approaching the mainstream

[Rascolnikova]

I'm sure this has been much discussed, but when I ran a search for "mainstream" it didn't come up, and I'm uncreative tonight. .

So I have to ask; what are the commonly advocated ways for leftists to approach and appeal to the mainstream? It seems things might be somewhat different elsewhere, but here in the US, Communism is widely considered both stupid and dead.

While debating wittily in may be fun, argument is hardly a doorway to "hearts and minds". The general level of discourse isn't nearly honest or deep enough to suggest the value of socialism.

Most of all, though, there seems to be no one articulating how very much socialism is in most people's interests. There's not a simple way to get a primer course in socialist theory, the way you get with capitalism in a high school history classroom. It's easy to be an undereducated capitalist, because you believe in free choice; how do we make it easy to be an undereducated Marxist, because you believe in free choice?

I am undereducated myself, but this seems to me as if it must be a--perhaps the--central issue. Whatever we have been doing clearly hasn't been working; why do I not see much discussion about how we should be doing this instead?

[Yehuda Stern]

Revolutionary Marxism doesn't try to appeal to the mainstream, which in essence means bourgeois thought. The role of Marxists is to approach the vanguard of the workers, the most politically advanced workers, and win them over to Marxism - not those that still support backward ideas. "Appealing to the mainstream" is a useless electoral concept. The problem is that most left groups do, in fact, do what you're saying: they try to appeal to the mainstream by watering down their ideas. This sometimes works for a while, until the group they've built explodes in their faces.

[Rascolnikova]

This doesn't make any sort of sense to me.

Is it not believed that the working class is bright enough to grasp that which is in their own best interests?

And, please forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is this vanguard supposed to do, if the vast majority so strongly opposes their views that it would cause an explosion, if they were included?


It seems to me that the left has failed so far because it has the far inferior propaganda machine, compared to the right.

[Yehuda Stern]

Is it not believed that the working class is bright enough to grasp that which is in their own best interests?

It has nothing to do with being bright. In times of relative social peace, workers find it hard to break with bourgeois ideology, and therefore it is very hard in such times to recruit workers. Marxists therefore prepare themselves for the future, by recruiting the vanguard and perfecting their theories and tactics.


hat exactly is this vanguard supposed to do, if the vast majority so strongly opposes their views that it would cause an explosion, if they were included?

The vanguard party's task is to propogandize the ideas of Marxism and take part in the struggles of the workers and the oppressed, to sink roots in their movements and to be able in the future to recruit from among them. This of course is much more complex than the way I put it here - the question of tactics is very complex and is also very specific to countries and situations.


It seems to me that the left has failed so far because it has the far inferior propaganda machine, compared to the right.

The left has failed because it seeks to appeal to the lowest common denominator and bypass the harder tasks of building a revolutionary workers party from scratch. Its opportunism leads it to unprincipled political blocs with groups and bourgeois politicians that have nothing to do with Marxism, and this is often mixed with a good dose of sectarianism which prevents it from cooperating with more left-wing groups that criticize it or with groups that are deemed 'untouchable' by the more backwards sections of the movement, such as Muslim groups.

[Rascolnikova]

I think the trouble here is that we have very different concepts of the mainstream.

Maybe the better question is: out of the things that most of the proletariat believes, how does one differentiate between what ideas are bourgeoisie and what ideas are proletariat?

Edit: Actually, scrap that, I think this question is worth it's own thread.

[Robespierre2.0]

Ok, you're looking at things from a bourgeois perspective-
i.e. - 'Come on, Comrades! We need to get just 10% more of the population behind us before we have a mandate to change things!'

Communism is a revolutionary ideology. We aim to transform society through a violent revolutionary upheaval. Also, we believe that the ideas that people carry in their heads- those that influence their actions, are determined by the environment they are born into.

When you are born in a capitalist country, odds are you are going to grow up with a capitalist worldview. The interesting thing about this is that your world-view naturally manipulates information in order to fill up the cracks, as the mind cannot stand cognitive dissonance.
Ergo, if you ascribe to liberal capitalism, when the economy is failing, it is due to the conservatives and their money-grubbing ways.
Vice versa with conservatives- then, the bogeyman responsible for all the troubles in the world is 'big government liberals'.

So anyway, people get stuck in their views and are resistant to change. Then, there is a large section of the population that doesn't give a shit about politics, as long as they have food on the table.

What are we leftists to do?
We need to appeal to the masses- by promising them things they need and following through with our promises.
When 'how am I going to pay for food?' becomes a mainstream issue, then communists are going to have an easier time reaching the 'mainstream', but we do that because it is one of our goals as revolutionaries, not because it is popular.
Constantly reaching out to the mainstream leads to populism, which leads to fascism.

You see, normally the capitalists decide what the 'mainstream' is. However, when they fall out of favor, in the ensuing chaos what will become the new 'mainstream' is formed.
A populist- one who is all about pleasing the mainstream, in this situation, would probably use some 'socialist'-sounding rhetoric, blaming 'big business' for society's ills, as well as a lot of other very 'mainstream'-type things like religion, nationalism, and racism. In actuality, though, it's simply the bourgeois peeling off the top layer in order to save itself from the public. The populist leader ends up cozying up with the petit-bourgeois, who eventually become opulent corporate fat-cats just like the last ones.

What we aim to do is create a society where socialism is the mainstream. We will seize power violently when the time is right. We don't expect the majority of the population to automatically like us. However, as long as you are not a bourgeois parasite, as society starts back up under a socialist framework, you will benefit, and that's how those people who were previously apathetic become committed socialists.

[Rascolnikova]

Can you explain how populism always leads to fascism?

[Robespierre2.0]

Well, first of all, understand the difference between populism and socialism.

Socialism has a definite end goal- communism.

Populism, on the other hand, is usually a person or group of people with the goal with the goal of holding on to power. They do so by pandering to every whim of the masses, regardless of whether it is progressive or reactionary- thus, depending on the ideological makeup of the masses, we get a variety of different flavours - pick one or more from the following - ethnocentricism, nationalism, religious fundamentalism

Anyways, populism typically has the most success in times of crisis for the capitalist system. You see, populists have several advantages over socialists- not only can they fall back on nationalism and religion, their end goal is NOT the abolition of capitalism. Therefore, they typically make a bunch of 'socialist' rhetoric about the haves-and-have-nots- they will promise to get rid of the businessmen (or if you prefer nazi flavor: jewish bankers).
So, they skim off the top layer of the bourgeoisie, and the people are satisfied. Then, because they did not fully abolish capitalism, even if they originally did have some socialist views, those will be tossed out the window and deals will be made with the petit-bourgeois, who the people don't hate yet, and who will end up becoming the next 'big bourgeoisie'.

So there- I wouldn't say populism ALWAYS leads to fascism, but throughout history, the two have been very closely associated with one another.

[Demogorgon]

We use complicate jargon, use words in ways other than their standard definitions, make blood thirsty statements, call anybody who does not instantly agree with us names and create exclusive sects where only "real" revolutionaries get to play. That's how it's done.

[Decolonize The Left]

"Appealing to the masses" can be reduced to 'appealing to individuals.' This, in turn, follows the same process which all ideological changes require - argumentation and experience. What do I mean?

No point in "appealing to the masses." Communism/anarchism cannot be made 'mainstream' without being co-opted in some form or another.

On the other hand, lots of point in 'appealing to the individual.' Communism/anarchism are simple ideologies and theories, rooted in simple value systems which underlie most of the "Western world's" value-system. It is not very difficult to introduce others to leftist ideas, but one's tactics are of up-most importance. Basically:
Observe who you are dealing with.

Is this person already leaning to the left? If so, then a simple explanation of Marxist theory might be enough. If not, then one must discover where their values lie.

Are they a 'liberal?' If so, then appeal to the values of freedom and equality - all liberals hold these values as essential. Demand that they explain where these values are realized in a capitalist economic system. Demand that they explain where these values are realized in a representative democracy (which cannot actually be a democracy). I.e. sow the seeds of doubt between their values and their reality.

Are they a 'conservative?' Attack the notion of government in its entirety stressing the repressive nature of such a system. Then attempt to link the government to the economic system, one can use a classic Marxist argument here to note how the economic system guides and largely determines the political system.
---
We must always remember that our 'duty,' as revolutionary leftists, is to raise class consciousness. This is all. This is done from person to person, or through a medium which calls an individual's attention to their class situation. 'Mainstream' anything does not wish to raise class consciousness, for this diverts the individual's attention from that which is 'mainstream' (race, gender, sexual preference, etc...) to that which is unspoken (class).

- August

[Rascolnikova]

I've been contemplating how to answer this thread, and have finally come to the conclusion that the only way is to start over and ask the question in the local language. I did not initially learn marxism in full terminology, and--besides other value I see in more vernacular speech, I'm not sure I would have learned it if it had been presented in that way--but since apparently that's the only way language is used here, I'll try again.

What do you think is the first step (other than the obvious and somewhat simplified necessity of "class consciousness") in forming the proletariat as a class?


Edit: also, I'm not sure populism is clearly enough defined to merit that kind of criticism. . . still considering the best explanation of my thoughts on this.

[Hit The North]

What do you think is the first step (other than the obvious and somewhat simplified necessity of "class consciousness") in forming the proletariat as a class?

Marx makes the distinction between a class-in-itself with a class-for-itself. The former is based on relations to the means of production, that is, the objective determinant of social classes. The latter refers to class consciousness, that is, the conscious and active realisation between individuals that they share a class interest with others, and an antagonistic relation to other classes.

Because the ruling ideas of the epoch are the ideas of the ruling class, class consciousness amongst subordinate classes is an achievement; achieved at the expense of fidelity to the existing order.

Fortunately, the exploitative and turbulent nature of capitalist relations gives ample opportunity for workers to reappraise and sometimes reject the ruling ideas which keep them in their place.

The first step in forming proletarian class consciousness is when workers combine together in order to confront the power of the bosses. However, this is what we might call trade union consciousness. It reaches the point of waging defensive struggles against the ambition of capital and resolves itself, most often but not always, in a reformist programme. Social democracy or labourism emerges as the political expression of the interests of labour vis a vis the interests of capital, but crucially, remains a struggle contained within the limits of the legal framework of the existing order (Parliamentarianism). Revolutionary class consciousness, on the other hand, is the clear realisation that the interests of labour can only be maintained through the abolition of the existing relations of production (i.e. private accumulation on the basis of private ownership of production), the dissolution of the power of capital and the organisation of labour as the ruling power in society - or the proletariat organised as the ruling class. This side of the revolution, the conscious revolutionaries are in the minority. In the periods of crisis when revolution becomes possible, the ideas of millions of workers change very rapidly. The static, eternal verities of the social order appear to 'dissolve into air'.

Presenting the issue as a series of stages in consciousness is misleading in that individuals and groups do not have to go through stages A and B in order to arrive at C. Nevertheless, we can picture them as stages because each level of consciousness entails a progressive rejection of the prevailing order and a clearer understanding of our objective class interest.