Becoming Leftist for the wrong reasons?

[bleedingheart]

Hi Comrades:)

It's been a while since I posted here, the place seems to be brimming with activity and enthusiasm, as always.

Anyway, I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine, a Muslim immigrant. He said he was interested in leftism (he was actually a member of some org, I think) because as a Muslim, he felt he would be protected by leftists, rather than by rightists who believed in ethnicity, religion etc.

This made me think. Like this Muslim gentleman, there could be many others (like homosexuals, immigrants, feminists) who become leftists, because they feel there's no other option. They may feel the right is too conservative for them, and therefore, the left may appear to be some kind 'all are welcome' club, if you know what I mean.;)

I hope members can see where I am going with this. Becoming a leftist because one feels strongly about the worker's plight, socialist principles of production etc. etc. is one thing.:) But to become a leftist for the reason the Muslim gentleman became a leftist is quite weird-isn't it?-because at the end of the day, the Muslim still thinks and acts like a Muslim, with absolutely no interest or knowledge regarding the leftist ideology.:( In other words, the Muslim member of a leftist party remains Muslim, he doesn't become leftist.

Isn't this a bad thing for the leftists in the long run, because those who join them are not doing so because they like the ideology, but because they feel protected within a leftist org or party?:(

[XII Bones IIX]

True I think that if you're going to claim to be a leftist you should completely adopt the ideologies and implicate them in everyday life. Simply wanting to belong to the leftist group is not nearly enough. I agree with everything you've said. You should not join a group just because it looks appealing or because that's what very one else is doing.

[Sam_b]

I for one am glad that we are getting these marginalised groups on board. At a time where governments are increasing their attacks on them through vile racism and Islamophobia (Italy with regard to the Romany population, for instance), we ar erightly seen as the movement that are standing up against this. I think your argument is too simplistic here: almost as if we are looking for recruits that are the 'finished article' and have amazing positions on ideas that many don't encounter until they are within these movements. For example, when I first got active in socialist politics, I new next to nothing about the working of the capitalist system, imperialism and the like: I was just angry about the current society of war-mongering and disenfranchisement.


In other words, the Muslim member of a leftist party remains Muslim, he doesn't become leftist.

I couldn't disagree more. Socialists should be defending the right of people to practice their religion, as long as it is a private thing. I think the argument that religious people cannot become socialists is wrong, and distances ourselves from communities that we should be working with. Should socialists, for example, not organise with Muslims against the War on Terror because they are religious? Of course we shouldn't. Should we not make arguments against capitalism in these movements because the people in it are religious? No.

We get these people active, involved: and we make sure that we can put our arguments across. We should never ever become elitist when engaging with working class people who ar einterested in getting involved.

[bleedingheart]

Thanks, Bones and Sam, for your valuable input. At the outset, let me just say being a non-white person myself, I know what it's like to be discriminated against. So please, let no one feel I am diluting the problems of these marginalized groups.


I for one am glad that we are getting these marginalised groups on board.

Me too, and I am sure most of us leftists are. But the question is: why are they on our side? Is it because they actually subscribe to our ideology, or is it because they feel right-wingers are a bigger enemy:(, and therefore an alliance with a lesser enemy (namely, the leftists) would come in handy to defeat them?

The above isn't far fetched, considering how Muslim League in India used communist help to create Pakistan, and once that was accomplished, most of the communists in Pakistan were kicked out.:wub: The same goes for Islamist-Communist alliance in Iran as well.


I couldn't disagree more. Socialists should be defending the right of people to practice their religion, as long as it is a private thing. I think the argument that religious people cannot become socialists is wrong, and distances ourselves from communities that we should be working with. Should socialists, for example, not organise with Muslims against the War on Terror because they are religious?

This is the problem for me, as a socialist. As socialists, we may view the war on terror in terms of economics, in terms of class conflict, in the context of the bourgeois exploiting the third-world for its resources (oil in this case). But our Muslim allies may not have the same view. They may view the whole thing in religious terms, such as 'Muslim vs Infidel' war, jihad:(, and so on. This will put us socialists in danger, because according to Muslims, we too are infidels, as bad as the imperialists who have declared the war on terror.

As one can see, it'd be impossible for socialists to ally with religious people, when the latter consider the former to be as bad as other (imperial) infidels. So they could be using us, in order to defeat a more powerful enemy.:wub:

[Drace]

I couldn't disagree more. Socialists should be defending the right of people to practice their religion, as long as it is a private thing. I think the argument that religious people cannot become socialists is wrong, and distances ourselves from communities that we should be working with. Should socialists, for example, not organise with Muslims against the War on Terror because they are religious? Of course we shouldn't. Should we not make arguments against capitalism in these movements because the people in it are religious? No.

Tell that to Stalin :)

[Ismail]

Tell that to Stalin :)Stalin had the same policy as Lenin did. Religion should be completely private, the church should be fought against, etc. The party simply fought against the reactionary priests, bishops, and imams.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

Also from that link:

Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule.Of course this doesn't mean that the religious proletariat are to be opposed, but rather that all true socialists are atheists. (Lenin always placed emphasis on popular fronts)

[XII Bones IIX]

i think that "minorities" if i may call them feel more secure in a leftist group due to their open mindedness. Leftists generally have a better understanding and appreciation for the world and the people in it. Where as your righties are basically megalomaniacs, that work the system for their own gains. That's why I fell became a leftist, I just got tired of money grubbing power whores.

[Sam_b]

But the question is: why are they on our side? Is it because they actually subscribe to our ideology, or is it because they feel right-wingers are a bigger enemyhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/becoming-leftist-wrong-t86760/revleft/smilies/sad.gif, and therefore an alliance with a lesser enemy (namely, the leftists) would come in handy to defeat them?

If people are joining the left to try and defeat the right-wing, then good!
I think you have a completely simplistic view of how the left does and should organise. If you're looking for people to only join a movement because they 'subscribe' to everything and anything that we say then good luck, and we'll be smaller than we already are. When people join these movements, and get involved, we bring them into our circle and make arguments for how we see the world, and hopefully get them on board.


This is the problem for me, as a socialist. As socialists, we may view the war on terror in terms of economics, in terms of class conflict, in the context of the bourgeois exploiting the third-world for its resources (oil in this case). But our Muslim allies may not have the same view. They may view the whole thing in religious terms, such as 'Muslim vs Infidel' war, jihadhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/becoming-leftist-wrong-t86760/revleft/smilies/sad.gif, and so on. This will put us socialists in danger, because according to Muslims, we too are infidels, as bad as the imperialists who have declared the war on terror.


Fuck you and your Islamophobia. So apparently Muslim people are not unlike anybody else who is religious or in a cleavage of society, are they? Why are we necessarily going on about our Muslim brothers and sisters here? Here's some news: most people do not have the same view as us. This is why we build to get the working class on board. I utterly condemn your analysis equating Islam followers as being concerned with 'infadels' and the notion that socialists may be 'put in danger' by followers of the faith.

In short, get a grip.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Is it really a wrong reason? Communists welcome and defend all oppressed classes and groups. A Christian white proletarian and an Asian Muslim proletarian may gravitate towards the revolutionary socialist movement because they see their important interests defended and furthered by socialism. The Christian may be motivated by a certain consciousness given her/his economic exploitation, and the Muslim may also be conscious about perhaps their victimisation through racism and Islamophobia. If either are female, then they may regard socialism as key to defending their interests and giving them a network which supports their emancipation.

Taking such two individuals as an example, neither are communist but they are taking the necessary initial steps towards educating themselves about historical materialism and surplus value extraction.

We aren't born communists, even those with communist parents are not communist. Communists come into being due to oppressed individuals becoming class conscious and seeking further development of their education amongst revolutionary socialist lines, then putting their theoretical tools into practice.

If say a conservative Muslim proletarian, who may be politically conservative in many respects becomes involved in revolutionary socialism because it is only socialism which will defend her/him from oppression, then s/he has taken an essential step for awareness of the self within the material conditions of human society and the surrounding superstructure. S/he will be affected by Marxian analysis and may indeed loosen any overriding reactionary views. The level to which Marxian analysis may do this will differ due to circumstances, but it provides the socialist movement an opportunity to reach out and help educate fellow proletarians.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Is it really a wrong reason? Communists welcome and defend all oppressed classes and groups. . .
This.

If one group embraces or at least tolerates you and another persecutes you, then which would you favour, and in the long term, most likely identify with?

Yes, to truly be a leftist, you must care about the working class struggle and socialism and all that stuff, but there is no such thing as becoming a leftist "for the wrong reason".

As long as the leftist philosophies are ultimately recognized, accepted, and practiced, regardless of the reasons for getting interested into socialism, the individual can be considered legitimately a leftist.

[Decolonize The Left]

I am in full agreement with Philosophical Materialist and KrazyRabidSheep.

- August

[JimmyJazz]

I am in full agreement with Philosophical Materialist and KrazyRabidSheep.

- August

I would be, if I didn't think they were missing the point of the op.

In question are not people who believe that the oppression of their race/gender/religion would end if the MoP were socialized and production was carried out for use instead of for profit. In question are people who don't even understand these tenets of socialism, people who are in it for what the movement itself has to offer them, and not because of their agreement with the final goal. Kind of like Eduard Bernstein.

I'm in favor of welcoming and even recruiting people from oppressed groups who may not be workers (who isn't), but the goal should be to educate them ideologically and convince them that our program would inherently address their grievances, not to simply graft their cause into our socialist movement.

If they end up not agreeing with the socialist program, they can still be allies. But they shouldn't be considered socialists unless they are socialists, right?

[Lynx]

They can safely be considered as people we intend to help.

[bleedingheart]

I would be, if I didn't think they were missing the point of the op.

In question are not people who believe that the oppression of their race/gender/religion would end if the MoP were socialized and production was carried out for use instead of for profit. In question are people who don't even understand these tenets of socialism, people who are in it for what the movement itself has to offer them, and not because of their agreement with the final goal. Kind of like Eduard Bernstein.

I'm in favor of welcoming and even recruiting people from oppressed groups who may not be workers (who isn't), but the goal should be to educate them ideologically and convince them that our program would inherently address their grievances, not to simply graft their cause into our socialist movement.

If they end up not agreeing with the socialist program, they can still be allies. But they shouldn't be considered socialists unless they are socialists, right?

At last, someone has understood this. Thank you!:)

Questioning people's motives (as to why they join us) is NOT racism or islamophobia. We need to be clear about these things, or the movement will be destroyed from within.

Like you say, these oppressed groups must be treated with compassion, no doubt, but at the end of the day, the question remains as to whether or not they're socialists. Or, what's the point in calling ourselves socialists, and fighting on behalf of the workers? :confused:

[Drace]

How is one a leftist, if one does not know the leftist ideology?

I wouldn't consider him one..

[Sam_b]

Questioning people's motives (as to why they join us) is NOT racism or islamophobia

When you question their motives solely because they're Muslim and apparently believe in a (quote) "Muslim vs Infadel war" it fucking well is.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

In question are people who don't even understand these tenets of socialism, people who are in it for what the movement itself has to offer them, and not because of their agreement with the final goal. Kind of like Eduard Bernstein.Drace put my thoughts out there better then I could have myself:

How is one a leftist, if one does not know the leftist ideology?

I wouldn't consider him one..
The original post and question concerned becoming a leftist; not becoming a band-wagoner.

Even if somebody started as a band-wagoner (as so many of us did, such as what you describe, hero-worshipers, and even those who wear red stars and anarchist emblems just because they're "cool"; I personally started as a Che-kiddie long ago), as long as they take the time and effort to learn the leftist ideology along the way, what's the problem?

[YadaRanger]

The best reason to become a leftist is for personal reasons. Because then you must realize the connection between individualism and Society. Freedom, and understanding.

[Benos145]

The best reason to become a leftist is for personal reasons. Because then you must realize the connection between individualism and Society. Freedom, and understanding.
You sound like just some insipid liberal to me.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

You sound like just some insipid liberal to me.
And you sound like an elitist to me.

S(he) is a new member (what do you know; just like you), so you have hardly anything to base that off of, other then one (perhaps a couple) post, and a custom user-title.

Perhaps you are correct, and YadaRanger is "just [an] insipid liberal", but that is no reason to alienate someone who has expressed interest in learning about leftist ideology.

Nobody on RevLeft (yourself, myself included) was born a leftist; they became one. Whether somebody has identified themselves as a communist for 5 days or 5 decades, we are all socialists.

At RevLeft, we have helped more then one misguided rouge understand and feel comfortable with socialist ideals.

[YadaRanger]

can you please explain what you didnt like about what i said?

[EvigLidelse]

Weak, rejected people often support leftism because it generates them more money than from rightism.

[cyu]

“We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork.” - Milton Friedman


I think you need to stick to the Opposing Ideologies forum, unless this quote was meant to be sarcastic. Non-work, to leftists, is what shareholders do. Work is what employees do. Non-work is subsidized when the government uses force to ensure employees give a cut of everything they earn to the shareholders.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Not that I care, but why was Benos145 banned?

[Philosophical Materialist]

Not that I care, but why was Benos145 banned?


Can't say for certain, but I think her/his behaviour towards others probably had something to it. I've seen a lot of name-calling from that poster and little else.

[Mark Blair]

Gee! My very very ever first post.
Background information: in its nascent period, Bleeding Heart, Islam was – nota bene: by the standards of its era, the second half of the first millenium – tres egalitarian; and it won a lot of converts because of that.
I hold that, yes, although leftists would support the right of people to Philosophically Idealist social practice (generally religion) as a private matter, the greatest challenge The Left Overall faces is the inherent incoherentism (Ooh! I enjoyed typing that! Almost as good as Truman Capote's 'furor of bureau drawers.') of Philosophical Idealism.
P.M. must subsume P.I.

[ckaihatsu]

[W]hy are they on our side? Is it because they actually subscribe to our ideology, or is it because they feel right-wingers are a bigger enemy:(, and therefore an alliance with a lesser enemy (namely, the leftists) would come in handy to defeat them?


Yeah, just as you don't know a person by looking at them, you have to find out -- to the best of your ability -- what their politics are, and why they chose those politics.

We could legitimately distinguish two poles to any political affiliation -- active and passive. People often fall into *passive* affiliation around nationalist politics out of laziness and not coming to investigations and conclusions for themselves. Hell, they even join the militaries of their respective countries for that same reason...!

People can fall into leftism, too, passively -- maybe by being generally alienated from mainstream society for any of a number of reasons, including religious ones.



As socialists, we may view the war on terror in terms of economics, in terms of class conflict, in the context of the bourgeois exploiting the third-world for its resources (oil in this case). But our Muslim allies may not have the same view. They may view the whole thing in religious terms, such as 'Muslim vs Infidel' war, jihad:(, and so on. This will put us socialists in danger, because according to Muslims, we too are infidels, as bad as the imperialists who have declared the war on terror.


This is a qualitative distinction that we need to always be making -- are self-proclaimed leftists leftists for *passive* reasons, or for *active* reasons? (And then, also, in activity, are they more passive, or more active?)

Revolutionary leftists will, on principle, defend social minorities, like Muslims, against attacks from the dominant, mainstream society ("War on Terror" bullshit, etc.), as long as we understand that these alliances (united fronts) are, by composition, weaker than a political alliance of strictly working-class-conscious workers in a labor dispute situation.



As one can see, it'd be impossible for socialists to ally with religious people, when the latter consider the former to be as bad as other (imperial) infidels. So they could be using us, in order to defeat a more powerful enemy.:wub:


Yeah, this is a legitimate concern -- while we're in contact with such groups we need to use the opportunity to make our arguments, ones which inherently transcend group identity politics and national liberation politics.

Here's an argument I just used, which may be of some use:


Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends
http://tinyurl.com/6bs6va


I'd like to refer to the illustration I did, at the link above. It's only one page. In words, what the diagram shows is that any private-sector enterprise is made up of the use of labor and capital. Labor provides labor value, and capital provides investment value. From that the revenue resulting from sales of goods or services is necessarily divided up between the laborers and the capitalists.

What the diagram *doesn't* show is the role of government. As a third party, government will necessarily redistribute money (a portion of revenue from sales, headed to either labor or capital, diverted to government in the form of taxes).

The question is which way should the redistribution take place? As things stand, labor gets screwed twice -- first, by not being compensated at the full value of its labor value (capital is disproportionately rewarded), and secondly by government, where taxes hit workers the hardest, the proceeds of which go to paying for military expenditures, capital gains tax cuts, and other perks which only benefit the already-wealthy.

A "free market" system is a fantasy because capital always needs government to protect it. Without the government's military and police on its side capital would be immediately swamped by the demands of labor -- think of the mass strikes and labor actions that took place in the '30s when capitalism failed in the stock market crash of 1929...!


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[cyu]

A "free market" system is a fantasy because capital always needs government to protect it. Without the government's military and police on its side capital would be immediately swamped by the demands of labor -- think of the mass strikes and labor actions that took place in the '30s when capitalism failed in the stock market crash of 1929...!

Exactly.

[Pia Fidelis]

I find that a percentage of leftists (usually the most outspoken of the groups) embrace the ideals for the wrong reasons altogether. Due to the failures of Capitalism they embrace leftist (usually communist or anarchist) views without completely understanding their foundations, main objectives and ideas. In many ways these individuals are just as "reactionary" as any given far-rightest or nazi - just with their knee-jerk in the other direction. Especially among the younger generations, many have embraced the "fashion" leftism. Upper-middle class kids rebelling against their parents, donning Che Guevara/CCCP shirts, defining their values by what a certain band will convey in their message, but at the end of the day hold no allegiance to "unity through industry" or any proletarian though - completely disconnected from such being born privileged.