Louis wrote: >B-52's raining Volkswagen size bombs on peasant villages recruited me to socialism, not elegant descriptions of the "benefits" of a future world.
I do not see how the one need exclude the other, and it really avoids the question of what would "recruit" young people to socialism these days anyway. The very term ""recruiting" is problematic, because this suggests that people are being conscripted into a military service under a Marx commander, a Marxist boss. And this is one of the factors which gave rise to autonomism in the first place. People search for forms of association which are no longer ruled by people who claim to have all the answers in advance, whether religious or secular, but who through respect for dialogue and individuality can show the benefits of joint work. They reject grand narratives not because they necessarily hate grand narratives or disagree with them, but rather because they cannot find a place for themselves in those grand narratives - the big story wasn't developed from their story, but somebody wanted to impose a big story on their story. What I think you really need to understand is why somebody would become a politically organised socialist in the first place. If you disregard the labels, there are in the USA literally millions of "unconscious socialists" - they live their lives in conformity with principles which can only be described as Marxist, class conscious or socialist etc. even if they do not call it that. There is little point in lecturing these people on calling things by the politically correct names, as you might as idealist in a university, which is indeed likely to be counterproductive for ordinary folks, rather, the challenge is how you could get them to cooperate in a way which both benefits them, and has a real effect. If you recognise that this is the problem, then you can begin to make an analysis which really answers that problem. But a dogmatic, sectarian stance cannot solve it. It cannot even frame the problem. In the 40-60,000 strong Dutch Socialist Party (even if in your terms it is "reformist"), it is recognised that the motivational structures different groups of potential socialists is different, they are "interpellated" by different themes. Thus, an honest socialist, leftist or Marxist would say: I believe that the most important priority for me is to work on such-and-such a theme, issue or problem with such-and-suc a group, but I also realise, that this does not exclude the preoccupations of other socialists, who may be interested in quite different topics from me. There is room for everybody, we just try to find a place for everybody. The objection to that is, well how then can you have a unified political organisation, instead of a loose, hotch-potch coalition, never mind a virile, disciplined bolshevik party, steeled in relentless struggle, headed by Louis Proyect or Jack Barnes ? And the answer to that is basically, that you have to affirm the validity of what people are already doing, and demonstrate how they could work together more effectively, in a way that is really beneficial to them, as well as having a real political effect. So the true political organiser in that sense is constantly searching for common themes which can unify people to work together, based on an overall plan. S/he establishes himself as leader only only through really showing the way. I do not not pretend to do this correctly, I am not so strong or competent you know, my abilities or initiatives were wrecked in two countries so far. But the American Left - it doesn't even have any plan, an "agenda for American socialism in the 21st century". Reciting texts from James Cannon ain't going to help solving those problems, and that is why today the American radicals in their majority do not get significantly beyond Green party politics. Jurriaan
