what causes people to lack a (pro-)revolutionary perspective?

[ed miliband]

(forgive that atrocious title, i couldn't think of anything better)

i've got a good friend who i often discuss politics with - his choice, not mine - and who considers me a sort of political kindred spirit. however it's often abundantly clear to me that we're speaking two different languages, whilst perhaps agreeing on some basic points. i'm polite about it, which means the illusion of similarity probably lingers on in his mind, but i often have to subtly tell him i think he's wrong, or just change the conversation entirely to avoid coming across as a know-it-all, preaching dickhead.

it's not something that bothers me, i don't want to 'convert' him to my perspective, or make a communist out of him - if that happens, it happens - it just interests me that somebody can be so instinctively... liberal, i guess. i just know that within a few years he'll regard my politics as infantile and be voting labour - in fact, both of those things happened last year, so he's obviously had a change of heart. i've recommended him plenty of stuff to read at his request, spoken with him about politics and history and so on at great length, but ultimately i could be speaking esperanto for all that he has taken from it.

i've been thinking about why this is, and my reckoning is that it is because he sees himself as somebody who will be successful, who has a place in society, ambition and so on. politics thus never has any connection to everyday life, but instead is something that is 'done' on behalf of other people: the poor, the hungry, people in the third world. it's interesting to me because there are a lot of people like this at my university, and i wonder how this will hold up over the next few years, when that optimism over future employment, becoming a professional and so on, will increasingly disappear.

speculate, relate similar tales, tell me why i'm wrong, etc.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

One would believe that upon graduation if their dreams do not come true and they end up as "normal" then they would start to be against the system. Instead what I see happen is they start making up scapegoats as to why they didn't succeed; sometimes these scapegoats are the racist kind ("those damned foreigners taking all the jobs") while other times it is absurd fantasy: "the economy simply is not good right now but when it starts to get better (in that mythical day when capitalism starts to "work") I will be a hotshot." I find it to be a no win situation with people like these.

[ed miliband]

sure, i can see something to that.

if you asked him whether he "wanted a revolution" (shitty question but whatever), he'd be like "yeah, of course...", but his way of seeing the world is so fundamentally tied to current structures and his perceived success in them, i find it quite curious.

[Os Cangaceiros]

At least that person is interested enough in the subject and has taken the initiative to learn about other political perspectives. That's better than 99% of people I know.

If someone learns about revolutionary theory and then rejects it, well, fair enough. I don't suffer under the delusion that my ideological preferences are so true that everyone will be persuaded by them, if only they get explained in the correct manner. And then there are those who have it pretty good in life, know it, and reject anything that would interrupt that. Which I can understand, even if I don't agree with it, and I'm actually less suspicious of that attitude than I am of some really rich guy who goes on about how much he cares about the poor or whatever. I can comprehend self-interest pretty well.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Capitalism and its curators have taken rebellion and made it a "stage of development" Silly teenagers rebel, proper adults go into work everyday and sell their labour for a wage so some plutocrat can skim off the cream. Proper adults vote Lab, Lib or Tory and read newspapers and make peace with the establishment. A proper adult would sign a petition (maybe) if it really struck them as possible - but rebellion is for teenagers. You grow out of it, apparently.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

the political is inherently personal - hence, if you're someone who does alright out of the current system, then you're eventually going to get bored of badgering on about stuff that doesn't really affect you.

And that's no bad thing. I think the only way that socialism or something similar will ever be truly popular and palatable amongst the mass of the people will be when they need it in order to survive. The fact is that capitalism is still inventing ways to meet the needs/wants/desires of many members of the working class, or at least advertises itself as such. The day it can't advertise itself as the system of democracy, freedom and all those other buzz words will be the day when people we hitherto consider non-political or apolitical will take on overt political positions.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

ironic that this is in non-political, too.

[The Douche]

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas..."

But seriously, I can't count the number of people who, over the years, have had similar relationships with me, in fact, check out this drunken facebook message I got a while ago, its from a younger kid that I have mutual friends with, he's very confused about conspiracy theories and things like that:

(Trigger warning, prejudiced language, drunken dudeness)


hey dude...its ur fault that i dont know what is right,,,,,fuck u dude!
it is ur responsibility to help me!fuck that just beacuse i go to school doesnt mean that i cant fight for what is right...i have been waiting for someone like u....it is wrong for u to not recruit me..i actually am all for the cause...u just never asked! ask me to do anything for the cause and see for ur self faggot !!!! fuck u!....u are a douche bag

[ed miliband]

i guess i explained myself pretty poorly in the first post. it's not a case of him rejecting revolutionary theory or politics, and me trying to win him over to them, but him actively identifying as a radical, an anarchist, pro-revolutionary and so on, despite his actual politics being no different to that of your average guardian columnist. i mean, i once recommended him a text that contained a critique of democracy. he read it, said he thought it was great, and then proceeded to tell me the very problem with capitalism is that it "isn't democratic enough", one of the arguments the piece railed against. now either he didn't actually read it and was being disingenuous, or he read it and he didn't understand it. since he's honest and would have no reason to lie about it, i'm fairly sure it was the latter, and i just find it interesting that in spite of good effort on his part, he doesn't really understand (perhaps the wrong word) the ideas and their implications.

idk, it's in non-political because it's a bit of a mess, i guess i just wanted to rant a little about it because it's pretty frustrating. he once asked me to criticise his politics, to tell him where he was going wrong, and since he's a good friend i didn't want to be like "uh, everywhere!" it's not like i have perfectly thought out politics or anything, it's just clear we have entirely different conceptions of the world, etc. and i find that quite interesting, but not something i'm seeking to correct or rectify. i'd rather it was assumed we weren't arguing from the same perspective and we could just talk about politics more openly and honestly.

on the point of self-interest, raised by os cangaceiros, that's actually something i've outright argued with him about precisely because he doesn't understand self-interest, and sees politics as an act of sacrifice people do on behalf of those in need (who of course, have little or no agency), i've also suggested for e.g. that if i was offered a cushy job at a bank i'd take it, which he's balked at as "immoral". so whilst i do place his personal ambition for career success (as a journalist, basically) as one of the reasons for his worldview, i don't know if i'd necessarily say that's a matter of self-interest. similarly, my lack of ambition doesn't mean i'm a dumpster-diving crusty who rejects self-interest as immoral.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

perhaps explain self-interest to him in the sense that people may have political or moral principles during 'normal' times, but in times of social unrest, people will normally take sides according to self-interest - a turkey won't vote for christmas. So it's great for people to have their own idealistic views on the world in the comfort of their own homes, but generally when people's asses are on the line, they back the situation, choice or group that represents either the biggest opportunity for them, or the safest option for them (i.e. again, turkeys don't vote for xmas).

[human strike]

I blame commodity fetishism.