Hi Alan,You said the

November 8, 2012 at 1:42 pm #86625

Participant

Hi Alan,You said the following in response to my observations about the combo' of party members age and the use of outdated language:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i have to admit we are seen as a party of "old" men talking in "old" language about "old" ideas. But what age is Noam Chomsky. What are the ages of the economists and anthropologists and writers that inspire Occupy. What is so different about their language (plenty of academics usually involved) they use from our own? Not very much! So i think it is a bit easy to put it down to a generational thing. The fact of the matter is that our ideas, in the way we express them do not relate to Occupy and they are not receptive to them.

However I do not recall saying it was simply down to a generational gap. Not with regards to the actual age of members anyway. I said, "But there is probably also a generation gap."My whole point is the language the party is steeped in is perceived to be old fashioned and therefore makes ageing members seem more like fossils than they actually are. I am aware of Chomsky and his style or anti-style approach. The thing about his stuff and other accepted critics of capitalism is they do not actually call for a revolutionary overthrow of the system.If the SPGB and companion groups simply criticised, I am sure many members would be honoured speakers of the intellectual left. Revolution is the danger word to most.Now with the following bit, you are on to something. In the battle to win hearts and minds, attacking peoples views is a non starter.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Instead of challenging Occupy's manifesto, forcing them into being defensive, we must somehow get them to start questioning our positions, demanding we explain and justify them.

I agree with Alan that the best tactic, I am sure most socialists know, is to get people to actually think about and explain the ideas they support and how those ideas will lead to the improvements they claim will happen.