Has anyone else noticed that much of the acceptable progressive...

Has anyone else noticed that much of the acceptable progressive, socialist or radical discourse of the past half a century or so (and by "acceptable" let's say, the ones that gets some modicum of mainstream attention) is, in any of its manifestation, the sort of discourse that preaches cynicism towards active politics and shifts the focus towards passive, symbolic, lifestyle choices?

From the music, to the pundits, to the movies and so on, you rarely see a radical or radical idea that defends the need for organization, who imparts the importance of theoretical knowledge, that explains the value of being active in unions and parties, who tells you that the process is going to be boring and hard, but necessary.

The pundits on the progressive side are always people exalting the progressive role Beyonce or Orange is the New Black play in society, with the implicit message that the consumption of their culture is enough to create change. The sort of movement you hear about are like the hippies in essence, who think we can sensibilize our ways out of oppression and tell you to pursue a different lifestyle as mean of emancipating yourself. The radical you see depicted in movies and songs is not an active organizer, but always a jaded romantic who is obviously too cool to sit down and read endless resolutions on petty local issues, let alone study 19th century philosophy.

For lack of a better term, more and more the idea of being a radical has become "aestheticized", become more about a certain attitude, a certain lifestyle, a certain way to dress or carry yourself, the sort of thing you listen to, your tastes, your sense of humor, etc. It's never about things that get you close to power, only things that help you express your dissatisfaction.

Of course these are isolated things here and there, but together they become codified and form a synthesis, a popular "ideal" of what being a radical is, and that is never a radical in the sense that people before 1960 understood the term.

Yes this a thousand times this. This is why I hate punk rock, it's all directing anger into abstractions instead of anything remotely concrete.

Hip hop used to be this way until the gangster rap era. I know a lot of people remember Tupac as revolutionary and while he did talk about poverty most of his shit was black men are scary bullshit that titlated his white suburbanite fan base. It's all reactionary af, most of the time I see him referenced it's by a white person

*hip hop used to be revolutionary until the gangsta rap era

obligatory

So communism is inflexible.
Not a great selling point there, sparky.

Whyte crackers only bump Pac, Biggie, that honkey Eminem, and since that movie came out; NWA. They are disgusting. White people almost ruined biggie for me.

Welcome to the Spectacle, I'll be your guide.

It's a combination of factors that caused this shift. On the one hand, the aggressive reassertion of class power engendered by the neoliberal turn destroyed a lot of the left-wing power bases in the western world (namely unions, but also political parties by shifting them right or outright disbanding them). There is a pervasive psychology throughout society that says "There is No Alternative".The individualisation of discourse and action has created a sense that collective action is hopeless, and in any case, could be dangerous.

This idea is itself supported by the failure of the Soviet model. Once the only socialist model that most people knew dissolved, any resistance to capital went with it. What's left is resistance in the neoliberal form. Essentialist, individualist, and fundamentally capitalist. And that's being generous, since most of what you're talking about is less resistance at all and more simply capital appropriating the language of the neoliberal "resistance" I just talked about. Literally a simulacrum of a simulacrum. The map has become the territory, nothing beneath remains.

thanks for your valuable contribution

I don't know how to interpret this statement otherwise.
A global revolution is logistically impossible.
Without a global revolution, capitalism wins.
Therefore, capitalism always wins.

Hippies where more revolutionary than most modern idpol centered movements. Ths public perception of them is mostly focused on the late stages of them, but in the beginning there was an alliance with the radical left and the faction calling for total disengagement only became dominant later.

I think that the modern left just cant cope with the total win of capitalism. Leftism got redefined as liberalism and thus the left could hitch a ride with capitalism for a while to atleast get some victories for oppressed people.

This is breaking down now, people are waking up to the fact that the right has won a total victory and that the left has lost. Just that the right doesnt like what they have won and is in confusion too.

Great post, OP. I hope the replies to come are just as thought-provoking.

I definitely agree. This era sees a lot of distrust in not only our governments but in the media as well. The average woman or man that subscribes to this individualist 2-bit philosophy of living a passive life and "just be yourself lol" is too lazy to study. Our demand for quick information, born out of our vast technological development and its subsequent integration in our lives, has intellectually castrated most people.
The misrepresented left could fill their ideological void, as it did for me, but we are too naive if we think we can change our political circumstances ourselves. I only hope that the newfound distrust of current statecraft will somehow translate into a new revolutionary movement. It could easily as well devolve into reactionary, racist, mind-numbing bullshit; which it almost have here in Europe. But I do think that Sander's influence in a part of the american public can pave the way for a creation of future revolutionaries born into a decadent late-stage capitalist society.
We have all the resources needed for change, we just don't have enough comrades.

tru

nothing cringier than white kids thinking they are hip and edgy by listening to dadrap

you could always try reading the op instead of getting hung up on the single panel of a cropped page with the least relevance to the topic. you could also try not being an autistic faggot but i'm not holding out much hope for either tbh. if you want yet another discussion on GOMMUNISM DUNT WORK, feel free to start a new thread.

What do you mean by "logistically"? As I understand it, individual revolutionary (probably peaceful) movements in predominantly western countries would contact each other and establish a global network.

Well it says head-to-head, so I don't think it means that the transition to socialism/communism (depending on your brand of red flag) needs to happen everywhere at once, but that it needs to reach a critical mass. Now people thought this was going to be 1917-1919, since at points France, Russia and Germany were all on the verge of going under, but as the US entered the war stopped the French mutinies and Germany was ended by the freikorps. So yeah, the revolution (be it via ballot box, barricade or some other force) needs to reach a critical mass at a similar (not specifically the same) time. In days of old, this was possible since the part of the world ripe of proletarian emancipation were so narrow they could all fall together. Due to the rapid development of the post war world this was undone since capitalism is now prevalent in all the non-command economies of the world.

However, the great irony is that globalism now interconnects our world so much that if one domino of international capital were to fall: it could bring the entire house of cards down. One such point of failure is China: if some smaller mini baking crisis were to occur, it could bring in Chinese debt and the moment that happens international finance would come down. As such, material conditions for worker emancipation would exist simultaneously in many regions of the world. I guess this is an example of the entire "they shall sell us the rope" thing.

Tbh this is starting to happen: a lot of cross sharing between the Sanders, Corbyn and Melenchon campaigns. I think we could see a new network of leftist activists form by 2020 about securing revolution through the ballot box.

fuck off socdem

Ah, now I understand why anarchists are called "anarkiddies".

Yeah no armed revolution is not happening in the west. A mixture of dual state action and parliamentarianism is required. However outside western liberal democracies, it is possible to engage in more radical action.

Yes thatswhy we have so many anarchist insurgencies in europe.