Reaching out to liberals sympathetic to socialism or willing to learn about it

[GPDP]

Alright, I know a few people whom I would say definitely lean leftist. However, due to a lack of knowledge, information, and discussion of the issues outside the mainstream liberal-conservative ideological spectrum that pervades the vast majority of both public and internet debate, these people are reformist at best, with little to no idea of what socialism/communism/anarchism are about.

However, they have shown to be willing to learn more about these ideas. Perhaps it is due to my own outspokenness in my conversations with them that their curiosity has been piqued, or maybe they are becoming disillusioned with the Democrats and Obama. Whatever the reason, I would like to approach them, and perhaps persuade them to allow me to give them a lesson on socialism of sorts.

Thing is, I don't know the proper way to go about this. Where should I begin? I mean, the various socialist ideologies out there take quite a bit of time to grasp. Of course, I would like to start off with a basic, general introduction to the world of the far-left. But even so, there's several points I could start from. Should I start with materialism, alienation, and such? Or should I begin with a critique of capitalism and the state?

Remember, these people know little to nothing of economics and politics outside of what is discussed in the mainstream media.

Anyway, thanks in advance for any advice.

[spice756]

What country are you in? What is the age of the learner? If they are like me in high school there is next no nothing on the net on it , that is explain in simple english and kids way.Well Politics ,economics and philosophy are hard to grasp and understand.And most web sites on communism are for adults.So don't expect diagrams , illustration and simple english .

The best way I like to learn is look at world problems and that communism explain why it is like that .But web sites are not like that.

[GPDP]

Yeah, these people are in high school still. Both them and I are American.

I know a lot of the philosophical stuff is particularly dense, which is why I would like to give them an intro into the more simplistic yet fundamental aspects before letting them loose to research their own way. But I know they won't go out and learn by themselves if they have no idea where to start, or what we as socialists stand for in the first place. That is why I would like to serve as a facilitator in the matter. I would like to get some opinions on what is a good way to go about this that does not involve simply directing them to marxists.org or the anarchist FAQ, however.

[Rawthentic]

You need to listen to what they think first, in a respectful and engaging manner. If they are liberals, as you say, then you will surely hear the standard liberal discourse about obama, etc.

You need to take what they say, and start by saying why you think obama will not bring change and relate to the system, and what will bring real change, how, and why.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Can we assume they're very progressive social liberals: pro-choice, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, pro-drug legalization?

I think the best method to winning social liberals over to our side is to not attack them, but listen, as Rawthentic said. Inform them politely that big business perverts even their own reformist plans, that property is a social construct - I'm sure liberals could appreciate that.

Stereotypes about "big government" and "no political freedoms" will need to be blown out of the water.

[#FF0000]

When it comes to explaining things, don't use Marxist or Anarchist jargon. Break things down to the simplest possible terms, as if you were explaining it to a child. Use anecdotes to relate your points to real-life experiences. For instance, Comrade Alastair posted a thread called "Worker's Control" that would work very well for explaining capitalism's failures and inefficiency.

Also, make sure you know your stuff. The hardest questions I've ever been asked have come from people who don't know anything about a given subject but really want to learn.

[Red_Dialectics]

I use metaphors, explain the true nature of the USSR, why it didn't work, and then explain some of the basic Marxist "jargon" so I can explain it without substituting words or dumbing it down. It's worked for me on many occasions.

[chegitz guevara]

The best way to approach it is to ask them questions. It's best if you can get them to create answers that lead towards a Marxist approach.

For example: "What would happen if everyone was employed?" The should lead to a discussion about over-production, though you may have to ask, "Well, if everyone had a job, wouldn't they produce so many goods and services that they couldn't all be sold? What would happen then?" Try and lead them to the conclusions, instead of telling them the conclusions.

[mikelepore]

I just became aware of this short but excellent video, recorded when a socialist was allowed to speak for a couple minutes on ABC network television in 1956:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVqMkoVRneM

[gla22]

The best way to approach it is to ask them questions. It's best if you can get them to create answers that lead towards a Marxist approach.

For example: "What would happen if everyone was employed?" The should lead to a discussion about over-production, though you may have to ask, "Well, if everyone had a job, wouldn't they produce so many goods and services that they couldn't all be sold? What would happen then?" Try and lead them to the conclusions, instead of telling them the conclusions.
The Socratic method. Socrates would ask people series of questions to get them to see things his way. People like to convince themselves of things.

[chegitz guevara]

Is that where I got it from? :lol:

[JimmyJazz]

I have had bad experiences with trying to sum up socialism for people. I mean, just imagine someone trying to "sum up liberalism"--impossible! Any attempt to sum up an ideology usually just makes the ideology seem much more simplistic than it really is. I have had much better experiences just discussing politics and society with them, and not hiding my perspective as I do. If you want to deliberately start a discussion, definitely give them some Howard Zinn and then talk to them about that. Zinn is like the ultimate bridge between liberalism and radicalism, probably because he presents really radical arguments without ever getting even slightly angry.

Also, always step back the discussion to bigger issues, even if you tie them back into the smaller ones. Liberals think much more small-scale and short-term than radicals. They think in terms of incremental change. So if you're engaging them on their level, you're going to lose. On that level, they really are more correct (for instance, they are right that Nader really doesn't have a chance to win). But we think in bigger terms--beyond the next election cycle, for instance.


The Socratic method. Socrates would ask people series of questions to get them to see things his way. People like to convince themselves of things.

When I talked to him, Bertell Ollman gave me (:cool:) a photocopy of a 100-odd item questionnaire that Marx, toward the end of his life, sent to workers in the different countries of Europe. It was pretty funny because the wordings were all extremely leading, like "for how many hours a day does your boss exploit your labor?" and stuff like that. I really wish I could find a copy online to share it, but I can't.

[Charles Xavier]

Its our job to get all sectors of society on the side of the working class, which many are apart of. Intelligensia are not the most strong comrades, but the public debate in favor of socialism is good else they same people can be used by reaction to do the opposite.

Agitate and propagate on the campuses. organize discussion groups, set up a table.

[Sendo]

This site's lingo represents all that's wrong with the leftists', especially Marxists, way of talking. I'll admit my transition from left-liberal to rev. commie bastard was stalled by the thickness of Marx's writing and the confusing things that Marxists say. There's a reason people get the Obama bug and fall for his fancy rhetoric. It may be empty, but at least they feel like they can understand it because it uses ENGLISH. Using words like "agitate" and "propagate" will alienate would-be newbies. It doesn't make the speaker any smarter; it just turns people off. Sadly, our white-power-structure schools tell us that using unclear French and Latin words makes what we have to say sound better. And it's not just Max and people on this site, it's so many people. Even James O'Connor, a modern-day author who wanted to distance himself from the "correct line-ism" and banter of the old Left was very hard for me to read sometimes. We don't need to talk down to people. We just need to be clear, to the point, and be sure to make a socialist future seem like one people CAN and WANT to be a meaningful part of.

I don't recommend ever using the word "Vanguard", either. It comes off as elitist.

Allow me to show what I mean:

WRONG

Corn ethanol presents many contradictions due to its inherent generation of the very CO2 it is designed to sequester and the fact that capitals will seek to encourage exponential expansion in its production and its consumption. It is a centrally administered commodity and will, in high probability, be reduced to the control of monopolies. We will continue to face the problems of destruction of the "conditions of production" further necessitating even more soil erosion to preserve profit margins. Capital will not invest in the green energy sector because it doesn't produce the long-term profitability that requires continual expansion.

RIGHT

Corn ethanol is a scam. When we make the stuff, we give off even more CO2 than we save by growing the corn. It also gets used up. Do you think it's a good idea to burn food in your gas tank to get to the food store to buy food? I don't. You also know those bastards will laugh all the way to the bank when they force us to use THEIR refineries and THEIR ethanol stations. As if it's not bad enough food costs an arm and an leg, the big, factory farms are just going to destroy even more of our farmland when they make the stuff. Wouldn't it be better to have solar and wind power our electricity, and then have electric cars? You know electric cars don't break down the way gas cars do. They've also made them faster than race cars now. It's pretty cool to see. It'd also be nice to see more subways and busses, right? Hell, LA, was the cleanest city before GM bought up all the trolleys.

The thing is, all this talk of mass transit and solar power doesn't mean a thing under the free market. It's gonna take a people's mandate; big business won't do it. Hell Exxon Mobil just made $80 billion in combined PROFITS in 2006 and 2007. What makes more profit: selling cars with shitty mileage and selling a fuel source over and over and over again OR installing solar panels and then running them with free sunlight? Just take a look Obama's contributors, you'll find the big agribusinesses. Then these guys get paid by Washington to turn food into gas through subsidies.

So how much was that box of Corn Flakes you just bought?


WRONG

"Dictatorship of the proletariat"

RIGHT

Workers and communities work together to decide what to make. Workers elect their own managers and no more rich, lazy CEOs, and no more rich guys with millions of dollars of stock.

[JimmyJazz]

Hmm, well in defense of this site, let me point out that it is not a tool for convincing liberals to become radicals, it is a meeting place for radicals to discuss things. Surely you wouldn't ask scientists to write in layman's term in their scientific journals, just because some laymen might decide to pick it up and would be confused. They are not the target audience.

However, I do agree about not using the lingo when you know that you're talking to non-radicals. I've seen socialist newspapers that were full of lingo, and before I knew what it meant, it was a big turn off. I suspected that the people using it didn't even know what it meant (not sure why I thought that, but I did). Also, as you point out, it can come off as elitist when you have a vocabulary for discussing politics that other people lack. Most people have this belief that politics is something we are all born with the ability to form opinions about and that one cannot become an "expert" in politics. This is clearly wrong, since the people on this site know tremendously more history, economics, etc., than people I have met elsewhere. But regardless of its truth people do believe it, so you have to cater to that belief at least a little bit if you don't want to alienate (:cool:) them.

[GPDP]

Sendo, I agree 100%. Whenever I talk to liberals, I never, EVER use the language I would use here. I always try to use simple terminology, but still complex enough to get my points across.