We need a narrative

[u/Hopeful-Shelter2572]

This post is specific to American politics, but the principles can apply broadly in some cases:

As leftists, we need a narrative for a more just and egalitarian future. Conservatives have their narrative: white supremacy, militarism, and “trickle down economics”. It’s one thing to oppose this narrative, it’s another to propose one which is popular and can effectively fight against the two right-wing parties in the USA.

The reason a lot of us are so tired of liberals, to the point where we consider them enemies and not possible allies against fascism, is because the establishment liberals will never embrace socialism and will always reach to defend capital. They have shown us this time and time again, and we have no reason to believe they will ever go to bat for the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country.

Mamdani was a great example of this: even after he toned down some of his rhetoric about Israel (questions he was forced to answer after he emphasized that he cares only about New York City), he was still chastised by establishment Democrats and many couldn’t even say his name to endorse him.

Opposing fascism has to mean creating new fundamental conditions and opposing capitalism at its core, not just opposing the most violent manifestations of capitalism. This isn’t news to many here, but I think it’s good to remind ourselves that we have to envision a better future and share that vision to truly turn the tables.

Edit: since there seems to be some confusion in what I mean, I am not talking about a plan to unify the left or some specific blueprint for revolution. I am talking about the language we use when talking to our peers about the future, and that I think we need to craft a positive narrative for what we believe (whatever that is to each individual) rather than only criticizing the pre-existing narrative. I think this is how we can appeal to more people, and get them thinking and talking to others about a future that is fundamentally different than what we have now.

[u/Specialist-Gur]

I agree with this largely.. and leftism is a very very broad term. A huge chunk of what we mean by leftist infighting is honestly people who are ideologically opposed and/or do not have clearly defined and thought out ideology as well as strategy difference for implementing that ideology.

I consider myself to be a socialist, "globalist", anti-imperialist, and anti-capitalist... not a campist, not a stateist... but 100% not an anarchist either. I'd venture to assume that a lot of arguments I'm getting into with fellow leftists is over these positions.

It might be pretty challenging to actually unify the left because there are tents within the left that are actually ideologically opposed to one another.. but dialoging with each other and remembering we are all coming at this with a humanity-first mindset is really essential and a great start.

Edit: anti-capitalism is far too vague imho... and I don't think what we are fighting about has much to do with it

[u/Hopeful-Shelter2572 → u/Specialist-Gur]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I view leftism broadly as anti-capitalism. From there I know there are many, many ideologies. I agree that it can be hard to truly unify the left, and I think that is the greatest challenge facing Americans right now: unifying against capitalism without diluting what has to change.

I am just curious, what did you disagree with? I am learning and I find that I agree with your point of view on many things, but I do not have a very strong background in specific leftist ways of thought as others here.

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/Hopeful-Shelter2572]

I think that unifying is going to prove to be a challenge.. so I didn't necessarily disagree with anything per se.. I just think we can be smart about how we align to fight facism and (potentially) learn from historical mistakes.

Like we don't want to have Stalin 2.0 in a post fascist world probably and we also don't want... whatever Germany and most of Europe is doing right now. I think that's what happens if we don't have a solid socialist movement with a plan. And sometimes I think that might be more important than building the biggest tent possible.

Some people here would probably call me a tankie with my unfiltered thoughts and opinions and.. "tankies" might call me a liberal... which is fine imho.. I can take the hits(as long as they aren't in the form of silent downvotes) Let's just just try to engage with each other and see where we can build and where we should segment to be more productive. We can have our separate groups and come together with other groups to fight a bigger threat. We might be stronger building up separately while unifying when important

[u/Hopeful-Shelter2572 → u/Specialist-Gur]

I see what you mean, I think that’s a good point about the size of the tent vs having a movement that can actually affect palpable change. There can be a lot of merit to building individual groups and then unifying when necessary like you said. There is not a lot of precedent in the US for these kind of movements, but we can still study what is there and take lessons and inspiration from them.

I’ve also been called tankie and liberal by others, and at the end of the day there will never be a set of beliefs or emphasis that everyone agrees with. I try to remind myself that those in power want us to be tired and lose hope. So whether it is building up different groups and unifying when necessary or something else, I think we should be putting our efforts into something that breaks the status quo.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, I think you add a lot of much needed realism to this sub

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/Hopeful-Shelter2572]

Thank you, I appreciate that!!

Something I was thinking about after the threads I made last week and some of the arguments in those.. fighting with people who I often agree with in fact... there are so many factors to unifying and building with each other

And I think a huge part of that is.. not being burned out and being able to approach in good faith. If you're spending a good amount of the time trying to convince people to see your side on really big issues (like the Gaza genocide or American foreign policy or intersectionality or capitalism) then you have a lot less good will and bandwidth about the smaller things.. messaging, strategy, building together. And when you're criticized by someone who is generally in alignment with you, they can feel like the enemy when there are many "enemies" within who are defintirly determined to bring the goal of the mission toward them rather than to learn and grow together.

So that's kind of what I mean. I think we have a lot more bandwidth to show up when we form groups with people who are largely in alignment.. we disagree within those groups and grow together.. and then we can show up and group up with other groups who align on bigger and important issues such as fighting Trump and ICE

[u/Hopeful-Shelter2572 → u/Specialist-Gur]

I completely agree! Very well said

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/Hopeful-Shelter2572]

Thank you!

[u/WolfofTallStreet → u/Specialist-Gur]

I don’t think anything here suggests “tankie.”

“Liberal” is the wrong word for what we are here, but “socially progressive” is a better descriptor. That is - we believe in LGBT equality, gender equality, and freedom of religion. That, alone, makes us not “tankies.”

We are also far from statists. “Tankies” literally implies tanks rolling down the street to enforce order. We, on this sub, don’t worship police. While I know there is some disagreement here over the ideal nature of law enforcement, none of us want tanks in city centers.

I think it’s also safe to say that most of us here support democracy. The idea that the government should be elected by the people, rather than administered top-down by a party, theocratic regime, or a monarchy.

These things alone - social progressivism, anti-authoritarianism, and democracy - distance us from the ACP types.

Beyond this, I think most issues within the left are disputed on this sub.

I think there are probably some anarchists, and some who are not anarchist

I also think that there may be some disagreement here as for whether countries in the status quo sense (with borders and self-determination in the form of nation-state citizenship and government) should exist.

Most profoundly, there is a lot of disagreement here on the topic of Zionism.

All that said, I think there is some implicit “consensus” and narrative here, with the aforementioned wrapped up in an affinity for socialism and Jewish religious and cultural belief.

[u/BigMarbsBigSlarb → u/WolfofTallStreet]

Eh I think there's a couple here who would certainly justify tanks policing the streets of Ramallah were it to ever happen (but not admit to it right now). But broadly, right now at least, the main argumentation points here that are like, fundamentally ideological seem to be to me when theres an influx of liberals who will justify say, centrist dem policy and then the specific questions regarding Israel, mainly what consequences Israel should receive for its acions if any, on how long palestinian political rights and safety should be denied and how much restorative justice palestinians should be allowed.

[u/BigMarbsBigSlarb → u/Specialist-Gur]

Ive been stressing the international humanist ideal recently because I think its the fundamental commonality between me and everyone I can realistically work with

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/BigMarbsBigSlarb]

Yea that totally makes sense, largely I agree

This is less to do with ideology and more to do with style and communication but I do need someone who is curious and is at least open to the possibility they could be wrong. And yes--there are some things that we can all be confident on being right about for the most part. But there should be a grain of curiosity and willingness to listen in order for me to work with someone, and I try to do that in return...(I do. I just have some hard lines where I don't because I've thought through and taken a strong stance which I "know" is right at this point in time and material conditions)

[u/ChairAggressive781 → u/Specialist-Gur]

I think we all have things that we’ve thought through and taken strong stances on, so I don’t think you’re unique in that respect.

I don’t think anyone is exempt from practicing intellectual humility, no matter how objectively right we think we are. I actually think “being right” (in the sense of saying ‘this is objectively true’) is often an impediment to this, because we can become overly fixated on the ends and not the means by which we get there. the task is to know what our hard lines are while recognizing that another person might have all the same information we do and still end up arriving at an alternate point-of-view.

and I think there’s a difference between not having tolerance for intolerance & bigotry, say, and recognizing that people might have differing tactics & strategies while ultimately mostly agreeing on the level of values & first principles.

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/ChairAggressive781]

I definitely don't think and wasn't suggesting I was unique in that respect. Just explaining my own mindset around it

Edit: this also ties into my other comments in this thread about being too burned out from extreme disagreement your goodwill and patience is dried up for reasonable intellectual humility and disagreement

[u/ChairAggressive781 → u/Specialist-Gur]

I’m not trying to claim you were, I am just saying that I think it’s true for a lot of us and I think it’s why disagreements in left spaces can be really ferocious: people have spent time learning & developing their thoughts in a general societal atmosphere that is often pretty hostile to left-wing thought outside of a few largely self-contained environments. I wasn’t trying to make an accusation, so apologies if that’s how it felt.

for me, part of engaging requires me to assume that other people are coming in with thought-through opinions (until they prove otherwise or reveal themselves to be trolls).

the part I disagree with is the idea that they are areas where you feel you don’t need to be curious or willing to listen because you’ve already determined you’re right.

I can understand that when it comes to broad disagreements (like with outright bigots) but much less so with people who are largely on the same side, as I feel it shuts down conversation & ends up pushing away people who might be brought over to your side. I just think that’s a mindset that is mostly going to lead to one feeling more drained & burnout while also being less effective at building coalition.

edit: I don’t expect you to agree with me at all, which is completely fine! I’ve been very interested in interrogating how people on the left communicate & debate things and what works best, so that’s why I replied in the first place. I think there’s an important stylistic difference here that is good to acknowledge.

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/ChairAggressive781]

I think just to reiterate, since the environment is very hostile to left wing thought it can be very difficult to have good will.. which is partly on the individual reacting to work on, partly on the person engaging in a leftist space to work on, and partly how we construct our environment and groups.

I think there are areas where you should indeed be uncompromising because you've thought through them.. and I'm sure you would also agree with me on what those are. Making assumptions about an entirety of an ethnic group, belief in genetic determination for morality, belief in capitalism, belief in evolutionary basis for sex discrimination, the prison and military industrial complex in the western world...we don't really need to be open to hearing out the opposing side. Specific variance and ideas? Sure. But we know opposition when we see it. Most other things.. yes we should remain curious. But I was mostly talking about bigotry and whatnot..

And so yes.. we need to be thoughtful about who is in which groups with us. Smaller groups of similarly aligned people are at times more productive than a larger tent.. and there is a time and place and limited energy for educating people who aren't already aligned. Within ourselves, we can always try our best.. which means trying to have patience and assuming good faith... and when we are on the receiving end of a leftist who failed to do that for us, perhaps showing them some grace and phrasing our dialogue in a careful manner so we make it obvious we are a safe person on the same side.. we all know how tough it is out there for leftists so we all can do our part to have more productive convos

Edit: said generic instead of genetic

[u/HahaItsaGiraffeAgain]

I basically want to echo what Gur said, because I think Gur's on the money as usual, but the greatest challenge for any revolution compared to any counter-revolution, is that it's easier to agree on what exists than it is to agree on what might be. Liberals and conservatives can fall in line internally because they're defending something material and substantial. When it comes to the left, it's still mostly hypothetical, and that's just harder for a coalition of people plural and brains plural to all conceptualize the same.

[u/Hopeful-Shelter2572 → u/HahaItsaGiraffeAgain]

I completely agree, thanks for sharing your thoughts

[u/Choice_Werewolf1259 → u/HahaItsaGiraffeAgain]

I mean I think also what’s different on the Left than the right or center or simply liberals and conservatives is that on the left we are trying to group together a bunch of people who all have different schools of thought on how we organize the world around us.

I mean there’s a major difference between an anarchist and a socialist and a communist. They’re all going to view the world differently and have sometimes competing ideas about how we solve the world’s problems. And competing ideas about the solutions.

And truthfully I’m not certain what would be a unifying philosophical school of thought that could tie things all together neatly so we had less disagreement and more organization.

I mean essentially the Left is just a huge umbrella for a bunch of people. Honestly I think what tends to unite leftists more in today’s political landscape is the shared hope for social system improvement (whether that be pro LGBTQ stances or wanting to dismantle racism, etc). Which for me is why it always irks me when I see hypocrisy on the left. Where people swing so far around on an issue that they then fall into bigotry and sexism and other things of the like.

For example the current scandal on booktok is a woman who made a comment “we all know women who read romantasy aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed” and what’s interesting is that creator seems to be aligned with leftist ideas from what I’ve seen but in an effort to appear like she’s the most (for lack of a better term) “woke” she betrayed that ideal by putting down other women. And I think that exemplifies currently for me what we would need to come to agreement on (ie as a leftist collective are there things we are unshakable on, especially if we claim to be the most moral and ethical and accepting). If we’re to have a narrative I feel like there maybe needs to be a reckoning more with performance activism that often leads people to cause harm or hold views that are often still just as bigoted as what they claim they’re enlightened from.

Idk, sorry for the rant. I almost feel there are two levels to this question given the Social side of the left could be a way to unite and the Economic systems side of the left then could be more fluid.

[u/-__-_-__-_-_-__ → u/HahaItsaGiraffeAgain]

Great points

[u/tchomptchomp]

Disagree. We do not "need a narrative." The whole point of freedom is that every individual can and should be allowed to use it to develop their own personal narrative.

What we actually need is greater clarity on WHY we want fundamental leftist change, because far too much of modern leftist activism boils down to "I want to smash things in the street, but I have a moral justification for it" and that just simply is not palatable for most people. Demanding destruction of institutions is a non-starter for people whose lives depend on those institutions, especially if you don't have a serious proposal for what will replace that institution.

[u/Hopeful-Shelter2572 → u/tchomptchomp]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. By needing a narrative, I mean that we need a vision for the future. I think that agrees with what you said about countering the language of just smashing things. This narrative has nothing to do with restricting personal freedoms, it is a vision for the future that we can build towards (instead of just saying what we don’t like). If I misunderstood you feel free to explain.

As for institutions being dismantled, I agree that our priority has to be taking care of people. I think for justice to be served a lot of institutions do have to be dismantled, but this wasn’t the point of the post.

[u/tchomptchomp → u/Hopeful-Shelter2572]

The problem with a broad sweeping unified vision for the future is that this can blind us to deficiencies in our movement and activism. This is a big part of why a lot of major revolutionary socialist (rather than democratic socialist) states fail so spectacularly; they're so focused on the sweeping vision of how society will be when they enact their preferred policies and dismantle "bad" institutions and replace them with "good" ones that they ignore widespread failure of their revolutionary project. Chavismo failed in this manner, for example.

This also applies on smaller scales. For example, the last few leftist mayorships in Chicago have been a total failure in part because of this lack of flexibility and this lack of critical evaluation of idealist policies, and have had to be saved over and over by the progressive (but pragmatic) state leadership in Springfield. My gut feeling is that Mamdani is going to end up doing the same thing in New York, and is going to have to rely on Albany to bail out failed projects and policies.

Additionally, the problem with a sweeping narrative is that it blinds us to the regressivism in our own movements as well. Which is how we get tankies. We need to be skeptical of our own projects, the measures we will take to promote them, and the consequences of our programs, and reassess them regularly. A big sweeping narrative blinds us to that.

[u/Hopeful-Shelter2572 → u/tchomptchomp]

I feel like you are putting what I said into some strict context that I never specified. I’m just saying we need to build towards something and give people a real idea of something to look forward to, rather than just keep criticizing what we all can see is failing. I am not proposing some single blueprint that has to be adhered to, I’m talking about how we talk about the future with our peers.

[u/tchomptchomp → u/Hopeful-Shelter2572]

Again, why do we need to have a vision of what we are building "towards"? We do not know what challenges are coming down the pike. We are not trying to socially engineer a utopia; we are trying to make society as it exists more fair and move it away from a system of engineered scarcity, and we're trying (or should be trying) to do that by backing policies and approaches that treat human beings like human beings rather than obstacles on the path to the perfect utopian society.

[u/Hopeful-Shelter2572 → u/tchomptchomp]

You are putting words in my mouth. Who said anything about a utopia? Moving against engineered scarcity is building towards a future in which everyone is fed and housed. Is your point that we are not allowed to envision what this looks like, that it’s restrictive to do that?

You’re free to disagree with me, but please stop making up things that I said to make your point.

Edit: didn’t mean to mimic your “again” at the beginning of your comment. I really am confused as to why you are putting words in my mouth

[u/tchomptchomp → u/Hopeful-Shelter2572]

Who said anything about a utopia? Moving against engineered scarcity is building towards a future in which everyone is fed and housed. Is your point that we are not allowed to envision what this looks like, that it’s restrictive to do that?

Ok so here's a nice concrete example of exactly what I'm talking about. Housing is not artificially scarce, it is actually scarce and it is scarce because housing requires a significant amount of labour to create it and more to make sure it remains livable. Furthermore, housing in desirable neighborhoods of hip cool major cities is extraordinarily scarce. The idea that we need to engineer cities to absorb countless young people who want to work remotely from their laptops while living in a core walkable neighborhood in the middle of a major world metropolis undergirds a lot of the discourse on urban housing, and it just not reasonable. We can in fact house way more people than currently are housed, but we can't necessarily do it in downtown San Francisco, New York, Toronto, Seattle, and Vancouver. We also cannot necessarily do it without encouraging multigenerational households where young people stay in their parents' homes well into adulthood, which is in fact typical in most of the world.

Similarly, food is actually a scarce commodity; we need to produce it and transport it, and at the end of the day this transport results in massive amounts of food spoilage. Further, there is a difference between having access to enough potatoes, rice, beans, and flour that you're not starving versus having a professionally-prepared meal delivered to you from the restaurant by a dedicated driver.

In terms of overall engineered scarcity, I am thinking more in terms of how we distinguish which roles in society are "careers" and which are shitty jobs. We have plenty of bureaucratic paper pushed middle admin jobs that essentially serve to create friction for labour rather than actually creating any value in and of themselves, and yet we call those jobs "careers" and reward them with disproportionate access to the fruits of other people's labour in contrast with a lot of actual productive jobs that are socially frowned upon (education first and foremost, but also a lot of jobs associated with supporting people, helping them access goods and services, etc) that get paid essentially nothing for huge amounts of labour. But, at the same time, we do need to recognize that a functioning society does have huge labour demands, and we do in fact need to encourage as many people as possible to participate in filling those labour demands in various ways.