but he didn't have the balls to support them so he just took them back) because he thinks we are not ready for the revolution or just because he's a little puppet in the capitalist agenda.

Last but not least they can't really see the big picture about the problems of the people. They tell to a xenophobic country that is full of fascist lovers and nationalists that they will bring the families of all the immigrants that now live inside Greece. I don't have a problem with that but... I'm a communist that's why I don't have a problem. When you try to change someone's mind while he's under capitalist propaganda for his whole fucking life you can't just change him in one blink. Let's seeeeee.... You can tell him that he will have better jobs, more money, he won't be unprotected from the exploitation of the capital and so much more. Tadaaa they follow you, they see you've done what you've promised so now you start trying to change their minds... I might be wrong but I'm more right than they are at least.

Anyway the thing is that SYRIZA is not a party where you can rely on for a revolution or an active anti-capitalist front or anything at all. So please pleaaaaseeeee stop saying that they are somehow left and they are saviours of leftism...

Sincerely a greek comrade that wants to throw up when he hears SYRIZA and Tsipras.

[Ravachol]

If you're referring to strike actions, then I must break it to you that 99% of such isn't political.

I am referring to anything that doesn't involve posting on the internet or writing ramblings to the weekly worker.