How would we convert Liberals?

How would we convert Liberals?

No. Stop. These schmucks comprise over fifty percent of the voting population here in the States; likely more in Yurop, but I'm a 'Merican myself.

Even if we radicalized rightists who're disenfranchised with the two-party system, all that's gonna do is push the Democrats (and their voterbase) into full-blown neoliberalism. And whenever I hint at any sort of (actual) leftist ideas, all my lib acquaintances do is swiftly close the chat and forget they even saw anything. Sadly this is better than my Republican/lolbert friends, who just spout meme shit like muh 600 gorillion or muh taxation is theft.

I just don't know what to do.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/uGld3FbDY6s?t=16m44s
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

We get rid of the tankies and make anarchism seen as the only alternative to the increasingly authoritarian neoliberals.

kek

Target disaffected berniecrats they ars the most open to it. Ignore hillarycucks, they believe that everything is working fine and that electing a democrat will fix whatever problems there are. Go slowly, papa wolff or chomsky is a nice slow start. If you're looking for classic texts go Kroptokin, he's great for muh human naytur and is written to be easily understandable. Avoid Zizek because outsode videos he's somewhat difficult to understand and Marx because they may try to read capital first off which is too much for a beginer.

They have been fully neoliberal for over twenty years.

I hate to break it to you, but most people in your country are a lost cause. They basically live in their own little reality bubble and would probably start killing themselves en masse if a self styled socialist party somehow came to power. They don't even have any real political values, just cultural stereotypes based on gut feelings; even supposed American "socialists" are liberals that want more welfare, or are trying to rebrand postmodern social justice as "anti-imperialism".

how are you going to convert flyover country without tankiedom, though?

Target people who absolutely hate their job or boss, people who are too tired to do anything outside of going to their dead-ender and slaving hours of their life away for people they can't stand. These people are usually apolitical and live in big cities because their life revolves around work. A way out of their rat-race might be just what they need. These should be who we should primarily target.

On to your actual question, the liberals' biggest issue is their devotion to Capitalism and the thing they care about most is equality. Show that no matter how many female CEOs are in office, no matter how many black people are in the White House, inequality will still exist and that this is the fault of Capitalism. Assure them that their goals are worth fighting for, but they are fighting the symptoms and not the disease itself.

rest of the post is ok but this is retarded

Introduce them to leftist folk singers? I got nothing.

This. People often give up when they encounter something too complicated for them. Marx's Capital is essential book, but it is way to complex for a beginner. Try to show them something easy to read, even wikipedia articles are good starters. Also it would be wise to recommend some basic economic books, so they get a grip on some essential principles,

I'm tepidly coming over to the idea that a good route would unironicaly be to convert them into SocDems, building on the sceptical approach to neat models of capitalism functioning correctly until it's understood just what a clusterfucking nightmare it really is. Liberalism is sugar pills, Social Democracy is mixing alcohol and painkillers, Socialism is an operation to cure the problem with a long waiting list.

Ironically from my own position this is something I'm more than a little uncomfortable with because I'm quite comfy being in the minority and I know that a large influx of Liberal-SocDems is more likely to just drown the words "social democrat" in tedious idpol and stupid liberalism. (Much as the more popular but simplistic "Socialist" has been deluged with these people, albeit holding out due to a stronger, prouder history and a larger group of English speakers with that identity.)

It's impossible. I'm friends with a lot of them.

It's all

Fucking awful.

start bringing up visceral things that capitalism and information society do that they strongly dislike

with women the easiest thing is bringing up sex-robots and tindr and feeling like they can never have a family because of work. They are extremely receptive to these ideas. STEM faggots are however a whole different nut to crack and should probably be avoided as they are more likely to think that technocratic meritocratic neo-liberalism will solve all problems and will criticize you for not writing code for dick pic apps like they do and not working for a start-up and being "idealist"

You can convert liberals but you absolutely cannot attack their goodies and addictions and happy-time activities. So if someone really likes eating out and they also like drinking, maybe don't rag on that part of consumerism unless they express unhappiness about it. Always target things people don't like already, this is what the Bolsheviks and NSDAP did and it worked beautifully.

i will never believe people say this to their peers irl. maybe on fedbook.

Obviously I'm exaggerating. It's more like 'cool look Ben & Jerry's refuses to serve two scoops of the same type of ice cream until gay marriage is legal'. 'Wow I wish more companies did stuff like that'. 'blahblahblah muh republicans'.

Idealism, idealism everywhere.

If by liberals you mean the conventional western idea of liberal as opposed to anybody who buys into western society… you are going to have a hard time. It can be done, but liberals are basically the perfect sheep. They believe in the system more than any other political group, largely out of fear/insecurity and a desire to be on the winning side. That's why they'll turn fascist in a heartbeat. Even if we won them over, for the time prior to a successful revolution they would dilute the socialist movement because they'd bring all their ideological baggage with them, and never fully be on our side. You'd be playing with fire doing this.

It's a lot easier to target people who are already disenfranchised with the system. Rightists, sure, but not just them. The "apolitical" people who just check out of the political circus outnumber either liberals or conservatives. And most of these people are that way because they've seen the system dick people over or have had it happen to them. They're simply not going to backstab us and switch over to supporting neoliberalism all of a sudden the way that some unknown percentage of liberals will when a revolution happens. With the "apolitical" people, you don't get so much baggage because they're off the political hype train. With the rightists they tend to be the type who will believe whatever you put in front of them or the deeply religious sort who will turn into the other type when they leave their religion (since their entire worldview has been undermined and they're desperately looking for a rock to cling to).

false dichotomy. Read towards a new socialism

You have to make them understand that the time for talk and half measures is over

Nobody actually thinks those are the only two options.

democracy isn't a good option either. Just read the damn book. We need our own form of commission.

did you miss the flag

Appeal to them on a personal level and focus on the flaws within capitalism rather then your vision for how society should be.

Strategies I've had success with:

1. Converting apolitical people by explaining that monied interests are why politics seems so hopeless and nothing can ever get done. Many apolitical people are so because they see the system as hopelessly corrupted and impossible to change explain that this results from the disproportionate influence of the rich. "Is true democracy possible when there are ulra-rich people who inevitably acquire an unequal amount of influence?"

2. Despook people on private property by beginning by talking about natural resources. "Do you really think its fair that our countries oil, minerals etc. are used to make corporations(and foreigners) rich?" "Does it really make sense that an individual can extract from a mine because they paid off a corrupt government to own it?"

3.Talk to artsy people about how much art is undervalued and cheapened in capitalist society. "Do you really think profitability is how we should be deciding which art is worthwhile." It is insane how effective this is most artists are already latently leftist and many are poor. If you tell them that artists hard life in modern day society comes from capitalism they will become very rabid. Many of my artsy friends have become more extreme then I am and "jokingly" talk about killing cops now.

4. If you are younger talk about how our generation has no future link this to the neoliberal trend in policy. "Our parents seemed like they had it a lot easier, what changes in govt. policies, and income distribution could have caused this."

5. Don't be afraid to convert people to socdem with the example of Nordics. From their take them further left by explain how reforms are inevitably undermined as long as the rich maintain the influence their property gives them.

6. Many you people and especially women, care a lot about the environment. Explain how capitalism will inevitably exacerbate this problem . (read bookchin on this if you don't understand why)

7. Convert libertarians to mutualism.

But guys I thought the plan was to slowly indoctrinate the masses through CNN and Gender Studies classes and loosely relating idpolitics to Marx!

This is severely undervalued. I managed to do so many times. The thing is, most of young AnCaps are just LARPers and are actually poorfags who at most have a STEM degree; /liberty/ completely confirms this.

Once they understand that an ancap/libertarian society would quickly devolve into neo-Feudalism, and they would be crushed by the elites who would take away any chances for then to own any property, they get despooked pretty fast.

Focus on how fat and lazy porkies discredit meritocracy and steal the full value of your labor.

A NEW SOCIALISM

Ahh, now this is an idea I hadn't considered. I think the problem is most people in my age group (very early twenties) are at that odd stage of their life where they're fresh outta college and haven't actually run into a terrible boss/manager they can't walk away from.

I've been dropping some oblique gripes at the charity I work at though; the youngest is in her late twenties, so they're a lot more receptive to me saying "sadly you don't get paid unless you make someone else money."

That's actually a sound analogy. And a good idea, by my mark. As a SocDem who transitioned to Socialism myself, I'll definitely look into it.

Man, I think you're seriously overestimating how much people care about sex robots and traditional relationship. Tinder is for hookups, simple as that. And sex robots? Despite what tumblr might have you believe, most people (guys especially) would find these only slightly less repulsive than sex dolls.

Am STEMfag. Can confirm: The vast majority of us are either astonishingly apolitical or some flavor of rightist. Luckily the apolitical ones tend to vote Democrat, so there's still a chance if we can convert regular libs.

Good to know! But I wouldn't worry about that. If it's really a people's revolution (or at least a pragmatic one), I doubt they're gonna take away peoples' recreation.

This is true.

Ahh, now this raises a valid point: The actual majority of people in the US (if voter turnout is anything to go by) are entirely apolitical. Despite the systematic barriers of the two-party paradigm, I'd reckon there's still fertile grounds for a third-party candidate in the US.

Bernie woulda won.

Absolutely masterful post. Capped for future reference.

Lolberts are fringe, but literally nobody I've met IRL or online has heard of Mutualism. I'll consider it if we need the lolberts on our side though.

As much as we make fun of Holla Forumsacks and their ilk, this is actually an exceedingly fringe view in the US. Most "Nazis" you see online are really just LARPing attention whores who drank the Kool-Aid and rode the latest reactionary movement.

I should know, I was part of GamerGate.

Thanks for all the help, friends.

Wow, hm, how could socialism ever appeal to technocrats? We must put our finest minds to work on this issue.

STEM faggot here. All these implications and nothing to back them up.
I believe in the socialization of software (Stallman) and the cybernetic enhancement of socialism (Cockshott)

Hi, former liberal here. I think many liberals believe, even a bit unconsciously, that the true fate or the"final end of history" for us humans will be a truly egalitarian and free society, i.e. world communism, without them really knowing that it is communism that they truly hope for in humanity. For example, just look at how in the Communism vs Capitalism debate the other day with Muke and friends, the cappie side admitted in the end that socialism is inevitable. I am certain that more liberal think this way.
Also, to convert liberals, try to point out how socialism/communism really is the only hope for the old core ideals of liberalism. That is to say: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.
Zizek says it best here: youtu.be/uGld3FbDY6s?t=16m44s

It's not that socialism is inevitable, it's that communism becomes inevitable as we approach post-scarcity.
Socialism is just away of assuring a smooth, nonviolent transition to Communism as that happens.

Just an FYI socialism is the same as communism fam

why would you want to ?

these are the people that cheered when gentrification took place in New York and every other major city

liberals are not your friends and will never be your friends

Nearly every human being is just a friend waiting to be made.

it's not. Socialism was specifically defined by Marx as the stage between Capitalism and Communism. It goes Tribalism > Feudalism > Capitalism > Socialism > Communism. They are two distinct stages.
Saying "Socialism = Communism" is about as justifiable as saying "Feudalism = Capitalism"

wrong

how else do you want me to say it?
Socialism is a state that's ruled by the proletariat, Communism is a classless society. The former is a prerequisite for the latter.

No. Marx didnt say it, he didnt distinguish the terms. Lenin did and it has become pretty much adopted as standard terminology among all leftist movements.

That not socialism thats the Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Marx use Socialism and Communism to refer to basically the same thing

Here in the states there is a certain kind of left leaning liberal, progressive bernie bro that is already socialist without knowing it and I think the conversion process is easy for them you just set their terms straight and they're done.

I know a lot of people on this site are young and they think this is the darkest time for the left, but let me tell you that the 90's were absolutely dreadful and calling yourself a "liberal" let alone a socialist was seen as too radical in America. Which is why a lot of Dem's and news pundits resisted the charge of this term like it was cancer. So a lot of older people think being a "liberal" is actually the be all end all of radicalism and they end up getting lumped into an ideology they don't necessarily believe in.

I think the best advice is to not sperg out the minute someone calls themselves a liberal in America at least, because that could mean one of a thousand different things, but most of the time it is more good news than bad in my experience as they're usually just confused people that are actually far more left leaning than they know.

This is something that always fills me with a little hope for the future. Despite how miserable things are now - and despite the fact we're materially worse off - We're nowhere near at the nadir that was the "end of history" style politics in the 90s and 2000s. We're living in what is hopefully the collapse of the end of history.

In the 2000s especially it was perfectly possible to believe that it was going to be Blairism forever, that there was no alternative. Now that seems much less certain. Even if we fail and neoliberalism really is permanent, they didn't get the free ride they thought they were going to get. That alone is reason to be hopeful. For the fight.

...

I just had this great idea - why not instead of trying to convert them we just had them defend what they believe?

Ask them what their ideology is. They wont be able to answer well. Then just have them try and back any of their statements.

Except things are way worse than the 2000s. There used to be continuous anti war protests, right wing politics were thoroughly rejected by the youth, and labor unions were stronger.

You can't convert liberals. trying to win them over will most likely result in liberalism corrupting your movement.

The 2000s were complete ass for the left. There were anti-war protests all the time because they were starting a series of gigantic fuck all wars which they succeeded in doing. They completely failed in their objective and didn't even connect to any other working class struggles. Left groups were all tiny compared to what they are now and no far left candidates had any momentum in the US or any European country. Unions were on the deep decline and subordinated entirely to the political parties (this is still true but no different) The only semi decent thing that happened was the big mexican strike in 2006 but the rest of the working class barely even noticed.

These days or before Marx. Socialism existed before Marx coopted the term to cover his own concepts. You still have retards here claiming mutualism isn't socialism when Proudhon used the term well before Marx.

There used to be continuous wars.
In the US, and only in favour of useless liberals.
This sounds like a US exclusive thing. Unions in the UK (and I believe Australia, for example) have been corpses since the 80s.

There's continuous wars now. And way bigger ones.

Which is still better than the alt right trend.

Kind of making my point here.

TO ELL WID DEMOGRACY READ BORIDIGA

Hardly. Certainly in terms of Western commitment, we haven't had anything on the scale of Iraq. Call me when we've invaded Iran.
Only in the sense of being easier to ignore. Life would still be shit if Gore or Kerry had won.
What, that unions are just as dead now as they were 10 years ago except in the US and France?

Life in the US is always shit and France is a severe outlier.

Apolitical people are typically unmotivated and apathetic.

Bernie tried that. Denmark rebuked him. The Nordic countries are no longer a decent example. Record numbers of Swedes are fleeing Sweden - biggest emigration wave since like the mid 1800's.

Bottom line is there's no oxygen left for communism (At least in the US). The left offers empty talk about class warfare and anti-corporatism has become popular among libertarians and paleoconservatives.

In other words, alienated. A system that fixes this would give them a reason to be involved in politics.

If most people don't realize Sweden had an encounter with Finance Minister Kjell-Olof Feldt then it didn't happen, at least until it becomes necessary to point out that it did happen but didn't have to happen and we can do better this time. (But you should hate capitalism for making it happen anyway.)

It's a risky strategy obviously but you can cultivate people in the right direction.

Come to think of it, I've thought about appealing to more actually reactionary minded people, or at least appealing them away from capitalism anyways, on the basis that the capitalist system itself will sell out their social values for a corn chip. With products and advertisements like pic related or Coca Cola's increased focus on Hispanic appeal, a point could be made about them being duped by the system.

You need technology, first.
Without technology to produce near-unlimited wealth, people will still want without working.
The inevitable conclusion to your version of communism is Stalinism/Maoism, where some people are 'more equal than others'.
A better infrastructure is first needed.

In Star Trek, they just point at the ground and say, "I want a plane. I want a grand piano. I want a gaudy all-gold table with caviar and truffle-glazed pheasant on it" and they get it.
That's why their system works.

If you want to get the fundies you can explain how capitalism destroys culture through commodification, and how socialism would involve building up tight-knit communities that capitalism split into nuclear families to sell more housing units.

If you want to get the lolberts you can explain how capitalism is a hierarchy and unfree and turn them onto "freed markets" and mutualism.

Their lack of caring gave them no reason to be interested. Whatever you say will wash off them like water down a raincoat eventually.

Nordic countries used to be less planned economy and it's getting worse as they plan it more though. Can't really pin capitalism on that either. Then there's the rampant identity politics, crime, and shaming that you can't blame socialism on but at the same time doesn't make "Look at Sweden" sound too appealing.

Marx called religion the opiate of the people and criticized the traditional family. Western Neo-Marxists criticized religion and the traditional family too. Tankies like Stalin saw family and religion as a threat and enacted harsh policies to control their power. Paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians see the state as being a surrogate parent thus ultimately harming the family and being the natural enemy of families.

You're better off working to fight crony capitalism with them and agreeing to disagree on the rest.

Also I'd like to add:

Traditional families and religious communities offer financial and social support. The state and any ruling party offer those two. So they're basically seen as natural competitors by many on both sides.

Not sure if it is ironic or not, but make sure to stay away from any anglo book on socialism, specially if their name is Paul Cockshot.

Yeah but at least there was protests, the only protests that happened in America in the 90's was the battle for Seattle and their treatment by the government and media was worse than it was for Occupy Wall Street. The early 2000's were more like a prelude to now, people wanted change and they knew clintonism wasn't enough. The problem was they bought into Obama and didn't keep up the heat that developed under Bush. The second half of the 80's and all of the 90's were completely dreadful by comparison. You really cant understand unless you lived it but the feeling on the left was below even defeatism, it was just unilateral surrender.