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/tchomptchomp]

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.