Maybe we oughta sit and chat about what it means to be a leftist

Just bitching -- about what a disappointing sell-out everybody else is -- doesn't get you squat

What works is: having concrete political objectives and actually organizing people to try to win those objectives

The concrete political objectives need to be both long-term and short-term; they need to be analyzed critically to make sure they aren't counter-productive in unexpected ways; and the short-term goals should advance the long-term goals

The Lone Ranger and his silver bullets are television mythology. You aren't the frickin Lone Ranger, and there are no silver bullets. Organizing people means really constructing organizations devoted to concrete political objectives: it means working with people that you don't always agree with, to obtain results you all do want

Some people are just our enemies. But most people are not simply enemies. Sometimes people are against us in one endeavor and really in our corner on another. Some people who strongly disagree with us about everything can still be damn fine people. Sometimes our "friends" can do as much damage to us as our enemies. Live and learn

Win or lose, the basic rules are still the same: we have to organize to obtain our concrete political objectives. The fights are hard, even if we are winning, and they're even harder if we're losing. Our opponents are always organized: they pay armies of people who work 24/7 to discourage us and confuse us and outflank us. If we aren't organized, we simply get flattened by their steam-rollers

Real politics involves losing frequently. There's nothing wrong with losing, if we learn from it. When we get knocked flat, we're gonna stand up, dust ourselves off, and try again. Get used to it: if we want to win big, we're going to lose frequently in order to learn how to win

:shrug:

but twenty-six topics with "leftist" in the title should be!

this is copied from a thread I just started, but didnt see yours beforehand. Sorry.

I am a Leftist because:

I believe in the dignity and spiritual soveriegnty of humankind

I believe in the classic Rights of (hu)Man - The rights of freedom, peace, happiness, and self defense against oppressions of all types.

I believe in the power of human collectivity. That when the community and an individuals needs come into conflict, the community must prevail, with respect to the individual.

I believe in finding a commonality with my fellow human, and cooperating to make common aspirations a reality.

I believe that power of all types must be checked by the will of the people.

I believe that capitalism, as the primary economic force in my culture, be constrained from committing its worst excesses.

I believe in the free association of working people, to unionize wherever and whenever they see fit, as a check against the worst of the ownership class.

I believe in equal rights under the law for all people, regardless of their gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, ethnicity or any other division which can be used against them by the powerful.

I believe that sufficient food, shelter and health care should be provided to all who need it.

I believe in speaking truth to power, and resisting by all means necessary any force which threatens our most sacred human rights.

I believe in peace and cooperation with all of my fellow humans, and reject and resist warfare and propulgating the industry of war for its own sake.

I believe in social progressivism, liberalism, and any other ambitions that seek to collectively move humanity to enlightenment, peace and happiness.

I believe in social justice, and a system in which each can air their case quickly, honestly and without fear of retribution, to be judged by their peers.

I believe in the sovereignty and freedom of thought, and the power of counterculture to expose and redress regressive and anti-social cultural trends.

because otherwise there's no realism, no insight into present conditions, no analysis of our strengths and weaknesses or the strengths and weaknesses of the forces aligned against us, no useful predictions about potentially useful routes and our future prospects

Do you struggle against those, yes even Democrats, who compromise on those beliefs? I do understand the necessity of compromise in legislating, but do you understand the necessity of "purity" so that 10, 20, 50, 100 years down the road, the "pure" triumphs?

I also carefully pick my allies and sometimes....yes sometimes....I will use an unlikely alliance for a greater goal.

I think Lenin had a few things right - one of them, the role of the "useful idiot".

opposition to go.

No matter how right we are, no matter even if we win, even if we win big, will the opposition just disappear? are we going to convert them over 100% to our views and policies? are they going to go away? dematerialize? No. So the question is how many and of what quality will they be? In regards to the latter, what will their distribution be on a spectrum, between Timothy McVeigh and William F. Buckley? In regards to the former, how do we affect that?

Given the FACT of Rightists, the challenge is to be as clear and strong and honest about the values and justifications of the Left as possible, without moving folks deeper into, and solidifying their position in, the right end of the spectrum.

to others.

FDR told activists in his own party, "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

I don't know whether FDR actually said it, but the point of view is valid. It's our job as hicks out here in the sticks to continue to work to create lasting political movements that can effectively pressure people inside the DC beltway. Our opponents won't stop creating political pressure for their agenda, so if we sit on our hands and just expect results, we simply won't get the results we want

...I worked in an amazingly complex industry (healthcare IT) where new technologies were rolled out at an amazing pace. One thing I learned was that the decision makers (think 'voters') could only handle so much information. Ergo, I always boiled things down to Three Main Points, and then hammered them in relentlessly. I answered every question in regard to how it related to the Three Main Points. I organized every presentation, meeting record, etc. around the Three Main Points.

And the decision makers could remember them, began to understand them and most important, supported them.

So, let me submit my Three Main Points for the "leftist" platform:

1. America has been highjacked by special interests, corporations having "free speech" rights, etc.

2. We can take America back, without bloodshed or great human suffering, simply by applying the Constitution.

3. Our candidates will take an Oath that a) we'll ban "corporate free speech" and b) we'll pass term limit, public financing of elections and other anti-corruption legislation to hold future elected officials accountable.

Every initiative, every question can be answered relative to one of these points.


Thoughts? Constructive criticism welcomed.

Among Friends it is not what you say you believe or the "purity" of that belief system that matters. It is what you do and how you choose to live that matters. Many people, particularly on the right, say they "believe" a great many things but then do something completely different, like the guy recently making the making the rightwing sexual morals video with his mistress. He "believes" in fidelity but has the uncontrolled libido of a polecat. While less frequent, the left is not immune to this syndrome.

Organizing for change and making it happen is what matters. In most places, particularly in the south, we on the left comprise only a small minority of the voting public. The question then becomes how to reach out and find the coalition that makes a majority. This takes time, creativity, and a great deal of effort, but the change created can be relatively permanent. I have watched a small town shift steadily over 20 years from deep red toward the blue by small steps taken one at a time.

the male cat that goes looking for a good time. "Polecat" is another word for a skunk, and they are known more for their odor than for their libido.

Do you honestly think that leftists, whose ranks include some of the smartest and most politically active people in this country, don't already know about real politics? Geez, I mean we're having to work with corporately corrupted Democrats to get anything done in this day and age, we've got to know about real politic.

We don't know about organizing? Excuse me, but who is it who goes out and organizes protests, sit-ins, boycotts, and other grassroots efforts? Oh yeah, the left, because the middle of the road Dems are too busy with their lives, or simply don't want to bother. You look into any major political campaign that involves a left of center issue and the ones that you will find who are doing the organizational grunt work are leftists.

And despite your false meme, leftists aren't looking for a silver bullet. You want to know what we're looking for? Crumbs from the freaking table, crumbs. It used to be, in this big tent party, that everybody who participated and worked for the party actually got something out of it, got one or more of their pet issues favorably addressed. Sadly, for the left, that part of the bargain hasn't been holding up for the over forty years now. The last time the left got a major bone was Carter's energy policy, and that was dismantled under Reagan, with the help of many Democrats.

It is posts and attitudes like yours that are counterproductive. You simply have no clue about the left, but feel the need to scold us whenever we dare to demand our piece of the pie. We know all to well about people like you, and frankly you are not a friend of the left. You are nothing more than another one who repeats those false memes designed to keep the left in its place and provide cover for a Democratic party that no longer gives a damn about the left. You are clueless about what the left is about, and what the left has done. You are simply, either knowingly or unknowingly, carrying water for corporately controlled Dems. Congratulations, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I suggest that next time you want to "open a dialogue with the left" that you forego the condescending attitude and actually study up on the left in this country, what they're about, what they've done, what their history is.

anyone a leftist or an activist, right?

Sorry you don't like angry rants, but I think that if somebody were posting condescending BS about big D Democrats you wouldn't be so sanguine. Or frankly for that matter, posting condescending BS about any group that you identify with.

If somebody wants to have a genuine discussion with a group of people, it is best that you don't approach that group by talking down to them or being condescending to them, that's a basic rule in how to win friends and influence people.

What I find interesting and entertaining is that you don't try and refute the substance of my post, just the style. Says a lot right there.

is their willingness to declare anybody who challenges them an "enemy combatant"

"Congratulations, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution."

The current theme though is that the left is gonna stay home, not work, and not vote and not donate to Democrats in 2010, just like they did in 1994 and in 2000, enabling Republicans to gain more power. Talk about "part of the problem". Yeah, a Republican Congress will totally move Obama and the Democrats to the left.

It's rather odd that the same people who decry "the left" for attempting to dictate who is and who isn't a liberal/progressive/Dem are now the people telling leftists what real leftists are. And, apparently, they think real leftists are some slightly more agitated form of their own capitulating mold.

The right, seeing that government sucks, insists on less government.
The left, seeing that government sucks, insists on making government not suck.

And you could make it a lot more complicated than that, but there's no need.

it might be true in some sense, but it doesn't go anywhere: it offers no insight into what one should try; it offers no insight into the obstacles one expects; it offers nothing except an excuse to sit and feel sad and grumpy. We all feel sad and grumpy sometimes, and with good reason, but sad and grumpy doesn't win anything

My point is that we react differently to our displeasure. The left wants to improve government. The right wants to eliminate government. Nowhere did I write, and nowhere did I imply, that they "all" suck, or that there's equal suckiness on either "side."

I really have nothing to add, thanks for posting this - I am in complete agreement with your view on how we should approach organizing and winning on the left. There are more than a few examples of where we haven't, and the results set us back farther than where we were to start with.

I usually frame this as the difference between strategy and tactics. You never get to jump directly to the end point of a given strategy ... you have to make tactical progress in the direction of that strategic end point.

Each tactical victory helps you further focus your efforts towards that end point. You get closer to the goal.

What we do on the left, too frequently, is fight among ourselves like a bunch of yippy dogs fighting over a bone. We run in circles barking at each other, while the GOP's doberman's sit quietly waiting for us to wear ourselves out.

Much of the time, we get so exhausted, that the doberman's from the GOP just walk over laugh in our faces, and take the bone.

That almost happened on Health Care. The GOP said they'd never support it. But could we get together and make a quick tactical victory out of that ... nope. We had to run in circles screaming at each other while they laughed at us. The bone was laying right in front of us.

By the end on health care, most on the left were EXHAUSTED, many had given up. And we were lucky to get anything passed.

Some claim that they are critical of the President because they want him to do better. What they at times neglect to realize is that if you get behind him on smaller tactical wins, you've helped him move towards that strategic end point you seek. You've given him less distance to travel in the next instance.

But when we fight endlessly to have it all now, what he sees is a party divided, and we lose tactical battles that we should have won easily.

At best, single payer, at worst, a public option. The left has kept its eye on the single payer prize for half a century or more even while barking dogs run circles around us yipping that the "bone" is health care reform when we know it is no such thing.

You know it, I know it ... all the bickering in between hurt all of us.

The existence of the exchanges creates a framwork into which a public option could be added.

without that, you are back at square -5.

agitating for decades because the compromisers yip at us. Our job is not compromise. Our job is not to support the compromise or the compromisers. Our job is to keep plugging away.

What we should be doing more (not always) is lauding progress. Take an win, no matter how small, and call it the next step towards the goal.

What the left does too often, is that a small advance, ignore the progress, and complain that the strategic goal is not yet obtained.

I would contrast this with the pro-life clowns on the right. Do they demand that either Roe V Wade be overturned immediately, or they will trask the GOP, no way ... they fight tactical incremental battles.

We need to learn from that. Or they will CONTINUE to make incremental gains, while we demand "all or nothing".

I don't need to be lectured about what a leftist is. I certainly don't like the hostile way you use yet another variant of the pony meme, ie, the long ranger. Your post reads like something from Al From's desk:

"Just bitching -- about what a disappointing sell-out everybody else is -- doesn't get you squat"

Yes. I'm sure all of us have only done that and never once have done anything constructive.

"The concrete political objectives need to be both long-term and short-term; they need to be analyzed critically to make sure they aren't counter-productive in unexpected ways"

Yet another unoriginal play on the old "you people are dumb" rant while implying you are on our side.

"The Lone Ranger and his silver bullets are television mythology. You aren't the frickin Lone Ranger, and there are no silver bullets."

Wow. Way to hit that straw man out of the park! I thought that show was real. Thanks a bunch.

"Sometimes people are against us in one endeavor and really in our corner on another."

Sometimes people say they are on our side to fool us and only act on the things they want. Our issues are given lip service until the time they are to be acted on, and then we are saddened when our good "friends" and "allies" do exactly the opposite of what they promised us earlier when they needed our support.

"Sometimes our "friends" can do as much damage to us as our enemies. Live and learn"

Some of us have already learned who our friends are and who they are not. The last year and a half have been very educational.

"Real politics involves losing frequently. There's nothing wrong with losing, if we learn from it. When we get knocked flat, we're gonna stand up, dust ourselves off, and try again. Get used to it: if we want to win big, we're going to lose frequently in order to learn how to win"

This is almost word for word what Al From used to say. There is plenty wrong with losing as 30 years of the rich getting richer proves. I'm tired of being told to wait for the changes I want while the changes I don't want get high priority and happen very quickly. I don't remember Bush losing too much. With less congress critters than we have he kicked our asses. Our "friends", who were "against us in those endeavors and really in our corner on others", seemed to do pretty well for themselves during that time.

In real life, I doubt I'd ever be allowed within several hundred yards of him

Simple fact - progressives are outnumbered, and also outflanked. You don't get too many McGoverns from South Dakota, North Dakota or Montana. There seems to be some question right now whether Democrats are even going to win in Delaware, Illinois, and Connecticut. Meanwhile, candidates that Palin endorsed are winning primaries and predicted to win in the general election. Can we put a Democratic Governor in South Carolina?

And that is that.. people will either accept me for who I am or cross the road to the other side...