It’s something that’s struck me over and over as I’ve read through historical accounts of progressive movements, that despite their being ostensibly more collectivist compared to some conservative hyper-individualism…They struggle to hold together and coordinate to accomplish their goals. In some instances it’s interference or sabotage from outside, but as often it can be found from within as well.
What are some of the contributing factors here, and how might they be addressed to better accomplish progressive aims?
I think those on the left are a lot less likely to fall in line behind a leader because that’s exactly what we’re fighting against. It does seem to be beneficial to action for someone to take charge and make things happen. I think that role, even if it does have validity, is given greater weight by our collective indoctrination into the great man myth. And any indoctrination has great effect on mentality even if you can logically refute it.
My personal thought (that I’m open to changing (also we’re all too willing to change our mind)) is revolutionizing that role to be more in line with non-hierarchical values. That could be creating a doctrine that can establish some guiding principles that would include action. Or to stay people focused, have it be an assigned position. Pick someone who is good at making things happen and let them do that. As long as that person doesn’t have an outsized influence on how and what is happening, and is able to be removed and replaced whenever appropriate, that could work.
But yeah our biggest weakness is our inability to commit to something better. I think it’s a good trait to be open minded to criticism in all directions as a path for growth. But it easily becomes a case of the unattainable best being the enemy of an attainable better. I think we’re tempted to have a clear goal to guide us. But if we’re going to actually make progress we need to unite under a blurry goal and be okay with finding clarity over time. Even that is a better system than we’re currently living under.
For some leftists/progressives, I think you’re right that they’re firmly anti-authoritarian through and through, making that the central issue they’re fighting against, but for just as many, if not many more, wouldn’t it be more that they’re fighting against economic inequality/injustice, bigotry, disenfranchisement, and the like?
Or to put it more positively, fighting for justice, equality, enfranchisement, etc.?
Yeah I think my argument definitely leans further left, and another big factor is what paddirn is saying on this post. The problem with our current society is a vast web of interconnected problems and systems, and we have a sort of paralysis of choice of what to attack first. It’s difficult to know where to start on this dauntingly large task.
I think it could make sense to make use of our broad interest to divide and conquer. Maybe we can’t all unite to fight one issue at a time, maybe it’d be more effective to split into groups that each take on an issue. I think there still needs to be a unified strategy so that the various problems can be dealt with in full, and that would include support from the whole when that becomes necessary. But if we set up a plan of attack that could, 1) appease the interests of all to see the issues they’re most passionate about written down to be addressed even if it’s not immediate, and 2) break the massive task into smaller more manageable chunks. In order for that to happen there still needs to be some coordination and commitment to action which I address in my previous comment, but I think this is a more actionable way for real progress to happen.