What should I be doing?

[Rafiq]

Please note that I'm not here to convince users to do anything. It's just that this is a common question I face, so for those who genuinely understand that they are lost, I've made a brief outline of some of the things the Left ought to be doing today:

https://jrachblog.wordpress.com/2016...ld-i-be-doing/

A common question asked among engaged radical intellectuals, is what they should be doing in practical terms, in the face of a deep recognition of the imminent catastrophe.

Though there is no easy answer to this, I should hope to provide a general outline of what Leftists can and ought to do in practical terms right now.

Recognize the necessity of a reset button

Whatever affiliation you might have with socialist organizations, recognize that they are doing something fundamentally wrong. There is no excuse for our inability to disseminate our ideas among ordinary people - the level of discontent with the existing order is quite clearly measurable in terms of the explosive rise in reaction, both in Europe and the United States.

Something is fundamentally wrong with the way the overwhelming majority of Socialist organizations are not only dealing with the problem, but approaching it in the first place. Of course, many of these organizations can be a useful space for reaching out to individuals who recognize that what they are doing is leading them nowhere - this varies depending on how sectarian the organization is.

Stay true to the traditions of the radical Left

That we need a reset button does not mean we ought to throw out the lessons we ought to learn, lessons which are rich in content in our tradition. To hit the reset button also means to re-read those who preceded us, but with an understanding of the concrete differences in context they faced, compared to us.

Every revolutionary movement, that was able to become a movement, began at the onset with intellectualizing. University circles would go on to form the basis of real revolutionary movements in history. The context of the Young Hegelians was absolutely pivotal for Marx and Engels to move beyond them.

This is because there is nothing spontaneous or 'organic' about Socialism. The reactionary socialism of the 19th century, has no basis of existence - already in European Neo-Fascism, and even - say - American populist libertarianism, an 'organic' means that which the discontent of the masses can be channeled exists. And this phenomena is exploding in popularity. 'Organic politics' is nothing more than uncritical enslavement to ruling discourse.

Yet self-proclaimed radicals today are a lazy bunch. They want to lead the revolution with no one to lead. They want to simply do things for the sake of doing them, so as to validate their quasi-consumerist political identity and call it a day. If you are serious about being a socialist, you must do things in the spirit of actually getting concrete things done. And before you can get concrete things done, you need to think.

Take a step back and think

There are few radicals in the world today, that actually know what they're doing. You're in no position to be so eager to agitate for ideas you likely have a flimsy conception of in the first place.

At the onset, therefore, you need a deeply thorough understanding of what it means to be a Socialist in our epoch, in practical terms. You need a concrete understanding of what you are opposing and why. Socialism is more than an 'identity', it must be a real, relevant position in the controversies as they present themselves concretely.

Intellectuals of today, are a lazy specimen. If you are serious about your ideas, you have a responsibility to critically asses, theoretically, the basis of your ideas to the very end. Take nothing for granted. A ruthless criticism of all things must be boundless.

Form intellectual spaces

If it is possible, find people who are politically like-minded, insofar as they have similar inclinations as you, and find a space wherein you can - boundlessly - discuss, and debate our present predicament as socialists. Such individuals should not be too difficult to find.

Ruthless criticism means so long as it is recognized that all have the same practical inclination (As radical leftists), the space and platform for impassioned debate, disagreement and intellectual controversy must be tolerated. Only insofar as everyone has their heart in the right place - so at the same time, there can be no room for reactionaries or enemy-ideologues. In such intellectual spaces, I would even advise against tolerating soft-left liberals. These spaces must be reserved for those willing to engage in ruthless criticism.

If one is able to muster up even just three like minded individuals who are willing to work together in forming a concrete assessment of our present predicament, which may take the form of assigning regular readings to discuss - that is a greater achievement then all the pamphlet-pushing or juvenile flag waving combined.

If you aren't willing to make time to do this, then you probably aren't serious about your ideas - and you should stop identifying with them. It's quite that simple.

You're in no position to knit-pick

Whether it is in your city, or your university campus, get involved with the political controversies as they exist, not as you would like them to exist. Revolutionary politics and struggle doesn't come from nowhere, it must be built from taking a side in concrete antagonisms. That is not to say that there is no room for criticism for the ways in which organizations are conducting themselves at this level - on the contrary, criticism is precisely what is necessary. But it must be done in the spirit of taking a side (with them).

There is a place for the Left in every single political controversy. For example, the present debacle regarding ''free speech' (i.e. the fight for eroding institutional political standards) vs. political correctness' on university grounds is something that must be approached (and I do not need to mention which side the Left ought to take). Get involved, and immersed with every phenomena that can be politically elaborated - that includes the momentum surrounding Bernie Sanders, it includes Black Lives Matter.

Politics in the context of Polis

The cliche of globalization is to think globally and act locally. It is true - political struggle in the 21st century is absolutely within the context of the cities. Before you decide to write some over-reaching and knowingly impossible manifesto for what ought to be done, strike at contradictions that can be accentuated as they manifest at the level of your nearest city.

What we have learned from the past is that real political networks begin at the onset of recognizing the success of political struggle within cities. For every Ferguson, there is a Baltimore. Both the experience of Occupy as well as Black Lives Matters demonstrates that over-reaching issues that are politically relevant on a nation wide scale, occur at the level of cities.

Understand your mission.

A socialist does not introduce antagonisms, a socialist accentuates antagonisms and leads them to their highest conclusion. A socialist must inspire faith that our present predicament is not an inevitability. All the discontented masses need is faith - faith that the source of their ills does not have to exist, faith in their own collective power. Your task is not to convince the masses to be discontented, but to allow them to articulate their already existing discontent in a scientific manner.

That means recognizing that ordinary working people today, are predisposed to reaction and apathy out of hopelessness and nothing more. They flock to darkness and filth only because it is the loudest and most apparently hostile to those in power.

To be a socialist is not to convince others that your blueprint of a future society would be better, but to fight mercilessly against the superstitions that tell them it couldn't exist. Socialism is faith in ones own capacity to - in practical terms - be socially conscious of their real basis of life and nothing more.

Your mission as a socialist is ultimately to disseminate ideas otherwise reserved for intellectuals to ordinary people who don't have time to intellectualize. As an intellectual, you do have the time. And yes, that does entail sacrifice of time otherwise spent for leisure and fun. Time is already up - what we are up against today is not a joke, the threats we face are not simply threats to the prospect of socialism, but even to bourgeois democracy.

Socialists must be at the forefront of the struggle to repel the darkness, or we will all be consumed by it.

[Ele'ill]

So Rafiq, are you saying you have made the pilgrimage from lost to found because there seems to be a lot of ambitious suggestions and because lines like "Whether it is in your city, or your university campus, get involved with the political controversies as they exist, not as you would like them to exist." doesn't mesh well with "To be a socialist is not to convince others that your blueprint of a future society would be better, but to fight mercilessly against the superstitions that tell them it couldn't exist." I assume the superstitions you're mentioning here are the behavior or program of the existing institutions and organizations you are advocating not being picky about.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I haven't found any revolutionary leftist in my life :/ Not that I'm a people's person. But even in forums, it's hard to come by.

[oneday]

For example, the present debacle regarding ''free speech' (i.e. the fight for eroding institutional political standards) vs. political correctness' on university grounds is something that must be approached (and I do not need to mention which side the Left ought to take).

Can you elaborate on this issue. I haven't been on university grounds in a long time so maybe a brief synopsis of the typical situation would help. I'm not sure what is meant by "free speech" vs "political correctness" in this context and why we should be on the side of "free speech".

[Rafiq]

So Rafiq, are you saying you have made the pilgrimage from lost to found because there seems to be a lot of ambitious suggestions and because lines like "Whether it is in your city, or your university campus, get involved with the political controversies as they exist, not as you would like them to exist." doesn't mesh well with "To be a socialist is not to convince others that your blueprint of a future society would be better, but to fight mercilessly against the superstitions that tell them it couldn't exist." I assume the superstitions you're mentioning here are the behavior or program of the existing institutions and organizations you are advocating not being picky about.

No, I am saying that superstitions disallow people from fighting, even in the context of BLM or the Bernie Sanders momentum.

Can you elaborate on this issue. I haven't been on university grounds in a long time so maybe a brief synopsis of the typical situation would help. I'm not sure what is meant by "free speech" vs "political correctness" and why we should be on the side of "free speech".

I need to edit my post if that's what was insinuated. Damn.

My point was that we need to be on the side of so-called 'political correctness' against the degenerates who want to degrade political standards in the name of 'free speech'.

[Rafiq]

Actually yeah I can see how it could be insinuated to mean 'fighting against the system' or whatever. What I meant was liberal-democratic standards that should be defended against reaction.

I edited it though.

[Ele'ill]

No, I am saying that superstitions disallow people from fighting, even in the context of BLM or the Bernie Sanders momentum.

But isn't that "superstition" a major part of the praxis these orgs. and institutions rely on thus influenced by or actually the political controversies you are suggesting we take as-is, instead of as-we-would-want?

[oneday]

My point was that we need to be on the side of so-called 'political correctness' against the degenerates who want to degrade political standards in the name of 'free speech'.

Can you give me of an example of this on university grounds?

[Rafiq]

But isn't that "superstition" a major part of the praxis these orgs. and institutions rely on thus influenced by or actually the political controversies you are suggesting we take as-is, instead of as-we-would-want?

Taking as is, is one thing leads to another. When one thing leads to another, that is the time where confidence makes or breaks the imperative to keep fighting

[Rafiq]

Can you give me of an example of this on university grounds?

Like inviting a reactionary individual to speak not being tolerated by 'SJW's, like zero tolerance policies on campus racism, the existence of safe spaces, etc.

There is much to be criticized, but it is quite clear which side we are on.

[Ele'ill]

Taking as is, is one thing leads to another. When one thing leads to another, that is the time where confidence makes or breaks the imperative to keep fighting

i've had a couple drinks and stuff but i am unconvinced that those drinks and stuff are making me not understand that

[oneday]

If one is able to muster up even just three like minded individuals who are willing to work together in forming a concrete assessment of our present predicament, which may take the form of assigning regular readings to discuss - that is a greater achievement then all the pamphlet-pushing or juvenile flag waving combined.

Do you think you could put together a short-ish reading list of books and whatever to understand the world today and what to do. I don't have a whole lot of time to read many tomes, so it would be good to have a curated list of molidie oldies and new stuff that are of critical importance.

[upgrayedd]

I haven't found any revolutionary leftist in my life :/ Not that I'm a people's person. But even in forums, it's hard to come by.

Even in Portugal? In my area, notoriously conservative, I run across leftists on a regular basis

[Alet]

As I've assumed that you want the message to be wide-spread, I've already taken the liberty of translating it into German and sharing it with others - this is really a great text. Considering your stance on political correctness, the passage about "free spech" vs "PC" did need the clarification, though.

strike at contradictions that can be accentuated as they manifest at the level of your nearest city.

What would be examples for such contradictions? Although I more or less get what you mean, I'm not sure which concrete tasks we ought to fulfill.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Even in Portugal? In my area, notoriously conservative, I run across leftists on a regular basis

I went to a catholic school, and didn't go to university afterwards.
So yeah, outside my family I don't recall knowing any communist, at least literally my whole family is left wing, some more than others.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I went to a catholic school, and didn't go to university afterwards.
So yeah, outside my family I don't recall knowing any communist, at least literally my whole family is left wing, some more than others.

There's a quote from Bill Haywood, "I've never read Marx's Capital, but I've got the marks of capital all over my body". The workers around you might not have intimate knowledge of the Soviet Union, they might not have a deep understanding of Marxist economics or philosophy, but they're going to have grievances with their bosses, be annoyed by bills they have to pay and be baffled by the nonsense of the politicians - particularly in this era of austerity. Marxists don't create the conditions for revolution, capitalism does that all for us. If you engage with people around you about their everyday struggles, you can draw them further towards revolutionary conclusions. They might not call themselves 'communists' but workers everywhere are faced with the questions that only communism can answer.

[Rafiq]

Appreciate your help, Alet.

Considering your stance on political correctness, the passage about "free spech" vs "PC" did need the clarification, though.

The edited version of the sentence is on the blog.

What would be examples for such contradictions? Although I more or less get what you mean, I'm not sure which concrete tasks we ought to fulfill.

This is what needs to be discussed by like-minded individuals in your city because in every city across different countries it will vary. The presupposition is that the contradictions do exist - there is a social antagonism at the level of controversy in your city, and that this must be assessed concretely.

Examples in the United States include the fight for the fifteen dollar wage, the rise of precarious labor being solidified at the level of local laws, and the list goes on. Simply concrete problems that ordinary people are facing in your local city. Even things like - for example - level of funding allotted for your commons, local parks, community services, and so on. Such struggles seem rather mundane, but Communism is not about adventure.

This includes - as I would imagine for Europe - not only anti-austerity measures but also issues that pertain to the immigration crisis. The Left must defend the migrants while at the same time do so in such a way that relates to the conditions of life of the native working class. That does not mean appeasing their ignorance - just that for example, mobilizing immigrant communities is something that must be joined by the efforts of the progressive immigrant intelligentsia. So talking about how a dual struggle can be encouraged - fighting reaction in both the native and immigrant communities, mobilizing different sections of the broad masses, and so on, is what must be discussed very thoroughly and intricately.

If you are living in Europe, there is a lot of work to be done. For example, there is a great political struggle to be fought - in fact a democratic political struggle for the democratisation of the EU and the eventual establishment of a European political union. The American situation is much trickier - becasue politics here are rather erratic.

[Rafiq]

The bottom line is that we are facing a great threat today from all directions. We are clearly doing something wrong.

[Remus Bleys]

The bottom line is that we are facing a great threat today from all directions. We are clearly doing something wrong.

Thats only part of it. One needs to step back and look at the bigger picture. It doesn't matter what the radical left does, there are many places where there is simply nothing that one can do, not because of a threat, but because of an age old victory against communism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Excellent thread.

Something is fundamentally wrong with the way the overwhelming majority of Socialist organizations are not only dealing with the problem, but approaching it in the first place. Of course, many of these organizations can be a useful space for reaching out to individuals who recognize that what they are doing is leading them nowhere - this varies depending on how sectarian the organization is.

Bingo. Or in yet more forceful terms, the problem might be a pseudo-problem in fact, one that cannot be solved but merely dissolved through clear thinking.
It is true that existing organization might be convenient vehicles for "reaching out" and keeping contact with communists which by itself isn't something to shun. That's what we can do. And in relation to what I said above, we can try to think clearly about the present situation, kinds of actions and possible venues for it so we dont't get stuck in mindlessly mimicking the past.

On the other hand, the whole framework of disseminating ideas needs to be appraised from a historical perspective; as I said in the thread on Keynes, for the past 60 years all of the "consciousness models", ideas about radical intellectuals fostering significant change in the activity of the working class, failed. There are significant differences here, but the model is what binds together the likes of the Anarchist Federation in the UK and formations like Left Unity (first thing that came to mind, the example is arbitrary). In these circumstances, it should come naturally to question the deep structure itself, those entrenched and operational views inherited from particular traditions, but not many people seem interested in doing that.

A socialist does not introduce antagonisms, a socialist accentuates antagonisms and leads them to their highest conclusion. A socialist must inspire faith that our present predicament is not an inevitability. All the discontented masses need is faith - faith that the source of their ills does not have to exist, faith in their own collective power. Your task is not to convince the masses to be discontented, but to allow them to articulate their already existing discontent in a scientific manner.

I don't think it's that simple.

"Faith", the clear recognition of our ability to act collectively and the impetus to action coming from it, I don't think it can ever be fostered primarily through political communication and dissemination of propaganda. It's something different it seems from recognizing a) the sources of the crap we're in and b) recognizing that these aren't inevitable features of a universal human condition. The latter I think can be achieved without any of the former. What is crucial here isn't articulation of discontent, but concrete activity (although all such activity incorporates by necessity articulation of some kind) and what it can do.