Do you think the radical left is alienating working-class people?

[IBleedRed]

There are a few different behaviors and attitudes I encounter among self-proclaimed radical leftists (socialists/communists and anarchists alike) that I feel really alienate working-class people and damage the cause. You may or may not agree, but I surely can't be the only person who feels this way. I'm not suggesting that these problems characterize every leftist movement, but that they are real and damaging.

1) "excessive intellectualism". This is not to say that intellectual activities are bad, but that intellectualism, with its "ivory tower" demeanor, is ultimately a lot of fluffy jargon and rubbish. Unfortunately, there are too many Marxists who like to spend their time arguing over the pettiest and most inconsequential things, often with a holier-than-though attitude. IMO this alienates the same working-class people we are trying to win over. People who are busting their asses working 40, 50, or 60 hours a week working shitty jobs under shitty bosses don't care about the minutiae of this or that leftist school of thought. They have real concerns in the real world. Self-proclaimed Marxists who spend all their time at the coffee shop with their noses in books are not going to relate to the toiling masses. This is why we are painted as "detached" and outdated.

Disclaimer: I am NOT saying that robust political, historical, economic, and so on, discussions and explorations are unimportant, but that the attitudes of most "hyper-intellectual" Marxists are detached from the real world.

2) Reckless hostility to the "sacred" beliefs of others

I am not religious myself. It can be well argued that materialism demands atheism. You should not be stop being hostile to reactionary institutions and traditions. BUT the fact is that many normal, hard-working working class people hold their personal religious and cultural beliefs, whether reactionary or not, closely. So if you want to relate to these people, don't start off the conversation with "Fuck your God!" :rolleyes:

3) "Correcting" other people

Here is the most challenging one to criticize. We should, after all, always stand against homophobia, misogyny, and oppressive attitudes. Nevertheless, there is a way of going about it that is less alienating to most working class people. Like it or not, people are going to say ignorant things. A worker taking his short lunch break might drop the F word or say "that's retarded". You should not join him and ultimately these derogatory remarks have to end. But you also shouldn't say something like "that's ableist, you evil homophobe!". People have been conditioned their whole lives with these attitudes, and they aren't going to stop doing something simply because some holier-than-though pseudo-intellectual leftist told them to stop. I'm just sayin'. Take from this what you will.

The reality is that people out there have concerns that we need to appeal to: they are worried about their wages, their jobs, education, affording healthcare, their children, et cetera. We should, first and foremost, worry about these things. Thoughts?

[tallguy]

Why was this thread removed in a matter of only a few minutes from the new posts section of this forum.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

^^^it's a conspiracy.

OT: no I don't think we are alienating working class people, though of course we cannot generalise 'the radical left', nor 'working class people'. Rather, I don't think we have managed to forge a path through the general apathy that is clearly prevalent amongst large swathes of working people across the developed nations.

As for 'excessive intellectualism', I don't think that we should acquiesce to requests to 'dumb down'. For sure, we can get our message across better, but don't forget that the ruling ideas in society come from the ruling class at that time. We need to have our own alternative formulations, of philosophy, of societal relations, of economics, of politics, of communication etc. In fact, it's not the level of intellectualism of our ideas that is the problem, but mainly that there are very few exciting new ideas coming from the left. There have been some developments towards horizontal and more spontaneous forms of organisation and protest/resistance in recent years, though the level of interest generated has not really been any more than mild outside the usual radical circles (occupy, for example).

Our ideas need to be better. Our work with working class communities and neighbourhoods needs to be better. Those are the two key issues facing the leftist movement today, in general, I would say. Obviously different geographic locations face other differing problems, but those are my two over-riding concerns: a dearth of good new philosophical formulations of society and revolution and organisation, and the lack of ability to physically and socially engage in working class communities en masse and effectively.

[consuming negativity]

I think that you're coming up with hypothetical situations that don't actually happen and are using them to lead us down a dangerous path of compromising our beliefs for the sake of numbers. We are not the Democratic party. There is something to be said for respecting other humans, and there is also something to be said for making our arguments easier to understand from a layman's perspective. But that doesn't mean we call homophobes and capitalists our brothers-in-arms because we're scared of losing reactionaries to... the reactionaries. Someone has to represent the radical left - and if won't, then nobody will.

Besides, as a working-class person, I find your mischaracterization of the class as uneducated reactionaries to be annoying rubbish. But you reminded me of a quote from the Matrix, as cheesy as that is:


Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Business men, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

But that's basically how I feel about the right-wing working class. We are for the liberation of humanity, and fuck them if they try to stand in our way. But that doesn't mean compassion and understanding suddenly go out the window.

[tallguy]

I think that you're coming up with hypothetical situations that don't actually happen and are using them to lead us down a dangerous path of compromising our beliefs for the sake of numbers. We are not the Democratic party. There is something to be said for respecting other humans, and there is also something to be said for making our arguments easier to understand from a layman's perspective. But that doesn't mean we call homophobes and capitalists our brothers-in-arms because we're scared of losing reactionaries to... the reactionaries. Someone has to represent the radical left - and if won't, then nobody will.

Besides, as a working-class person, I find your mischaracterization of the class as uneducated reactionaries to be annoying rubbish. But you reminded me of a quote from the Matrix, as cheesy as that is:



But that's basically how I feel about the right-wing working class. We are for the liberation of humanity, and fuck them if they try to stand in our way. But that doesn't mean compassion and understanding suddenly go out the window.Oh right, you're going to save us or else eh?

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on mister.

[consuming negativity]

Oh right, you're going to save us or else eh?

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on mister.

What makes you think I'm a "mister", rude person?

No - we just shouldn't be wasting our time trying to appeal to reactionary idiots, regardless of their class affiliation. I don't have tea parties with fascists, I bash them. Not everybody is going to be on our side.

[blake 3:17]

@the OP-- Apparently a lot of Leftists think that the oppressed and exploited are in some desperate search for yet another boss / priest / parent / cop but without the benefits those figures may provide. It's bizarre.

"Free yourself! Listen to me!" is what it often boils down to.

[Ritzy Cat]

I don't think anything specific the radical left is doing alienates the working class - its more so how closely anticommunism/antisocialism is tied into western culture that alienates them. I bet if Communism began to go under a different name - we'd see an immediate increase in supporters.

[sosolo]

I really find it rather annoying when leftists combine some weird workerism with the belief that workers are all religious misogynistic racist homophobes. I agree that we need to speak to people in a way that doesn't alienate them, but I won't pander to reactionaries, no matter what class they belong to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[IBleedRed]

I think that you're coming up with hypothetical situations that don't actually happen and are using them to lead us down a dangerous path of compromising our beliefs for the sake of numbers. We are not the Democratic party. There is something to be said for respecting other humans, and there is also something to be said for making our arguments easier to understand from a layman's perspective. But that doesn't mean we call homophobes and capitalists our brothers-in-arms because we're scared of losing reactionaries to... the reactionaries. Someone has to represent the radical left - and if won't, then nobody will.

Besides, as a working-class person, I find your mischaracterization of the class as uneducated reactionaries to be annoying rubbish. But you reminded me of a quote from the Matrix, as cheesy as that is:



But that's basically how I feel about the right-wing working class. We are for the liberation of humanity, and fuck them if they try to stand in our way. But that doesn't mean compassion and understanding suddenly go out the window.


What makes you think I'm a "mister", rude person?

No - we just shouldn't be wasting our time trying to appeal to reactionary idiots, regardless of their class affiliation. I don't have tea parties with fascists, I bash them. Not everybody is going to be on our side.

I'm not at all suggesting that we pander to committed fascists. Fuck 'em. I'm talking about the large, nay, colossal section of the working class that is characterized by dejected apathy, whose members have not become committed reactionaries but who sometimes, for whatever reason, perhaps as a matter of upbringing or lack of quality education, exhibit behaviors that some high-horse-holier-than-thou leftist will lecture them against. Not that reactionary attitudes shouldn't be corrected, but they should be corrected by struggle and education, not coffee-shop leftists.

Most working-class people, including many of us, are too dejected to sit around and get lectured by someone else, whether it's warranted or not. Similarly, your brilliant, smart-sounding essay discussing Marx's favorite flavor of pie doesn't really resonate well with working people who actually face daily oppression. That approach is a recipe for disaster. We need to connect to working people in concrete ways, on familiar terms.

[ColossalButtwipe]

Do you think the radical left is alienating working-class people?

Yes. We live in a culture that is fiercely anti-left/anticommunist anyway, and it doesn't help when so many radicals are fiercely condescending and out-of-touch with what most working class people go through.

[Left Voice]

I don't anything anybody is suggesting that the left needs to appeal to reactionaries or the right wing. The reality is that most people are apolitical. And quite reasonably so - most people in their every day lives are primarily concerned with putting food on the table and providing for their families. I'm sure educating themselves in the intricacies of left wing political theories and becoming revolutionary leftists is quite low down the priority list for most people. But that doesn't make them reactionary, or right wing, or anti-left.

People who are apolitical will be persuaded by ideas that are presented to them in a manner that makes sense to them. Not in that they need to be simple or 'dumbed down', but because they're explained in a manner through which they can relate it with their own everyday experiences.

There has been a basic failure by the left to communicate its ideas to the relatively apolitical larger population, in ways that the right wing have succeeded. It's all too easy to simply blame the current western climate as being against socialism, but the left has to look at why this is - where has the left failed where capitalists have succeeded? These are important questions.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think many people are rusty and I think the radical left has been largely isolated from the working class for a couple of reasons (including past failures by the left) and direct state repression is an important, but probably not the biggest reason.

But I think it's mistaken to think that the reasons for our marginality are completely due to subjective factors. I think the situation of neoliberalism has created a lot of lowered expectations and increased completion among workers and economies have been restructured and the radical left as well as regular people have yet to develop ways of dealing with this.

But I think it's also eh case while there are objective challenges that are out of our hands, we can control the subjective factors more and so it is very important to figure out how to be more relevant and organically rooted in everyday life.

Even on this website it's hard to get people to not be snarky when someone asks a kinda noobie question... Even in the learning forum.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I don't anything anybody is suggesting that the left needs to appeal to reactionaries or the right wing. The reality is that most people are apolitical. And quite reasonably so - most people in their every day lives are primarily concerned with putting food on the table and providing for their families. I'm sure educating themselves in the intricacies of left wing political theories and becoming revolutionary leftists is quite low down the priority list for most people. But that doesn't make them reactionary, or right wing, or anti-left.

People who are apolitical will be persuaded by ideas that are presented to them in a manner that makes sense to them. Not in that they need to be simple or 'dumbed down', but because they're explained in a manner through which they can relate it with their own everyday experiences.

There has been a basic failure by the left to communicate its ideas to the relatively apolitical larger population, in ways that the right wing have succeeded. It's all too easy to simply blame the current western climate as being against socialism, but the left has to look at why this is - where has the left failed where capitalists have succeeded? These are important questions.

Well for one the right-wing in America has a massive and affluently backed mouthpiece through media and politics compared to the left. You can blame the lack of leftist numbers on internal problems all you want, but at the end of the day shit like Fox News is going to reach a lot more people than whatever considerate organisational tool you try and whip up.

[consuming negativity]

I'm not at all suggesting that we pander to committed fascists. Fuck 'em. I'm talking about the large, nay, colossal section of the working class that is characterized by dejected apathy, whose members have not become committed reactionaries but who sometimes, for whatever reason, perhaps as a matter of upbringing or lack of quality education, exhibit behaviors that some high-horse-holier-than-thou leftist will lecture them against. Not that reactionary attitudes shouldn't be corrected, but they should be corrected by struggle and education, not coffee-shop leftists.

Most working-class people, including many of us, are too dejected to sit around and get lectured by someone else, whether it's warranted or not. Similarly, your brilliant, smart-sounding essay discussing Marx's favorite flavor of pie doesn't really resonate well with working people who actually face daily oppression. That approach is a recipe for disaster. We need to connect to working people in concrete ways, on familiar terms.

When does this supposed lecturing actually happen, though? "Coffee-shop leftists"? "High-horse-holier-than-thou leftists"? Your entire premise is predicated on the idea that the revolutionary left are a bunch of Starbucks-drinking iPod-wearing middle class yuppies. Give me a break. And stop pretending as though the working class are a bunch of uneducated, poorly-raised modern-day noble savages. It's ridiculous and offensive.

[Red Commissar]

I don't think this is an issue limited to only the "radical left", but in general wonks who nerd out a bit too much with the particulars and tend to come off as detached and overly hostile towards people with differing views.

We all kind of fall into a trap, regardless of our political position, though of talking about our political views like we're talking to people with similar views, not someone who is not as well-informed about our beliefs much less about politics in general. Like JH said you can see this with how some users might react to questions asked by newer members who haven't figured out their positions yet.

[Jimmie Higgins]

1) "excessive intellectualism". This is not to say that intellectual activities are bad, but that intellectualism, with its "ivory tower" demeanor, is ultimately a lot of fluffy jargon and rubbish. Unfortunately, there are too many Marxists who like to spend their time arguing over the pettiest and most inconsequential things, often with a holier-than-though attitude. IMO this alienates the same working-class people we are trying to win over. People who are busting their asses working 40, 50, or 60 hours a week working shitty jobs under shitty bosses don't care about the minutiae of this or that leftist school of thought. They have real concerns in the real world. Self-proclaimed Marxists who spend all their time at the coffee shop with their noses in books are not going to relate to the toiling masses. This is why we are painted as "detached" and outdated.This one I kinda half agree and half disagree. I mean I never went to grad school or anything, I work in the service industry, I'm working class and my parents are and so I never had any real exposure to the kinds of practical skills and even the idea of theory before being radicalized. And it was intimidating when I began to be an activist and there were all these grad students and PHDs (this was the anti-globalization movement... and probably more were liberal rather than revolutionary) who had a sense of authority and confidence to them whereas I would rather have a root canal than stand in front of a group of people and try and argue a point. I was trained to be a worker, not a leader and this is one thing that being an active Marxist has helped me - being more confident in my ideas and arguing them.

People talking about obscure writers and thinkers was also... well I found it more intimidating than alienating, but I still found it less intimidating than trying to counter things in coalitions that were stated with authority but that I didn't agree with. I could always read things and that didn't turn me off or intimidate me and I really wanted to learn and read all I could when it seemed like it had practical use for me. I might not have had an interest in more obscure theories, I might have found reading Gramsci really tough, so I concentrated on history where the theory was gained in a more organic way for me: there's a clear context, problems, and the theory is based out of that, rather than theory coming first and then being put onto concrete situations - as it's sometimes presented.

Sorry for the long-winded annecdote, but my point is that I don't think workers who are motivated to do so really have much of an issue with intellectualism, but depending on their background they may not have some of the practical skills and experience and therefore less confidence. This is a problem in coalitions where liberals and various radicals sometimes create a sort of competative atmosphere... it creates a sense of passivity rather than ownership for people who are not starting from a default place of feeling confident in their own ideas and whatnot. This isn't true of everyone, many workers are totally bold and confident, but I think generally society teaches workers, and specifically women and some oppressed people that they should not be bold and they aren't smart enough to have the right instincts about things and so we need to listen to experts. So the left needs to understand this IMO, it needs to create supportive spaces and try and go out of it's way to train and accommodate oppressed people and workers.


Disclaimer: I am NOT saying that robust political, historical, economic, and so on, discussions and explorations are unimportant, but that the attitudes of most "hyper-intellectual" Marxists are detached from the real world.I have to say that this is pretty urksome - it's not just the left, but it does exist and I experienced this in Occupy where grad students were lectureing me... a very precarious worker in his 30s about the "precariet". I the attitude and appeals to bookly authority was annoying, but it was also sort of laughable because they were arguing that precarious workers are revolutionary and have no desire for reforms and then I go to work and consciousness among part-timers is so dismal and depressed because people are just worried about their jobs and making rent and wishing that they had job stability and didn't have to live paycheck to paycheck. But I'd have to say that I get this attitude from liberals and conservatives just as much. What is: "well you're young so that's why you have these left views" but that same sort of condescension? Nothing is more annoying to me than liberals who lecture me based on a superficial NPR story... well the situation is more nuanced than you think, we can't just oppose the war, we can't just make the rich pay for the crisis, we can't just allow these unions to not give up some pay and benefits.


2) Reckless hostility to the "sacred" beliefs of others

I am not religious myself. It can be well argued that materialism demands atheism. You should not be stop being hostile to reactionary institutions and traditions. BUT the fact is that many normal, hard-working working class people hold their personal religious and cultural beliefs, whether reactionary or not, closely. So if you want to relate to these people, don't start off the conversation with "Fuck your God!" :rolleyes: Yeah I agree. I also think it's a strangely idealistic stance for materialists to treat religion in terms of its (supernatural) ideas rather than as a social feature in society (even when it's - often - playing a negative role... it's not the ideas, it's the organization). In Oakland anti-police coalitions there's a lot of black activists who are christian yet open to criticism of the social role of black churches in being too tied to city hall to actually defend the community than there are people who would listen to an anti-theist argument. My grandparents are catholic immigrants and in that generation of my family are some pretty devout people, but even they have a complicated relationship to the church as an organization. Arguing that God is an irrational concept would go nowhere with them (because in their view it's supposed to be irrational, it's faith!) but they also aren't just sheep of the church, they often have a love-hate relationship with the hierarchy and its failings or hypocracies.


3) "Correcting" other people

Here is the most challenging one to criticize. We should, after all, always stand against homophobia, misogyny, and oppressive attitudes. Nevertheless, there is a way of going about it that is less alienating to most working class people. Like it or not, people are going to say ignorant things. A worker taking his short lunch break might drop the F word or say "that's retarded". You should not join him and ultimately these derogatory remarks have to end. But you also shouldn't say something like "that's ableist, you evil homophobe!". People have been conditioned their whole lives with these attitudes, and they aren't going to stop doing something simply because some holier-than-though pseudo-intellectual leftist told them to stop. I'm just sayin'. Take from this what you will.

The reality is that people out there have concerns that we need to appeal to: they are worried about their wages, their jobs, education, affording healthcare, their children, et cetera. We should, first and foremost, worry about these things. Thoughts?I guess my attitude for this is that it's important to pick your battles. I've challenged people on picket lines for using sexist terms when mocking to bosses and done it in a respectful way where people were like: "yeah of course, I didn't really think about it". Even when I've lost the argument, I think if you can make the point politically without a hint of moralization or personal chastisement then people will take it better. But sometimes when someone is not an ally or part of a movement but just some pig on the train saying homophobic or anti-arab shit, I don't really care about alienating them and then a sharp slam can be good. I worked in a liquor store around the time of the Afghanistan invasion (by the US) and people would come in and make jokes about Arabs running liquor stores... I didn't mind being an asshole to them and calling them out.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

As a member of the working class, I take offense to the OP for suggesting that workers are superstitious, homophobic, sexist morons.

[Comrade #138672]

Tallguy, please. Insulting people is not going to contribute anything to the discussion.

[IBleedRed]

As a member of the working class, I take offense to the OP for suggesting that workers are superstitious, homophobic, sexist morons.

In fact, many are superstitious, some are homophobic, still more are sexist. This is not the result of some character flaw. This is a product of the upbringing that some people who grow up in working-class families receive. I grew up in a very conservative household. The fact of the matter is that some workers hold beliefs and exhibit behaviors that "enlightened" leftists may take offense to, but we need to be practical in our approach to changing public attitudes. We are bombarded on a daily basis with the values that "society" has deemed appropriate, and we all know these values are the values of the ruling class. Workers are told they need to be "tough guys", "hard-working" without "complaining". They need to shun effeminacy, our media says, and be the masters of their own households, as kings within a kingdom. These are the values which prevail in our day, and recognizing this fact, we need to take an approach to connecting with working class people that does not put them on the spot, so to speak, and turn them away.

@communer, many radical leftists are indeed involved in labor struggles, especially outside of the U.S. But, I've also met many self-proclaimed radical leftists who are only too willing to chat about theory but, when invited to attend labor rallies (such as the minimum wage rallies), decline and never involve themselves in on-the-ground, organic movements by actual working-class people in the real world.

[Skyhilist]

Just a personal anecdote that I'd like to tell.

When I first joined these boards, I was definitely a social democrat. I wanted to learn more about communism though. Fortunately, no one realized my political identity back then or I would have been exiled to the "restricted" sub-forum. At this point, there's no way I would have even bothered. I'd have seen this site as elitist and rude for attempting to relegate my views and left, never becoming radicalized.

Fortunately that didn't happen. But that wasn't the only impediment to me becoming radicalized. While I was still being deprogrammed from my social-democratic views, I was scorned by many people on here. Many failed to acknowledge the fact that my political evolution was just starting to get underway and that with a little more time and information I'd become radicalized. The fact that I was still learning was painfully obvious - yet some posters on here, even some moderators, were extremely rude to me and condescending. This resulted only in frustration and made me all the more hesitant to embrace radical ideas.

So are people on the left alienating others who could be our comrades? Absolutely. And the attitudes shown by a large percentage of people on this sight are to blame.

[katrin]

There are a few different behaviors and attitudes I encounter among self-proclaimed radical leftists (socialists/communists and anarchists alike) that I feel really alienate working-class people and damage the cause. You may or may not agree, but I surely can't be the only person who feels this way. I'm not suggesting that these problems characterize every leftist movement, but that they are real and damaging.

1) "excessive intellectualism". This is not to say that intellectual activities are bad, but that intellectualism, with its "ivory tower" demeanor, is ultimately a lot of fluffy jargon and rubbish. Unfortunately, there are too many Marxists who like to spend their time arguing over the pettiest and most inconsequential things, often with a holier-than-though attitude. IMO this alienates the same working-class people we are trying to win over. People who are busting their asses working 40, 50, or 60 hours a week working shitty jobs under shitty bosses don't care about the minutiae of this or that leftist school of thought. They have real concerns in the real world. Self-proclaimed Marxists who spend all their time at the coffee shop with their noses in books are not going to relate to the toiling masses. This is why we are painted as "detached" and outdated.

Disclaimer: I am NOT saying that robust political, historical, economic, and so on, discussions and explorations are unimportant, but that the attitudes of most "hyper-intellectual" Marxists are detached from the real world.

2) Reckless hostility to the "sacred" beliefs of others

I am not religious myself. It can be well argued that materialism demands atheism. You should not be stop being hostile to reactionary institutions and traditions. BUT the fact is that many normal, hard-working working class people hold their personal religious and cultural beliefs, whether reactionary or not, closely. So if you want to relate to these people, don't start off the conversation with "Fuck your God!" :rolleyes:

3) "Correcting" other people

Here is the most challenging one to criticize. We should, after all, always stand against homophobia, misogyny, and oppressive attitudes. Nevertheless, there is a way of going about it that is less alienating to most working class people. Like it or not, people are going to say ignorant things. A worker taking his short lunch break might drop the F word or say "that's retarded". You should not join him and ultimately these derogatory remarks have to end. But you also shouldn't say something like "that's ableist, you evil homophobe!". People have been conditioned their whole lives with these attitudes, and they aren't going to stop doing something simply because some holier-than-though pseudo-intellectual leftist told them to stop. I'm just sayin'. Take from this what you will.

The reality is that people out there have concerns that we need to appeal to: they are worried about their wages, their jobs, education, affording healthcare, their children, et cetera. We should, first and foremost, worry about these things. Thoughts?
You make some good points here. I think the radical Left does tend to intellectualise, jostle for political correctness amongst themselves and bicker. I'm a relative newcomer and have not been made welcome in a certain online group that I won't mention here because I was not politically correct enough around white privilege. The education from the other members was pretty condescending.

All this in-fighting drains energy from the really important task of engaging with working-class people, touching their hearts and minds in the need for political change. It's not easy when the vast majority of people are disillusioned with political representation both from the Left and Right. So the emphasis would need to be on building trust, good dialogue and an appeal to their hearts as well their minds.

As somebody else mentioned, there needs to be a robust definition of working-class people before you even start dialogue. For instance, is it gauged by level of education or by income? Also, when you do start conversations with these people, you also have be aware of the level of shame they may feel in being poor and a 'failure' under capitalism, which of course, they're not.

[consuming negativity]

Just a personal anecdote that I'd like to tell.

When I first joined these boards, I was definitely a social democrat. I wanted to learn more about communism though. Fortunately, no one realized my political identity back then or I would have been exiled to the "restricted" sub-forum. At this point, there's no way I would have even bothered. I'd have seen this site as elitist and rude for attempting to relegate my views and left, never becoming radicalized.

Fortunately that didn't happen. But that wasn't the only impediment to me becoming radicalized. While I was still being deprogrammed from my social-democratic views, I was scorned by many people on here. Many failed to acknowledge the fact that my political evolution was just starting to get underway and that with a little more time and information I'd become radicalized. The fact that I was still learning was painfully obvious - yet some posters on here, even some moderators, were extremely rude to me and condescending. This resulted only in frustration and made me all the more hesitant to embrace radical ideas.

So are people on the left alienating others who could be our comrades? Absolutely. And the attitudes shown by a large percentage of people on this sight are to blame.

Why would you go to RevLeft of all places as a social democrat, to learn about communism of all ideologies? What was it that made you stick around in what you describe as a rather rude and unwelcoming environment?

I'm not asking those questions out of anything but curiosity - you became radicalized by being engulfed in red by radicals, but I was a communist for years before I ever even met another person with similar views, let alone found these boards. So your experience is pretty much the opposite of mine. Care to share? :)

[Comrade #138672]

Just a personal anecdote that I'd like to tell.

When I first joined these boards, I was definitely a social democrat. I wanted to learn more about communism though. Fortunately, no one realized my political identity back then or I would have been exiled to the "restricted" sub-forum. At this point, there's no way I would have even bothered. I'd have seen this site as elitist and rude for attempting to relegate my views and left, never becoming radicalized.

Fortunately that didn't happen. But that wasn't the only impediment to me becoming radicalized. While I was still being deprogrammed from my social-democratic views, I was scorned by many people on here. Many failed to acknowledge the fact that my political evolution was just starting to get underway and that with a little more time and information I'd become radicalized. The fact that I was still learning was painfully obvious - yet some posters on here, even some moderators, were extremely rude to me and condescending. This resulted only in frustration and made me all the more hesitant to embrace radical ideas.

So are people on the left alienating others who could be our comrades? Absolutely. And the attitudes shown by a large percentage of people on this sight are to blame.RevLeft really has to work on this. Reactionary or reformist ideas do not have to be endorsed, but we can at least be more respectful towards new members here still holding on to some of these ideas, and simply explain what is wrong with these ideas rather than condemn new members for holding them in the first place. Of course I am not talking about trolls or full-out reactionaries, but new members genuinely wanting to learn about communism.

[reb]

There are a few different behaviors and attitudes I encounter among self-proclaimed radical leftists (socialists/communists and anarchists alike) that I feel really alienate working-class people and damage the cause. You may or may not agree, but I surely can't be the only person who feels this way. I'm not suggesting that these problems characterize every leftist movement, but that they are real and damaging.

1) "excessive intellectualism". This is not to say that intellectual activities are bad, but that intellectualism, with its "ivory tower" demeanor, is ultimately a lot of fluffy jargon and rubbish. Unfortunately, there are too many Marxists who like to spend their time arguing over the pettiest and most inconsequential things, often with a holier-than-though attitude. IMO this alienates the same working-class people we are trying to win over. People who are busting their asses working 40, 50, or 60 hours a week working shitty jobs under shitty bosses don't care about the minutiae of this or that leftist school of thought. They have real concerns in the real world. Self-proclaimed Marxists who spend all their time at the coffee shop with their noses in books are not going to relate to the toiling masses. This is why we are painted as "detached" and outdated.

Disclaimer: I am NOT saying that robust political, historical, economic, and so on, discussions and explorations are unimportant, but that the attitudes of most "hyper-intellectual" Marxists are detached from the real world.

You're basically saying that people shouldn't criticize the soviet union, aren't you? Otherwise your contradictory statement is just dumb. It's okay to be intellectual and to have intellectual discussions but where do you draw the line with "excessive intellectualism"? The reason why "the left" is painted as detached and outdated is because some people in it still march around proclaiming the glories of the Soviet Union/China/Cuba/North Korea/Stalin/Mao/Lenin and talking about the "working class" and "toiling masses" in an abstract sense. The problem is that you're not working class and you're trying to present the working class as this homogenous blob that needs to be won over before there is revolution to "the left", rather than communism coming out through the working class itself. I'm sure you would understand that if you didn't have such a terrible attitude to thinking about things.

And by the way, I am working class and I don't drink in coffee shops.

[left-of-the-dial]

I think the problem lies more with peoples perception of what the left is. In the West we have daily stories in the papers demeaning the left.

Whenever I've discussed Anarchist or Communist ideas with people if I lead the debate withe the policies and not mention the names of these ideologies people seem to think they are generally a good idea however if I start by just saying Communism etc I just get stone-walled and looked at as though I have some kind of disease.

I don't think it's the left that alienates the working class (I see myself more as a worker than a revolutionary) it's the right that alienates workers from the left.

The Marxist intelligentsia effect the relationship between the left and the workers because in many ways they are the front line. The smart right wing lot have politicians, tabloids and popular media to hide behind.

[ColossalButtwipe]

As a member of the working class, I take offense to the OP for suggesting that workers are superstitious, homophobic, sexist morons.

Plenty of workers are superstitious, homophobic, and sexist. This isn't due to anything inherent amongst the working classes, but because we live in a society that's superstitious, homophobic, and sexist, and their values merely reflect that. Ignoring that oppressed people can still engage in oppressive behavior with others doesn't change that fact.

[Skyhilist]

Why would you go to RevLeft of all places as a social democrat, to learn about communism of all ideologies? What was it that made you stick around in what you describe as a rather rude and unwelcoming environment?

I'm not asking those questions out of anything but curiosity - you became radicalized by being engulfed in red by radicals, but I was a communist for years before I ever even met another person with similar views, let alone found these boards. So your experience is pretty much the opposite of mine. Care to share? :)

Well basically I had seen some posters on other sites who were communists, and they seemed like really smart people. So it got me thinking, "wait, these people are pretty smart, so why would they fall for something like communism after if failed in numerous places like the USSR" (obviously not an accurate statement but that's what I thought back then). So I thought maybe I was missing something about communism and wanted to learn. The people who were not rude and condescending to me on here helped me learn more about communism, and more importantly helped me unlearn all the bullshit I'd been taught rather than being total jerks. So by the time I understood basic communist (and anarchist) ideas clearly I had gradually become radicalized (because it made sense) to the point where I now consider myself a communist.

So, thanks to the people who were not rude, and who actually helped me understand.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

As a member of the working class, I take offense to the OP for suggesting that workers are superstitious, homophobic, sexist morons.
I challenge you to prove that he said any such thing. He is pointing out that most workers (even Marxists) are subject to the prejudices and attitudes of bourgeois ideology and that we cannot arbitrarily reject what they say, even if it personally offends us. In fact, his criticism focuses upon those leftist "advocates" who place themselves above the people that they claim to be helping.

[the debater]

Being in America, I guess one could say that the anti-socialist sentiment is very very strong. When you say socialist or communist, people automatically equate you with being supportive of evil dictators who starve their citizens and send their political opponents to work camps, and so on. Likewise, many Americans still associate capitalism with "hard work" and with wealth, even though in America's early history, many socialists played a key role in helping to bring about better working conditions and better wages. I'm not going to lie, my dad is absolutely horrible when it comes to his political beliefs. He is quite literally the most retarded, most biased person I have ever seen in my life. He makes Sean Hannity and Ed Schultz seem reasonable, sadly. I am not kidding. It's frustrating because I can't reason with him in political debates, and I somewhat believe there is no hope for people like him. I think the only reason I was able to come across to socialism was basically reading the 10 bullet points in the Communist Manifesto for the first time, and of course when Marx talked about better working conditions, better educational opportunities, and taking care of the environment, that's when I realized that Karl Marx wasn't some evil psychopath. No, the people who gave communism a bad name were dictators like Stalin and Mao, not the original socialist thinkers and philosophers.

It's also important to note that modern-day capitalism for Americans is not 100% capitalistic. True capitalism in general is workers getting paid 1$ per day working in dangerous factories with no vacations or work benefits, and the Bourgeois making vastly more money than anyone else. Modern day America is not that bad. I would say instead of Modern America being 99.9% capitalist, it's more 40-60%. Many Americans however, probably still think we're 100% capitalist, and that might be where a lot of confusion is. If more Americans were aware of the early history of capitalism, they would probably be more open to learning more about socialism.

I would also like to add that we should not make stupid statements or comments. You know what I'm talking about.

[Revenant]

There are a few different behaviors and attitudes I encounter among self-proclaimed radical leftists (socialists/communists and anarchists alike) that I feel really alienate working-class people and damage the cause. You may or may not agree, but I surely can't be the only person who feels this way. I'm not suggesting that these problems characterize every leftist movement, but that they are real and damaging.

1) "excessive intellectualism". Can I ask for an example of this "hyper intellectual Marxism"?

are you saying that workers are physically forced to participate in a system that disempowers them, (intellectually, physically, economically) if they aren't why do they?

Ultimately the masses are the ones with economic power, currently it appears they can only consider this power as something existing only in the service and pursuit of capitalism, as something owned by managers, creditors or boards of directors. Maybe I'm wrong but the Working class doesn't strike me as being as radical or as powerful as it formally was.

Wouldn't you say these people themselves are the one's detached from the real world, more importantly their own potential?


2) Reckless hostility to the "sacred" beliefs of others

Are you saying all "sacred beliefs" are off limits for criticism?

I wouldn't expect somebody prone to your cardinal sin of "intellectual marxism" to just start off with "fuck your god", but the abolition of religion being the illusory happiness of the people, is the demand for their real happiness, so anyone claiming to be a humanist or "for the emancipation of humanity" would have to oppose systems based on the exploitation of human credulity, wouldn't you agree?

3) "Correcting" other people

I think those "concerns" you list are interesting, they allude to fundamental human needs which are insufficiently met by even being fulfilled, ie having "a job; wage; education; healthcare; children" etc,. some people have to do all of those things and still end up moving to an ashram in Nepal to escape the "hollow materialism of western civilization".

People are probably more interested in entertainment than education, also I'd say people are less interested in health care than they are escapism, and the availability of things deleterious to their personal health like drugs or alcohol.

Opium is the opium of the people imitating happiness where there is none, the delusion of the senses is made easier by a wage, which is made easier by an education and a full time job, having attained these things kids will probably happen when one is most deluded, senseless and unaware of the ramifications.

This lifestyle and the concerns you describe don't appear to differ whatever class you look at, what does differ is the drug strength, effect and cost, in my experience wealthy people can make do with the occasional tipple of booze, their life ain't too bad it just adds a rosy tint to everything, successful people like Cocaine (there is a class division amongst white powder narcotics alone), and poor people need hard drugs, real drugs like ecstasy and heroin to completely improve their subjective experience of reality by 100% for a few hours.

Cool thread sorry if that's off topic.

[Per Levy]

I challenge you to prove that he said any such thing. He is pointing out that most workers (even Marxists) are subject to the prejudices and attitudes of bourgeois ideology and that we cannot arbitrarily reject what they say, even if it personally offends us. In fact, his criticism focuses upon those leftist "advocates" who place themselves above the people that they claim to be helping.

the working class the alien being. because "they", the working class, do things that could offend "us", the revolutionary left. the shoking thing is when workers are also communists though, how are those workers "us" and "they" then?

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

the working class the alien being. because "they", the working class, do things that could offend "us", the revolutionary left. the shoking thing is when workers are also communists though, how are those workers "us" and "they" then?
Well, it obviously isn't a clear cut distinction between workers and Marxists in the abstract, but those who actually appropriate the Marxist method in order to carry out an independent struggle, as opposed to pragmatically adapting to the bourgeois consciousness of trade unionism (assuming we're talking about such a situation). This is not to mention that you can still be both a worker and a communist and still have your politics infused with liberal prejudices that are replete with condescension.

[AmilcarCabral]

Dear comrade. I think that the egocentric, group-narcissist behaviour patterns is not a problem exclusively of the left. I think that the leftist activists of USA behave like that, because they live in USA. And according to the theory of emotional-contagion people adopt the behaviour patterns and the behaviour model and script of the society and place in which they live. So if the official correct philosophy of life of USA is a sort of Sarah Palin, Ayn Rand, family-narcissist, individualist-narcissism group-narcissist philosophy of life, leftists in America will adopt that behaviour pattern unless of course they were very well-read leftists and be real armed with collective, mutualist, cooperative, altruist loving, and friendly philosophy of life from marxist literature, they won't be influenced by that libertarian, egocentrical Glenn Beck way of life that most americans have in the USA.

So my own humble conclusion about why many leftists in America lack the sympathetic, loving, friendly attitude of Hugo Chavez is because leftists live in America and Hugo Chavez lived in Venezuela, a society with a totally different way of life.

Here is the main definition of emotional contagion:

Emotional contagion is the tendency for two individuals to emotionally converge. One view developed by Elaine Hatfield et al. is that this can be done through automatic mimicry and synchronization of one’s expressions, vocalizations, postures and movements with those of another person. When people unconsciously mimic their companions’ expressions of emotion, they come to feel reflections of their partner’s emotions. Emotions can be shared across individuals in many different ways both implicitly or explicitly. For instance, conscious reasoning, analysis and imagination have all been found to contribute to the phenomenon.

Emotional contagion is important to personal relationships because it fosters emotional synchrony between individuals. A broader definition of the phenomenon was suggested by Schoenewolf: "a process in which a person or group influences the emotions or behavior of another person or group through the conscious or unconscious induction of emotion states and behavioral attitudes".

The phrase “emotional contagion” embodies the idea that humans will synchronize their personal emotions with the emotions expressed by those around them, whether consciously or unconsciously, and thus that an emotion conveyed by one person will become “contagious” to others.

Psychologist Elaine Hatfield theorizes emotional contagion as a two-step process: Step 1: We imitate people; if someone smiles at you, you smile back. Step 2: Changes in mood through faking it. If you smile you feel happy, if you frown you feel bad. Mimicry seems to be one foundation of emotional movement between people.

Emotional contagion and empathy have an interesting relationship, in that they share similar characteristics, with the exception of the ability to differentiate between personal and pre-personal experiences, a process known as individuation.[clarification needed] In The Art of Loving, social psychologist Erich Fromm explores these differences, suggesting that autonomy is necessary for empathy, which is not found in emotional contagion.
Factors influencing emotional contagion

There are several factors that determine the rate and extent of emotional convergence in a group. Some of these are: membership stability, mood-regulation norms, task interdependence and social interdependence. Besides these event-structure properties, there are personal properties of the group's members, such as openness to receive and transmit feelings, demographic characteristics and dispositional affect that influence the intensity of emotional contagion

WHOLE DEFINITION: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_contagion

In fact I think that one of the main factors of why many nations in Latin America are more open to leftist ideology than USA, Canada and other countries is because the philosophy of spanish people is a lot more compatible with communism and communitarian living than the social phobic mysanthropist philosophy of life of northern nations.

By the way I would also like to add, that I think that millions of US workers are right-wingers, and they have this false belief that they are part of the ruling capitalist class of USA. Most US workers do not have marxism knowledge, so because of that they think that they are in the same class, same team and same train of Donald Trump and Bill Gates. And because in America people are educated into the importance of trashing others. Many US full-time workers use that priviledge of being full-time working class to feel superior, over part-time workers and over un-employed workers.

Americans are always trying to trash and bash others wether by driving luxury cars, or by behaving in a narcissistic, mysanthropist way toward other human beings like avoiding eye-contact, and all those right-wing behaviour patterns of the slaves we see every day at wal marts and in the streets of America

But maybe a powerful hyper-inflation and economic crash like gasoline rising to 15 dollars per gallon, the price of chicken rising to 12 dollars per lb while salaries staying the same. Might humiliate americans and turn americans into friendly, altruist humble left-wingers open minded for the communist ideology to save them


.




.



There are a few different behaviors and attitudes I encounter among self-proclaimed radical leftists (socialists/communists and anarchists alike) that I feel really alienate working-class people and damage the cause. You may or may not agree, but I surely can't be the only person who feels this way. I'm not suggesting that these problems characterize every leftist movement, but that they are real and damaging.

1) "excessive intellectualism". This is not to say that intellectual activities are bad, but that intellectualism, with its "ivory tower" demeanor, is ultimately a lot of fluffy jargon and rubbish. Unfortunately, there are too many Marxists who like to spend their time arguing over the pettiest and most inconsequential things, often with a holier-than-though attitude. IMO this alienates the same working-class people we are trying to win over. People who are busting their asses working 40, 50, or 60 hours a week working shitty jobs under shitty bosses don't care about the minutiae of this or that leftist school of thought. They have real concerns in the real world. Self-proclaimed Marxists who spend all their time at the coffee shop with their noses in books are not going to relate to the toiling masses. This is why we are painted as "detached" and outdated.

Disclaimer: I am NOT saying that robust political, historical, economic, and so on, discussions and explorations are unimportant, but that the attitudes of most "hyper-intellectual" Marxists are detached from the real world.

2) Reckless hostility to the "sacred" beliefs of others

I am not religious myself. It can be well argued that materialism demands atheism. You should not be stop being hostile to reactionary institutions and traditions. BUT the fact is that many normal, hard-working working class people hold their personal religious and cultural beliefs, whether reactionary or not, closely. So if you want to relate to these people, don't start off the conversation with "Fuck your God!" :rolleyes:

3) "Correcting" other people

Here is the most challenging one to criticize. We should, after all, always stand against homophobia, misogyny, and oppressive attitudes. Nevertheless, there is a way of going about it that is less alienating to most working class people. Like it or not, people are going to say ignorant things. A worker taking his short lunch break might drop the F word or say "that's retarded". You should not join him and ultimately these derogatory remarks have to end. But you also shouldn't say something like "that's ableist, you evil homophobe!". People have been conditioned their whole lives with these attitudes, and they aren't going to stop doing something simply because some holier-than-though pseudo-intellectual leftist told them to stop. I'm just sayin'. Take from this what you will.

The reality is that people out there have concerns that we need to appeal to: they are worried about their wages, their jobs, education, affording healthcare, their children, et cetera. We should, first and foremost, worry about these things. Thoughts?

[AmilcarCabral]

I think that another cause of political apathy in the majority of americans is physical tiredness. We need to be a little bit more scientific and take into consideration the physiology and energies of most americans. Life in America is one of the most exhausting lifestyles of the world, most americans might live a first world life in what they own. But live a third world life in the excess of physical work. Many people in this country have 2 jobs (a regular job and domestic labor like cooking, cleaning etc). So that leads to a feeling of anedonia, and abulia in americans.



I don't think anything specific the radical left is doing alienates the working class - its more so how closely anticommunism/antisocialism is tied into western culture that alienates them. I bet if Communism began to go under a different name - we'd see an immediate increase in supporters.

[blake 3:17]

the working class the alien being. because "they", the working class, do things that could offend "us", the revolutionary left. the shoking thing is when workers are also communists though, how are those workers "us" and "they" then?

I work in a very difficult to organize & fucked up situation. It is unionized, I'm not in the union, though I'm asked to do union stuff because I'm respected as class conscious / capable on that front / not a sell out -- a couple of my best friends at work are pretty right wing on some things -- either overtly racist or pro- imperialist. Do I start a fight? Gotta pick your battles. I've been trying to help folks figure out how to file a grievance & I'm not even entitled to file a grievance... One day!

I've been left trade union work -- as an employee on the bottom -- for 13 or 14 years now in a couple of different unions and it's harsh. I found it easier doing shit not in the union... So fucked up.

[Ocean Seal]

There are a few different behaviors and attitudes I encounter among self-proclaimed radical leftists (socialists/communists and anarchists alike) that I feel really alienate working-class people and damage the cause. You may or may not agree, but I surely can't be the only person who feels this way. I'm not suggesting that these problems characterize every leftist movement, but that they are real and damaging.

1) "excessive intellectualism". This is not to say that intellectual activities are bad, but that intellectualism, with its "ivory tower" demeanor, is ultimately a lot of fluffy jargon and rubbish. Unfortunately, there are too many Marxists who like to spend their time arguing over the pettiest and most inconsequential things, often with a holier-than-though attitude. IMO this alienates the same working-class people we are trying to win over. People who are busting their asses working 40, 50, or 60 hours a week working shitty jobs under shitty bosses don't care about the minutiae of this or that leftist school of thought. They have real concerns in the real world. Self-proclaimed Marxists who spend all their time at the coffee shop with their noses in books are not going to relate to the toiling masses. This is why we are painted as "detached" and outdated.

Disclaimer: I am NOT saying that robust political, historical, economic, and so on, discussions and explorations are unimportant, but that the attitudes of most "hyper-intellectual" Marxists are detached from the real world.

2) Reckless hostility to the "sacred" beliefs of others

I am not religious myself. It can be well argued that materialism demands atheism. You should not be stop being hostile to reactionary institutions and traditions. BUT the fact is that many normal, hard-working working class people hold their personal religious and cultural beliefs, whether reactionary or not, closely. So if you want to relate to these people, don't start off the conversation with "Fuck your God!" :rolleyes:

3) "Correcting" other people

Here is the most challenging one to criticize. We should, after all, always stand against homophobia, misogyny, and oppressive attitudes. Nevertheless, there is a way of going about it that is less alienating to most working class people. Like it or not, people are going to say ignorant things. A worker taking his short lunch break might drop the F word or say "that's retarded". You should not join him and ultimately these derogatory remarks have to end. But you also shouldn't say something like "that's ableist, you evil homophobe!". People have been conditioned their whole lives with these attitudes, and they aren't going to stop doing something simply because some holier-than-though pseudo-intellectual leftist told them to stop. I'm just sayin'. Take from this what you will.

The reality is that people out there have concerns that we need to appeal to: they are worried about their wages, their jobs, education, affording healthcare, their children, et cetera. We should, first and foremost, worry about these things. Thoughts?

I used to think just like you. However, there are certain reasons for our fiery rhetoric which may end up offending people.

I'll make the case for discrimination

1. With regards to discrimination: This is not an issue of correcting people. They cannot hold these beliefs and be part of a movement to destroy oppression. If they feel alienated for holding these backwards beliefs then perhaps this is better for us. We cannot water down our beliefs so that we have a mass movement which allows for people to hold racist, sexist or homophobic beliefs.

*I agree with you in that there are strategic ways to go about this, but we should make it known that if workers are on strike engaging in political activity they cannot be saying things like "retard" and "faggot". This is unacceptable. The way that you conduct yourself in revolutionary activity determines what kind of organization that you have.

**Workers who are engaging in political activity have more power when they are inclusive. Imagine that workers on strike also take a stance to include everyone in their movement. Imagine that they take stances against discriminatory practices used by management personnel. That is a more powerful movement that catalyzes something altogether stronger.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Just a personal anecdote that I'd like to tell.

When I first joined these boards, I was definitely a social democrat. I wanted to learn more about communism though. Fortunately, no one realized my political identity back then or I would have been exiled to the "restricted" sub-forum. At this point, there's no way I would have even bothered. I'd have seen this site as elitist and rude for attempting to relegate my views and left, never becoming radicalized.

Fortunately that didn't happen. But that wasn't the only impediment to me becoming radicalized. While I was still being deprogrammed from my social-democratic views, I was scorned by many people on here. Many failed to acknowledge the fact that my political evolution was just starting to get underway and that with a little more time and information I'd become radicalized. The fact that I was still learning was painfully obvious - yet some posters on here, even some moderators, were extremely rude to me and condescending. This resulted only in frustration and made me all the more hesitant to embrace radical ideas.

So are people on the left alienating others who could be our comrades? Absolutely. And the attitudes shown by a large percentage of people on this sight are to blame.

I think there are quite the differences between the debate environment and un/friendliness towards newcomers and newbies on internet forums and organisations, though. I.e., to use your experience from Revleft as an example on the whole "left", is probably wrong.

[Ele'ill]

I used to think just like you. However, there are certain reasons for our fiery rhetoric which may end up offending people.

I'll make the case for discrimination

1. With regards to discrimination: This is not an issue of correcting people. They cannot hold these beliefs and be part of a movement to destroy oppression. If they feel alienated for holding these backwards beliefs then perhaps this is better for us. We cannot water down our beliefs so that we have a mass movement which allows for people to hold racist, sexist or homophobic beliefs.

i agree with this but will also add that mass movements based around inclusion end up catering to non-confrontation which can end up being as violent and oppressive as the systems being fought against

[Lily Briscoe]

to use your experience from Revleft as an example on the whole "left", is probably wrong.

I think this is sort of the problem with this whole thread, really; I think it's more about the culture of this forum than about 'the radical left'. In my experience, a lot of the more visible organizations on the left--rather than being obsessed with ideological purity as the OP implies--actually go out of their way to recruit people who are politically inexperienced without fleshing out any disagreements beforehand, and often actually pandering to people with political views that aren't consistent with the organization's stated politics.

[AmilcarCabral]

I would like add a personal theory that I about why the great majority of american poor people are so pro-capitalism, so pro-Democrats, so pro-Republicans, so pro-wars, so pro-American way of life, so in love with USA. So anti-socialism, so anti-Hugo Chavez, so anti-Castro, so anti-Amy Goodman, so pro-CNN, so pro-FOX news, so anti-Sean Penn, so anti-Oliver Stone, so anti-Michael Moore, so anti-Rage Against The Machine, so anti-politics (The majority of poor americans hate politics altogether). I think that the real reason of these ockward weird phobic behaviour in the general masses of USA, in the poor sectors of USA (Not the rich sectors, because rich people do not need to worry about politics and do not even need to vote).

But how come the poor majority of USA hates politics altogether, why poor americans are political-phobia, even 9-11-phobia, and even news-phobia is because the social planners, the scientists, the political scientific, sociology, psychologic planners of the USA have invented the USA like the movie The Matrix, as well as related to Baudrillard theories). This type of social order and political order that the social planners and US founders of America invented, was so well scientifically planned, that even though we all know that the great majority of american people have been poor, the USA looks to the average eyes like a populist social humanist republican democracy, without wars, without CIA killing people, without torture jails, without taxes, with socialist corporations doing good to americans, while in reality it has been for the most part of its life (since about late 1800s) a capitalist expansionist oligarchic plutocratic imperialist government.

So this USA invented as a nation that looks like a socialist workers paradise to the average eye, while looking like an evil empire to well-read well-informed individuals (a minority in America) is another powerful reason of why the left of USA is so weak and why the great majority of US voters do not even care to study the possibility of voting for the Green Party. And why most US voters including poor US voters are so in love with Democrats and Republicans.



Being in America, I guess one could say that the anti-socialist sentiment is very very strong. When you say socialist or communist, people automatically equate you with being supportive of evil dictators who starve their citizens and send their political opponents to work camps, and so on. Likewise, many Americans still associate capitalism with "hard work" and with wealth, even though in America's early history, many socialists played a key role in helping to bring about better working conditions and better wages. I'm not going to lie, my dad is absolutely horrible when it comes to his political beliefs. He is quite literally the most retarded, most biased person I have ever seen in my life. He makes Sean Hannity and Ed Schultz seem reasonable, sadly. I am not kidding. It's frustrating because I can't reason with him in political debates, and I somewhat believe there is no hope for people like him. I think the only reason I was able to come across to socialism was basically reading the 10 bullet points in the Communist Manifesto for the first time, and of course when Marx talked about better working conditions, better educational opportunities, and taking care of the environment, that's when I realized that Karl Marx wasn't some evil psychopath. No, the people who gave communism a bad name were dictators like Stalin and Mao, not the original socialist thinkers and philosophers.

It's also important to note that modern-day capitalism for Americans is not 100% capitalistic. True capitalism in general is workers getting paid 1$ per day working in dangerous factories with no vacations or work benefits, and the Bourgeois making vastly more money than anyone else. Modern day America is not that bad. I would say instead of Modern America being 99.9% capitalist, it's more 40-60%. Many Americans however, probably still think we're 100% capitalist, and that might be where a lot of confusion is. If more Americans were aware of the early history of capitalism, they would probably be more open to learning more about socialism.

I would also like to add that we should not make stupid statements or comments. You know what I'm talking about.

[blake 3:17]

I was thinking about this discussion and grateful for the useful ideas and debate within it and remembered a strange and educational moment I had in the mid 2000s. A progressive organization had produced thousands and thousands of anti-war buttons that also had an anti racist message on them. One part of the button said "No Islamophobia". Cool. One day I was at work, hanging around with some Muslim kids and I asked them what they thought it meant. They read it as being anti-Islam, but they forgave me for it. I explained it wasn't what it meant but the button got lost ASAP.

[Glitchcraft]

There are definitely arrogant snooty activist types out there who are very condescending. But I think most of those folks have very little actual sympathy for the situation.

If you are actually concerned about social justice and emancipation you will seriously engage people not just condescend to them. Someone who speaks down to people probably doesn't actually care about them.

Heated political discussions on forums sometimes experience these attitudes as well, I believe for the same reason.

[AmilcarCabral]

Hi, how are you? Glitchcraft: You are right 100%. Because my own economic situation is so hard that I would put away my own ideological purity in order to support a united leftist party in USA composed of anarchists, trotskists, maoists, marxist-leninists, social democrats and independent poor americans that would be able to install an anti-war welfare state-capitalist system as stage # 1, in transition toward a workers-government.

But we all know here about the human nature, many poor trotskists, poor anarchists, poor maoists, poor marxist-leninists and poor social-democrats would not do that, because of their deep egocentrisms and deep ingrained group-narcissism.

But most anti-election leftists, anti-reformist leftists (Trotskists, anarchists, marxist-leninists, maoists etc) should indeed be able to all unite into that united revolutionary leftist front as an option for poor americans (Not for middle class americans), because you know the middle classes (high-wage white collar workers, doctors, high salary bank workers, real estate independent workers, white-collar secretaries, high-salary government workers. High-salary workers like Edward Snowden, contractors, TV people like Glenn Beck, Jon Stewart etc) will not support that united radical-left front as a third party option.

So it is the task and heroic job of the leaders of the anti-elections radical-left organizations of USA (True left organizations: trotskists, marxist-leninists, maoists anarchists etc.) of USA to join and unite into a united radical leftist front as soon as possible so that poor americans have a real hope for change. A change we can believe in !!



There are definitely arrogant snooty activist types out there who are very condescending. But I think most of those folks have very little actual sympathy for the situation.

If you are actually concerned about social justice and emancipation you will seriously engage people not just condescend to them. Someone who speaks down to people probably doesn't actually care about them.

Heated political discussions on forums sometimes experience these attitudes as well, I believe for the same reason.

[trueleveller]

the radical left's message doesn't alienate anyone that wouldn't otherwise be opposed, we are just fighting a losing battle against a cultural machine that mind-hacks reactionary, capitalist principles into the conscious of the masses. if our great cultural battle is against excess consumerism and class division...you only need to watch television for a couple of hours to see how badly outclassed we are in manipulating opinion. it doesn't help that most of are still advocating for another hierarchical state rather than for a people's revolt against the one we already have.

[AmilcarCabral]

Yeah you are right, most leftists of America advocate to vote The Green Party, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or some other social-democrat populist reformist leader. Millions of leftists just want to change the current leaders we have with social-democrats. Instead of a total destruction of the whole US government to be replaced by a brand new kind of government, which is a workers-government. Voting progressive liberal politicians like Bernie Sanders, Luis Gutierrez and The Green Party will not lead to any change at all


it doesn't help that most of are still advocating for another hierarchical state rather than for a people's revolt against the one we already have.

[MattDoe]

2) Reckless hostility to the "sacred" beliefs of others

I am not religious myself. It can be well argued that materialism demands atheism. You should not be stop being hostile to reactionary institutions and traditions. BUT the fact is that many normal, hard-working working class people hold their personal religious and cultural beliefs, whether reactionary or not, closely. So if you want to relate to these people, don't start off the conversation with "Fuck your God!" :rolleyes:

3) "Correcting" other people

Here is the most challenging one to criticize. We should, after all, always stand against homophobia, misogyny, and oppressive attitudes. Nevertheless, there is a way of going about it that is less alienating to most working class people. Like it or not, people are going to say ignorant things. A worker taking his short lunch break might drop the F word or say "that's retarded". You should not join him and ultimately these derogatory remarks have to end. But you also shouldn't say something like "that's ableist, you evil homophobe!". People have been conditioned their whole lives with these attitudes, and they aren't going to stop doing something simply because some holier-than-though pseudo-intellectual leftist told them to stop. I'm just sayin'. Take from this what you will.

With regards to the second point, I disagree. I actually think the radical left would rather alienate atheist leftists and disregard our legitimate grievances against religion. When coming to a leftist website, I was expecting resentment towards various atheist liberals and I can understand it and agree with it, but too many threads just take it too damn far. I don't understand it at all, because apparently this hatred for anti-theism and atheism is also coming from (self-hating?) atheists too. The anti-Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens posts I see on every religious thread is disturbing. I can understand the disagreements with their politics, I have those too, but why their arguments against religion? And all the while demanding tolerance and understanding for reactionary ideologies like Islam and making excuses for its most illogical followers. Major surprise.

I agree with the 3rd point.

[Le Socialiste]

OT: no I don't think we are alienating working class people, though of course we cannot generalise 'the radical left', nor 'working class people'. Rather, I don't think we have managed to forge a path through the general apathy that is clearly prevalent amongst large swathes of working people across the developed nations.

I find this to be only half-correct. You're right, we haven't been able to penetrate the immense but diverse range of ideas and attitudes held by working people. Where you slip, I think, is in your reasoning for why this might be. You ascribe this failure to a vaguely apathetic state on the part of most people. While I recognize you're likely speaking from your own observations within the UK, I'd venture a guess that the primary issue confronting the working-class - and the radical left by extension - isn't so much apathy as it is despair coupled with an awareness of one's position in the wake of the financial debacle of '08. What's more, the lack of a visible alternative has by and large permitted the atomization of workers and militant's activities to continue apace, leaving many with a sense of their fucked up situation but without a viable vehicle capable of taking up the role of being the so-called "tribune of the oppressed."

We have seen in the last few years the steady reversal of some longer-held ideas that inhibited and stymied the growth of a ready opposition. In the U.S., the number of Americans who self-identify as poor has doubled (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/09/poll-number-of-americans-who-self-identify-as-poor-doubles-in-15-years.html) (6 to 12%), and when you consider the fact that 28% more see themselves as working-class, that number rises to 40%. Last year, less than 55% of Americans agreed with the statement (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/15/local/la-me-lower-class-20130916) that "people like me and my family have a good chance of improving our standard of living," the lowest recorded level since it was first introduced in 1987. And while the number of people who see the struggles between "rich" and "poor" as the #1 conflict in society has declined since 2011-12, that number has stabilized around 58% (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/13/study-americans-see-fewer-racial-class-conflicts-after-election/).

This has led many people to the conclusion that the system doesn't necessarily function in their best interest(s), and that some kind of alternative is necessary. I can't begin to tell you the number of conversations I've had with people who've readily agreed that the system (of which capitalism plays an integral part) doesn't work, and therefore must be overturned. They express an interest in hearing how socialism fits within that overall framework, and think building a mass-based project independently of the two-party system is necessary within any arena of class struggle. Of course, they also continue to express varying levels of despair and frustration at the state of the world. They've seen Occupy come and go, as well as the uneven (and sometimes divergent) achievements/defeats of the Arab Spring, and don't quite know what to make of it. Others have observed the general complacency of organized labor in the face of austerity-driven measures intended to weaken what little of their union's structural integrity remains, and concluded that the working-class has sunk into - as you put it - apathy.

The problem isn't apathy, however. Rather, we're in a period where the initial waves of opposition and resistance to austerity (however mild in some places) were forcibly repressed and dismantled the world over. People are presently in a state of disarray and confusion; others have drawn the conclusion that the obstacles facing them are too insurmountable, and sink further into a despair that is fed by an underlying sense of who the "real enemy" is: the ruling-class, or 1%. We've seen some small steps in the form of Fight for $15 and other service sector walkouts, minor electoral breakthroughs for revolutionary socialists in Seattle and near wins elsewhere, successfully linking up with preexisting struggles on the ground to mobilize those most affected by low wages, foreclosures, unfair labor practices, racism, etc. We've seen a small but uneven resurgence in reform caucuses within multiple union locals, with members building solidarity around issues of internal democracy, political education, as well as the importance of strike action and collective decision-making. These are all small but important steps for us to recognize. The biggest mistake that we could make would be to disassociate ourselves from these struggles, or denounce them on vague grounds of 'populism' or 'liberalism'. As socialists, we don't enter into struggle(s) under conditions of our own choosing - but we do strive to deepen and help further the shifts and movements of the working-class into a position that best reflects the longterm needs and interests of the movement.

I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post, partly because it's late and I'm tired. I will say that while you're right about us needing to get our message across better without necessarily compromising any alternative formulations, I do consider your mention of horizontal and spontaneous forms of organization and protest somewhat lacking. I'd be interested in hearing you expand on this.

This, too, is right on the money:


Our ideas need to be better. Our work with working class communities and neighbourhoods needs to be better. Those are the two key issues facing the leftist movement today, in general, I would say. Obviously different geographic locations face other differing problems, but those are my two over-riding concerns: a dearth of good new philosophical formulations of society and revolution and organisation, and the lack of ability to physically and socially engage in working class communities en masse and effectively.

I wouldn't say we must reinvent the so-called wheel as far as the majority of theory goes, but it is true that in order for the latter to remain relevant it must undergo constant reevaluation and assessment. It doesn't mean we have to scrap or retool everything, but rather identify - through debate and active praxis - what holds and what doesn't.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Le Socialiste;2699882]I find this to be only half-correct. You're right, we haven't been able to penetrate the immense but diverse range of ideas and attitudes held by working people. Where you slip, I think, is in your reasoning for why this might be. You ascribe this failure to a vaguely apathetic state on the part of most people. While I recognize you're likely speaking from your own observations within the UK, I'd venture a guess that the primary issue confronting the working-class - and the radical left by extension - isn't so much apathy as it is despair coupled with an awareness of one's position in the wake of the financial debacle of '08. What's more, the lack of a visible alternative has by and large permitted the atomization of workers and militant's activities to continue apace, leaving many with a sense of their fucked up situation but without a viable vehicle capable of taking up the role of being the so-called "tribune of the oppressed."

Yeah, this is fair enough. Especially about the atomisation of the working class, that's a key point. I think it also represents a failure on the part of diverse 'progressive' groups to unite their struggle under some sort of common banner; there seems to me to really be no formulation by which oppressed black peoples, gay peoples, women and workers can unite themselves together. Both in theory and in practice I would say we are lacking and, to the extent that we can ascribe blame to 'the left', that would be it.


This has led many people to the conclusion that the system doesn't necessarily function in their best interest(s), and that some kind of alternative is necessary. I can't begin to tell you the number of conversations I've had with people who've readily agreed that the system (of which capitalism plays an integral part) doesn't work, and therefore must be overturned. They express an interest in hearing how socialism fits within that overall framework, and think building a mass-based project independently of the two-party system is necessary within any arena of class struggle. Of course, they also continue to express varying levels of despair and frustration at the state of the world. They've seen Occupy come and go, as well as the uneven (and sometimes divergent) achievements/defeats of the Arab Spring, and don't quite know what to make of it. Others have observed the general complacency of organized labor in the face of austerity-driven measures intended to weaken what little of their union's structural integrity remains, and concluded that the working-class has sunk into - as you put it - apathy.

I'm not totally sure I recognise this. Of course, our evidence here is anecdotal, but I sense that people are happy to have a moan about 'the system', but I also observe two things differently to you:

1) people's general understanding of 'the system' is of one that is politically controlled, i.e. not capitalism itself as a grand social structure, but 'the current batch of MPs';

2) partly because of 1), people are driven towards non-revolutionary paths for change. Often being driven into less savoury manifestations of opposition (for example, racism/national chauvinism) because it represents something different to the current crop of grey neo-liberalism that feeds off of apathy.


The problem isn't apathy, however. Rather, we're in a period where the initial waves of opposition and resistance to austerity (however mild in some places) were forcibly repressed and dismantled the world over. People are presently in a state of disarray and confusion; others have drawn the conclusion that the obstacles facing them are too insurmountable, and sink further into a despair that is fed by an underlying sense of who the "real enemy" is: the ruling-class, or 1%.


The biggest mistake that we could make would be to disassociate ourselves from these struggles, or denounce them on vague grounds of 'populism' or 'liberalism'. As socialists, we don't enter into struggle(s) under conditions of our own choosing - but we do strive to deepen and help further the shifts and movements of the working-class into a position that best reflects the longterm needs and interests of the movement.

...this is very sensible. To add to what you say, it is important to recognise that the political and the economic must intertwine (as Rosa Luxemburg said a long, long time ago), and that they are both more important than ideological whimsy. The mistake you often see on forums like this, or even sometimes IRL (often from introverted party activists) is a demand that people acquiesce to some obscure ideological demand (i.e. what is an individual, or a group's, position on China, or Stalin, or some equally obscure and irrelevant programmatic point) before they agree to engage together in current economic and political struggles.


I do consider your mention of horizontal and spontaneous forms of organization and protest somewhat lacking. I'd be interested in hearing you expand on this.

I am still at a crossroads in regards to a final formulation on the issue of forms of organisation. On the one hand, spontaneity needs to be married to organisation - the only form of spontaneity that can work is 'spontaneous organisation'. We have learned this the hard way in the past few years - the people who scream 'revolution' when a few people riot or turn up in Tahrir Square have clearly led us down a blind alley. However, there seems to be a theoretical drought when it comes to good quality material on modern types of horizontal organisation of revolutionary movements. Ultimately, we need to get past old formulations of party and programme, but beyond that i'm quite open simply because I haven't practically observed enough to be able to make conclusions about this.

[AmilcarCabral]

Dear Le Socialiste: Hi, I just wanna say something off topic, about a great article, that I found on one of your links in your signature here http://www.committee-for-transcendence.org/Committee-for-Transcendence/AuthenticLife/AuthenticLife.htm related to the philosophy of the will to power, the evolution of humans into more humble humans, more loving humans, friendlier humans, more compassionate humans, honest people, more optimists, and happier humans (even in the middle of crisis), self-realization, altruism, being better. Like the song by Michael Jackson "Man in the mirror".

Yeah if you live in USA, you don't have to be a psychiatrist to see with your own eyes how most people in America are so unfriendy, how negative, how sad most people are. The whole population of USA needs a dose of that article full of positive energies and hope for a better and more loving society, even Hollywood artists.

I know of course that for humans to feel better we must first overthrow the dictatorship of the oligarchic class we have in America, and replace it with a dictatorship of the working class and poor citizens of the country. But there is no way to overthrow the dictatorship of the upper classes we have in America if most americans do not experience a spiritual psychologic change, that would be able to destroy their current Ayn Rand ultra-individualist philosophy of life and replace it with a loving humble optimist philosophy of life, like Lenin and most revolutionaries of history and today


.


I find this to be only half-correct. You're right, we haven't been able to penetrate the immense but diverse range of ideas and attitudes held by working people. Where you slip, I think, is in your reasoning for why this might be. You ascribe this failure to a vaguely apathetic state on the part of most people. While I recognize you're likely speaking from your own observations within the UK, I'd venture a guess that the primary issue confronting the working-class - and the radical left by extension - isn't so much apathy as it is despair coupled with an awareness of one's position in the wake of the financial debacle of '08. What's more, the lack of a visible alternative has by and large permitted the atomization of workers and militant's activities to continue apace, leaving many with a sense of their fucked up situation but without a viable vehicle capable of taking up the role of being the so-called "tribune of the oppressed."

We have seen in the last few years the steady reversal of some longer-held ideas that inhibited and stymied the growth of a ready opposition. In the U.S., the number of Americans who self-identify as poor has doubled (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/09/poll-number-of-americans-who-self-identify-as-poor-doubles-in-15-years.html) (6 to 12%), and when you consider the fact that 28% more see themselves as working-class, that number rises to 40%. Last year, less than 55% of Americans agreed with the statement (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/15/local/la-me-lower-class-20130916) that "people like me and my family have a good chance of improving our standard of living," the lowest recorded level since it was first introduced in 1987. And while the number of people who see the struggles between "rich" and "poor" as the #1 conflict in society has declined since 2011-12, that number has stabilized around 58% (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/13/study-americans-see-fewer-racial-class-conflicts-after-election/).

This has led many people to the conclusion that the system doesn't necessarily function in their best interest(s), and that some kind of alternative is necessary. I can't begin to tell you the number of conversations I've had with people who've readily agreed that the system (of which capitalism plays an integral part) doesn't work, and therefore must be overturned. They express an interest in hearing how socialism fits within that overall framework, and think building a mass-based project independently of the two-party system is necessary within any arena of class struggle. Of course, they also continue to express varying levels of despair and frustration at the state of the world. They've seen Occupy come and go, as well as the uneven (and sometimes divergent) achievements/defeats of the Arab Spring, and don't quite know what to make of it. Others have observed the general complacency of organized labor in the face of austerity-driven measures intended to weaken what little of their union's structural integrity remains, and concluded that the working-class has sunk into - as you put it - apathy.

The problem isn't apathy, however. Rather, we're in a period where the initial waves of opposition and resistance to austerity (however mild in some places) were forcibly repressed and dismantled the world over. People are presently in a state of disarray and confusion; others have drawn the conclusion that the obstacles facing them are too insurmountable, and sink further into a despair that is fed by an underlying sense of who the "real enemy" is: the ruling-class, or 1%. We've seen some small steps in the form of Fight for $15 and other service sector walkouts, minor electoral breakthroughs for revolutionary socialists in Seattle and near wins elsewhere, successfully linking up with preexisting struggles on the ground to mobilize those most affected by low wages, foreclosures, unfair labor practices, racism, etc. We've seen a small but uneven resurgence in reform caucuses within multiple union locals, with members building solidarity around issues of internal democracy, political education, as well as the importance of strike action and collective decision-making. These are all small but important steps for us to recognize. The biggest mistake that we could make would be to disassociate ourselves from these struggles, or denounce them on vague grounds of 'populism' or 'liberalism'. As socialists, we don't enter into struggle(s) under conditions of our own choosing - but we do strive to deepen and help further the shifts and movements of the working-class into a position that best reflects the longterm needs and interests of the movement.

I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post, partly because it's late and I'm tired. I will say that while you're right about us needing to get our message across better without necessarily compromising any alternative formulations, I do consider your mention of horizontal and spontaneous forms of organization and protest somewhat lacking. I'd be interested in hearing you expand on this.

This, too, is right on the money:



I wouldn't say we must reinvent the so-called wheel as far as the majority of theory goes, but it is true that in order for the latter to remain relevant it must undergo constant reevaluation and assessment. It doesn't mean we have to scrap or retool everything, but rather identify - through debate and active praxis - what holds and what doesn't.

[blake 3:17]

[QUOTE] However, there seems to be a theoretical drought when it comes to good quality material on modern types of horizontal organisation of revolutionary movements.

I don't think there is a theory of doing that kind of organization -- it comes out of concrete struggle and reflection and collective discussion. The question of the kinds of organizations to build isn't an either/or question.

[Geiseric]

Yea obviously the left groups who identify as Socialists are completely clueless to how normal people think and function. If the hundreds of leftists in San Francisco and California were doing organizing, and worked to save city college, the problems we have in terms of organizing the statewide California students union wouldn't exist. Alas the left is clueless on the most basic things, including recognizing where and who to organize given the current development of class consciousness.

[Ravn]

The trouble may be that many of the radical left, (e.g. the petty bourgeois socialists & anarchists), are alienated from the working class, not necessarily the other way around. (Nobody likes anybody talking down to them with jargonizing & obscurantist rhetoric.)

[AmilcarCabral]

Yeah, you are right about what you said here. That most poor people, most oppressed people (people who are stressed because they only live and work to pay their basic monthly basic services, and can't do any thing else) and even many of them have to take tons of sleeping pills in order to sleep, because their anxiety is so high as a result of being scared of some day being thrown out of their houses by the mortgage and banks because of no more money to pay their house or apartments. That sector, the sector who is real actual physical pain and lives a life of pain (Only work eating and no rest).

That large percentage of the oppressed population of the USA because they don't see a light at the end of the tunnel, and because they have lost faith in the republican party and in the democratic party, are trapped in the poverty trap, in the viscious circle of poverty and are adopting a self-defeating personality disorder.

Millions of americans who are copacetic and are not doing any thing about their situation are just like the lyrics of this song "Bound for the floor"


E2Oe5YKhzCE
It is real easy to be bound for the floor, in this situation that we are all trapped without a super-large labor party as a salvation for the great majority of americans


Self-defeating personality disorder is:

A) A pervasive pattern of self-defeating behavior, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts. The person may often avoid or undermine pleasurable experiences, be drawn to situations or relationships in which he or she will suffer, and prevent others from helping him or her, as indicated by at least five of the following:

1- Chooses people and situations that lead to disappointment, failure, or mistreatment even when better options are clearly available (Like voting for The Democratic Party and The Republican Party, instead of supporting leftist labor parties).

2- Rejects or renders ineffective the attempts of others to help him or her (Like not even watching Michael Moore's movie "Capitalism: A love story", denying progressive news like Free Speech TV and instead relying on CNN, FOX news, ABC news, CBS news, NBC news, Univision and Telemundo)

3- Following positive personal events (e.g., new achievement), responds with depression, guilt, or a behavior that produces pain (e.g., an accident)

4- Incites angry or rejecting responses from others and then feels hurt, defeated, or humiliated (e.g., makes fun of spouse in public, provoking an angry retort, then feels devastated)

5- Rejects opportunities for pleasure, or is reluctant to acknowledge enjoying himself or herself (despite having adequate social skills and the capacity for pleasure, like free entrances to Disney World, cheaper cable-tv services if USA was ruled by the working class and a communist party)

6- Fails to accomplish tasks crucial to his or her personal objectives despite demonstrated ability to do so, e.g., helps fellow students write papers, but is unable to write his or her own


7- Is uninterested in or rejects people who consistently treat him or her well, e.g., is unattracted to caring sexual partners. (Hates leftist parties, prefers Sarah Palin and The Tea Party, prefers to watch Glenn Beck and FOX news than Democracy Now)

8- Engages in excessive self-sacrifice that is unsolicited by the intended recipients of the sacrifice (Prefers to work 12 hours a day or 16 hours a day under The Democratic Party and The Republican Party neoliberalism economic model. Instead of working 6 hours a day under a communist leftist party in the White House)

B) The behaviors in A do not occur exclusively in response to, or in anticipation of, being physically, sexually, or psychologically abused.

C) The behaviors in A do not occur only when the person is depressed.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defeating_personality_disorder


.





Nobody likes anybody talking down to them with jargonizing & obscurantist rhetoric.)

[blake 3:17]

The trouble may be that many of the radical left, (e.g. the petty bourgeois socialists & anarchists), are alienated from the working class, not necessarily the other way around. (Nobody likes anybody talking down to them with jargonizing & obscurantist rhetoric.)

We fucking hate being talked down to.

Just looked up obscurantism/t -- Pretty interesting to see who defends it on principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism

I'd forgotten about Sokal til recently reading an interview with Derrida. JD punks him back but with grace.

[Ravn]

In fact, many are superstitious, some are homophobic, still more are sexist. This is not the result of some character flaw. This is a product of the upbringing that some people who grow up in working-class families receive. I grew up in a very conservative household. The fact of the matter is that some workers hold beliefs and exhibit behaviors that "enlightened" leftists may take offense to, but we need to be practical in our approach to changing public attitudes. We are bombarded on a daily basis with the values that "society" has deemed appropriate, and we all know these values are the values of the ruling class. Workers are told they need to be "tough guys", "hard-working" without "complaining". They need to shun effeminacy, our media says, and be the masters of their own households, as kings within a kingdom. These are the values which prevail in our day, and recognizing this fact, we need to take an approach to connecting with working class people that does not put them on the spot, so to speak, and turn them away.

@communer, many radical leftists are indeed involved in labor struggles, especially outside of the U.S. But, I've also met many self-proclaimed radical leftists who are only too willing to chat about theory but, when invited to attend labor rallies (such as the minimum wage rallies), decline and never involve themselves in on-the-ground, organic movements by actual working-class people in the real world.
Isn't it the business of the "radical left" to wrangle with the masses over these short-comings? Some people are going to become alienated because they don't want to deal with these contradictions in society or in themselves.

I'm putting radical left in quotes above because radical & left doesn't necessarily mean revolutionary. If some element of the radical left is alienated from the masses, that's an indication of the degree that they are reactionary or that their position is. The system would prefer the masses to be asleep & it also prefers that people believe that the system can not be overthrown.

W/o the masses this can not happen.

[AmilcarCabral]

I would like to add another comment to this debate about the underlying causes of why the left of the USA, and the left of other countries as well is in such a mess. I think that another cause of that is really a lack of advertising, lack of marketing, lack of propaganda tactics on the part of the owners and leaders of the revolutionary leftist parties (real leftist parties that believe in the destruction of capitalist-governments thru wars of the oppressed against the oppressors).

The real authentic leftist parties (Those parties that *only* believe in reaching socialism and anarcho-communism thru internal wars of exploited vs. exploiters in all nations of the world, maybe do not have enough money to invest in modern technology like the social-democrats revisionist reformist leftist sectors of USA and other countries do (For example: Democracy Now, Free Speech TV, Link TV, The Big Picture TV show of Thom Hartmann, The Russia Today News. The modern expensive websites of the social-democrat organizations The Nation Magazine, Commondreams.org, Counterpunch.org, Democracynow.org, alternet.org

And we have to be realists selling a political ideology is like selling hamburgers and pizzas. If you open a hamburger restaurant or any other business and you don't invest in modern forms of advertising nobody will buy your goods and services. And that's why the great majority of people right now in America who are beginning to get fed up with the lies of The Republican Party and The Democratic Party are reaching out toward social-democratic anti-war options like Cindy Sheehan, The Green Party, Cynthia Mckinney, Bernie Sanders, etc. Because the social-democrat left is the only left in USA that has lots of visibility and more advertising. While the authentic left is still too hidden, too underground for the great majority of americans

So I think that one of the main things that the real authentic revolutionary anti-elections pro-armed struggles left have to do is invest more in advertising and propaganda, in educating the oppressed about the fact that the social-democrat left (Like socialist party of USA, The Green Party, Ralph Nader are fake-leftists and that the real left are the ones who do things "by the book" like the founders of leftist ideology of http://www.marxists.org say


.



There are a few different behaviors and attitudes I encounter among self-proclaimed radical leftists (socialists/communists and anarchists alike) that I feel really alienate working-class people and damage the cause. You may or may not agree, but I surely can't be the only person who feels this way. I'm not suggesting that these problems characterize every leftist movement, but that they are real and damaging.

1) "excessive intellectualism". This is not to say that intellectual activities are bad, but that intellectualism, with its "ivory tower" demeanor, is ultimately a lot of fluffy jargon and rubbish. Unfortunately, there are too many Marxists who like to spend their time arguing over the pettiest and most inconsequential things, often with a holier-than-though attitude. IMO this alienates the same working-class people we are trying to win over. People who are busting their asses working 40, 50, or 60 hours a week working shitty jobs under shitty bosses don't care about the minutiae of this or that leftist school of thought. They have real concerns in the real world. Self-proclaimed Marxists who spend all their time at the coffee shop with their noses in books are not going to relate to the toiling masses. This is why we are painted as "detached" and outdated.

Disclaimer: I am NOT saying that robust political, historical, economic, and so on, discussions and explorations are unimportant, but that the attitudes of most "hyper-intellectual" Marxists are detached from the real world.

2) Reckless hostility to the "sacred" beliefs of others

I am not religious myself. It can be well argued that materialism demands atheism. You should not be stop being hostile to reactionary institutions and traditions. BUT the fact is that many normal, hard-working working class people hold their personal religious and cultural beliefs, whether reactionary or not, closely. So if you want to relate to these people, don't start off the conversation with "Fuck your God!" :rolleyes:

3) "Correcting" other people

Here is the most challenging one to criticize. We should, after all, always stand against homophobia, misogyny, and oppressive attitudes. Nevertheless, there is a way of going about it that is less alienating to most working class people. Like it or not, people are going to say ignorant things. A worker taking his short lunch break might drop the F word or say "that's retarded". You should not join him and ultimately these derogatory remarks have to end. But you also shouldn't say something like "that's ableist, you evil homophobe!". People have been conditioned their whole lives with these attitudes, and they aren't going to stop doing something simply because some holier-than-though pseudo-intellectual leftist told them to stop. I'm just sayin'. Take from this what you will.

The reality is that people out there have concerns that we need to appeal to: they are worried about their wages, their jobs, education, affording healthcare, their children, et cetera. We should, first and foremost, worry about these things. Thoughts?

[blake 3:17]

I would like to add another comment to this debate about the underlying causes of why the left of the USA, and the left of other countries as well is in such a mess. I think that another cause of that is really a lack of advertising, lack of marketing, lack of propaganda tactics on the part of the owners and leaders of the revolutionary leftist parties (real leftist parties that believe in the destruction of capitalist-governments thru wars of the oppressed against the oppressors).

The real authentic leftist parties (Those parties that *only* believe in reaching socialism and anarcho-communism thru internal wars of exploited vs. exploiters in all nations of the world, maybe do not have enough money to invest in modern technology like the social-democrats revisionist reformist leftist sectors of USA and other countries do (For example: Democracy Now, Free Speech TV, Link TV, The Big Picture TV show of Thom Hartmann, The Russia Today News. The modern expensive websites of the social-democrat organizations The Nation Magazine, Commondreams.org, Counterpunch.org, Democracynow.org, alternet.org

And we have to be realists selling a political ideology is like selling hamburgers and pizzas. If you open a hamburger restaurant or any other business and you don't invest in modern forms of advertising nobody will buy your goods and services. And that's why the great majority of people right now in America who are beginning to get fed up with the lies of The Republican Party and The Democratic Party are reaching out toward social-democratic anti-war options like Cindy Sheehan, The Green Party, Cynthia Mckinney, Bernie Sanders, etc. Because the social-democrat left is the only left in USA that has lots of visibility and more advertising. While the authentic left is still too hidden, too underground for the great majority of americans

So I think that one of the main things that the real authentic revolutionary anti-elections pro-armed struggles left have to do is invest more in advertising and propaganda, in educating the oppressed about the fact that the social-democrat left (Like socialist party of USA, The Green Party, Ralph Nader are fake-leftists and that the real left are the ones who do things "by the book" like the founders of leftist ideology of http://www.marxists.org say


.

??? The social democrats in the US out do Canada by 200%.

I'd love to vote for somebody like Nader or Sheehan. In the US, they're a bit more anarchistic because they're not tied to the big money machines.

[Venas Abiertas]

To put it simply, we on the left haven't been able to convince people that what we offer is any better than what they already have.

Take Spain, for example. 25% unemployment, 55% for those under 25. Millions have lost jobs and homes. No exit strategy on the part of the government except continued austerity.

You'd think Spaniards would be out on the streets, ripping everything apart. Some are, but not enough to make a critical mass and bring down the government.

The problem is that most people in Spain still have something left to lose. Even though they're behind in their mortgage payments, or reduced to sleeping on the couch at their mom and dad's flat, they still have a roof over their heads. The welfare state distributes just enough food aid to keep anyone from actually starving. The water still comes out of the faucet, the lights still come on with the flick of a switch, and the roads are still navegable if you keep an eye out for the potholes. The TV and smart phone bought back when the money was good still work.

People have grown accustomed to the crumbs thrown to them by their capitalist masters. Anyone who argues for a bigger slice of the pie, or the whole pie, is labeled as a whiner and complainer, or a thief.

So, what options do leftists present?

One brand of leftist is enamored with "identity politics." They can live with the system as long as their group gets a little bit more space and few more crumbs. This kind of leftism is the outgrowth of the sixties. We marched in the streets, got our music on the airwaves and some of our TV shows and movies on the screens, put some of our ideas into the election campaigns and into school curriculums. We changed a lot of attitudes. Anybody who doubts this wasn't around back in the "good old days."

What we failed to do though was change the economic system, and well, capitalists gonna be capitalists. The profit motive will reign supreme, right up until the moment of total collapse, just like a heroin junkie who finally drops dead with the empty needle still sticking out of his arm.

Another kind of leftist advocates for a Cuban or Soviet-style planned economy. Those two countries made great advances in many levels of development, even to the point of threatening the existence of the capitalist system. To the average person today, though, what comes to mind when they think of those countries is endless lines to get a few eggs or a half loaf of bread, spies listening to every conversation, and nothing but ballet and shows about tractors on TV.

A third kind of leftist, the "Another World is Possible" type of leftist, calls for a Kierkegaardian leap of faith into a whole new mode of living based on community democracy, worker-owned and managed production, open schools and open borders, eco-friendly policies, respect for indigenous peoples and other minorities, and free medical care.

Most people in a capitalist society see the above options as being silly and unworkable at best, and scary and oppressive at the worst.

What is to be done?

One option is to wait until capitalism collapses under its own contradictions, and deal with what's left. Quite possibly, though, some form of fascism or feudalism will emerge from the wreckage first.

Or we could actively seek to bring the system down. This has been tried before, sometimes successfully (Cuba, Nicaragua) but mostly not (Paris Commune, Spartacus Uprising, Weathermen and Black Panthers, RAF in Germany, etc.)

Or be opportunistic. Prepare ourselves for the right moment, and when it comes, strike. Examples: Lenin, Irish Republic, Algeria...

These three options are not mutually exclusive. Working through the established political systems to win elections and place candidates favorable to leftist ideas is an avenue towards socialism but will probably never go more than half way to the goal.

Our hope is, as always, among our youth. We need fresh thinking and energy. The young today live with despair. We must present our ideas to them and give them room to come up with the strategies that can make them reality.

[Wake_Robin]

I agree with your assessment completely, Abiertas, except with your assumption that revolutionary, reformist and idealistic strategies are mutually exclusive.

Our movement has to have bomb-throwers, book-writers and ballot-makers. Otherwise we're constantly working at cross purposes.

[tallguy]

To put it simply, we on the left haven't been able to convince people that what we offer is any better than what they already have.....

......Our hope is, as always, among our youth. We need fresh thinking and energy. The young today live with despair. We must present our ideas to them and give them room to come up with the strategies that can make them reality.Yes to all of this

[GerrardWinstanley]

I have to chime in here and say I think the "winning people over" strategy is self-defeating and naive, not to mention patronising where it's directed at a warped stereotype of the working class. Bad politics thrives in the world, not because of a failure you perceive in the radical left (negligible in number) to conform and adapt to it or handle the matter of racism delicately, but because it is tolerated.

If you think that any of us owe a fair hearing to a fascist constituency, working class or otherwise, you are on the wrong side entirely. These people are the detritus of society who wouldn't give a second thought to silencing you (or worse), given the opportunity. And those who find it terribly unfair that oppressive views and group dynamics are denied a space on the radical left know where the door is.

[IBleedRed]

I used to think just like you. However, there are certain reasons for our fiery rhetoric which may end up offending people.

I'll make the case for discrimination

1. With regards to discrimination: This is not an issue of correcting people. They cannot hold these beliefs and be part of a movement to destroy oppression. If they feel alienated for holding these backwards beliefs then perhaps this is better for us. We cannot water down our beliefs so that we have a mass movement which allows for people to hold racist, sexist or homophobic beliefs.

*I agree with you in that there are strategic ways to go about this, but we should make it known that if workers are on strike engaging in political activity they cannot be saying things like "retard" and "faggot". This is unacceptable. The way that you conduct yourself in revolutionary activity determines what kind of organization that you have.

**Workers who are engaging in political activity have more power when they are inclusive. Imagine that workers on strike also take a stance to include everyone in their movement. Imagine that they take stances against discriminatory practices used by management personnel. That is a more powerful movement that catalyzes something altogether stronger.

I agree with you that that those attitudes have no place in revolutionary activity or community, but that's jumping the gun. The first order of business is to talk to people and connect with them and turn them on to the Marxist worldview. This stage needs to be as far removed from hyper-intellectual jargon and condescension as possible. I predict that there are two sorts of people who exhibit bigoted behavior: those who do it consciously and would defend it if pressed, and those who do it as a matter of habit. Many people fall into the latter camp, so if we do "correct" them, we need to do it not from a perceived position of moral superiority.


With regards to the second point, I disagree. I actually think the radical left would rather alienate atheist leftists and disregard our legitimate grievances against religion. When coming to a leftist website, I was expecting resentment towards various atheist liberals and I can understand it and agree with it, but too many threads just take it too damn far. I don't understand it at all, because apparently this hatred for anti-theism and atheism is also coming from (self-hating?) atheists too. The anti-Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens posts I see on every religious thread is disturbing. I can understand the disagreements with their politics, I have those too, but why their arguments against religion? And all the while demanding tolerance and understanding for reactionary ideologies like Islam and making excuses for its most illogical followers. Major surprise.

I agree with the 3rd point.

This is probably because Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (eww) are characterized by extreme intellectual arrogance even ignoring their politics. Hitchens, though, should not be defended one bit and remains one of the most disgusting human beings to have walked the earth.

[Anti-Traditional]

I have to chime in here and say I think the "winning people over" strategy is self-defeating and naive, not to mention patronising where it's directed at a warped stereotype of the working class.

The whole winning people over thing basically means 'We are 'the left', we know best, put us in power'

[laoch na phoblacht]

some people here come across as very obnoxious, appealing to the working classes does not mean compromising your views it means promoting them to a wide audience. to ignore the need to appeal to the working class and dismissing those who don't support the left as reactionary means you ignore the concept of hegemony. if the left wants to win it must be popular to be popular it must resonate with the people.

that said only a fool would say that the far left doesn't alienate people it is clear that it does, I think this is because many on the "far left" have a textbook view of what it takes to be a marxist. Also the language used by far left groups is not everyday language of the people as it requires to much on long leftest rhetoric

[Slavic]

The relationship between those of the radical left and the rest of the working class should be that of exposing the contradictions that riddle Capitalistic systems. There is no need to tailor language and bend to accommodate all spheres of the working class; when one opens their eyes and sees the contradictions and inequalities that Capitalism produces then one naturally would turn toward Marxism.

The left isn't trying to build an "Big Tent" party and win elections, that is the goal of the Social Democrats. The left seeks to expose Capitalism for what it is and to agitate.

[Schumpeter]

The relationship between those of the radical left and the rest of the working class should be that of exposing the contradictions that riddle Capitalistic systems. There is no need to tailor language and bend to accommodate all spheres of the working class; when one opens their eyes and sees the contradictions and inequalities that Capitalism produces then one naturally would turn toward Marxism.

The left isn't trying to build an "Big Tent" party and win elections, that is the goal of the Social Democrats. The left seeks to expose Capitalism for what it is and to agitate.

The working class (in Britain) have shifted markedly towards the right wing, largely in reaction to progressive politics such as liberal immigration laws, liberal views towards homosexuality, a perceived fear of immigrants (linked), feminism and anti-racism. Essentially the progressive agenda has driven many working class (brits) to the right, working class newspapers, even typically socialist ones have started to feature scare stories over muslims, those on the right scare stories about welfare scroungers. I wouldn't sacrifice the progressive agenda.

[Schumpeter]

Also most working class people do not define themeselves as working class and would not like to associate with those whom refer to them as working class, its offensive.

[laoch na phoblacht]

The working class (in Britain) have shifted markedly towards the right wing, largely in reaction to progressive politics such as liberal immigration laws, liberal views towards homosexuality, a perceived fear of immigrants (linked), feminism and anti-racism. Essentially the progressive agenda has driven many working class (brits) to the right, working class newspapers, even typically socialist ones have started to feature scare stories over muslims, those on the right scare stories about welfare scroungers. I wouldn't sacrifice the progressive agenda.

so according to you the working class are bigots? are you sure you are a leftist.
The English left lost the working class because it failed to provide answers to economic problems, Bob Doyle's autobiography has a good section on the problems in English trade unionism in the 1970s give it a read.

If the left wants to win it needs support it really is quite simple

[Marshal of the People]

so according to you the working class are bigots? are you sure you are a leftist.
The English left lost the working class because it failed to provide answers to economic problems, Bob Doyle's autobiography has a good section on the problems in English trade unionism in the 1970s give it a read.

If the left wants to win it needs support it really is quite simple

The working class are not bigots, they are just average humans open to manipulation. We must educate all of humanity if communism is to succeed.

[BITW434]

so according to you the working class are bigots? are you sure you are a leftist.
The English left lost the working class because it failed to provide answers to economic problems, Bob Doyle's autobiography has a good section on the problems in English trade unionism in the 1970s give it a read.

If the left wants to win it needs support it really is quite simple
The working class in Britain has undoubtedly shifted to the right over the past 35 years. Partly down to the taboo surrounding trade unions (the Winter of Discontent is still portrayed as if it was of apocalyptic nature, and of course it was all the unions fault), and partly because of 'divide and rule', for example the Sun's recent front page scaremongering about the prospect of the Romanians supposedly flooding the country.

[Greek Warrior]

This thread is very interesting.

[laoch na phoblacht]

The working class in Britain has undoubtedly shifted to the right over the past 35 years. Partly down to the taboo surrounding trade unions (the Winter of Discontent is still portrayed as if it was of apocalyptic nature, and of course it was all the unions fault), and partly because of 'divide and rule', for example the Sun's recent front page scaremongering about the prospect of the Romanians supposedly flooding the country.

that is the imposition of a controlling hegemony over the working class, the left should attack bullshit media racism instead of accusing the working class of being right wing bigots. It is not that the working class are racist rather they are manipulated by media and politicians

[AmilcarCabral]

Dear Chomsssssssky: Hi, great comment of yours. You know I think that the problem in the left and in the poor working classes of USA, in both the leftist activists and the whole oppressed majority of americans is not lack of consideration for others, lack of love for others. It is more or less lack of social skills, lack of social ethics. If you observe really well, how professional politicians like Obama and Mitt Romney behave with their masses, in pre-election campaigns, you will not see in them a shred of any anger, rage, insults, angry faces toward the masses. Even though we know Obama and Mitt Romney are liars, capitalists, and only benefit the capitalist class. They do have great social ethics, great social skills, great communication skills so that the masses would follow them.

Having said all this, what I am trying to state is that maybe the leftist activists are following the behaviour script ordained to them by the US capitalist system. You know humans are not totally free, even the clothes they wear, their opinions, their facial expressions, their physical gestures. And specially talking about americans, americans are supposed to behave in a mean, rude, barbaric way, americans are supposed to be ultra-individualists, to be family-narcissists, group-narcissists, xenophobic, and to have zero social ethics (because that's the official libertarian Ayn Rand philosophy of life followed religiously by all americans, even by immigrants who live in USA).

So because of that, leftists will have to work hard at destroying that ultra-individualist, unloving behaviour pattern and put a smiling face all the timne with the oppressed and with other leftists, in order to spread socialist propaganda with the american oppressed majority.


Lu9Ycq64Gy4
Great song about how the opinions, the behaviour script, the philosophy of life, the facial expressions, the physical gestures, the political system, the political parties, the fashions and every activity of american citizens are all pre-ordained, pre-determined. Whe all US citizens have 2 options: To conform with that ultra-individualist capitalist philosophy of life. Or to be cast out of the USA


However there is a problem i see with loving open minded radical leftists trying to talk about how supporting a socialist labor party is the only solution for US low-wage workers and US poor people. The problem I see lies in the US low-wage working class and poor people in general. Because like I said here the official behaviour script (How all americans are ordered, forced and trained to behave) is a sort of Ayn Rand, Glenn Beck angry anti-social, social phobic mysanthropist philosophy of life (closing the doors to any outsiders to any strangers).

In other countries, like in Argentina, in Cuba, and in Italy, you can walk into a stranger, become their friend real easy, strike a converstation with them and have a good time. Not in the USA, americans are educated, and trained to despise anybody outside of their group, family, organization and church (Maybe that's why there is an excess of isolated progressive protests in USA (gays, blacks, inmigrants, anti-war, 9-11 truth etc) who are unable to join together into a large united leftist party. So because I've noticed how most americans, even poor americans wear a sort of psychologic shield and big chinese wall around their families. It is real hard and even risky to walk into a house of a poor american (Like mormons and evangelical church activists do), and try to convince them about how the only way for them to get out of poverty is to support a leftist party.

Not only the very low social skills and the mysanthropist philosophy of life of all americans is a problem for leftists to do that. But another great problem is that most poor americans do not see them selves as poor people. They think that if they live in a house, own 2 cars they are already living a high living standards. Maybe because they haven't been to better nations than USA, like Argentina, Norway, France, Germany, Brazil where people have higher living standards and better health. And another reason of why poor americans see them selves as rich people as middle class people, is that the american television networks bombs american poor people with lots of documentaries about extreme poor populations of Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, Nepal, Indonesia, Haiti, Mexico etc.

So there are lots and lots of blocks, of big chinese walls, of catch-22 for the great majority of poor americans to be easily converted to radical leftists.



Just a personal anecdote that I'd like to tell.

When I first joined these boards, I was definitely a social democrat. I wanted to learn more about communism though. Fortunately, no one realized my political identity back then or I would have been exiled to the "restricted" sub-forum. At this point, there's no way I would have even bothered. I'd have seen this site as elitist and rude for attempting to relegate my views and left, never becoming radicalized.

Fortunately that didn't happen. But that wasn't the only impediment to me becoming radicalized. While I was still being deprogrammed from my social-democratic views, I was scorned by many people on here. Many failed to acknowledge the fact that my political evolution was just starting to get underway and that with a little more time and information I'd become radicalized. The fact that I was still learning was painfully obvious - yet some posters on here, even some moderators, were extremely rude to me and condescending. This resulted only in frustration and made me all the more hesitant to embrace radical ideas.

So are people on the left alienating others who could be our comrades? Absolutely. And the attitudes shown by a large percentage of people on this sight are to blame.