So in one sentence youre saying radical left is bad due to a myriad of reasons, but then you are promoting actions equivalent with protest movements of radical left? I'm a little lost with that point.
radical left has two main branches (historically, currently and theoretically): one is an organized left in some sort of a hierarchical structure (think revolutionary vanguard parties in Cuba, USSR, etc. these are my examples, not Roger's - I am not sure what he thinks about these countries or their revolutions) vs. one that can theoretically organized but is definitely anti-hierarchy (think occupy wall street, paris commune, etc.). Roger is saying, right now the enemies are too strong - we need the hierarchical structure which history has proven to be more effective in snatching power (and he shares his personal reasons for why he thinks a hierarchical organization is better). one thing that unites both these wings of the left is their anti-capitalism and anti-racism and anti-imperialism. I tend to agree with Roger's opinion on this.
and both wings of the left use protest movements - so you cannot differentiate between the two just based on that. What would differentiate the two is this question: does a central committee (or a few people) take big decisions (based on democratic consensus) and are the face of the movement, or is it a diffused movement w/o important figures? So, if Bernie went full socialist (but he's a far cry from a full socialist) and was leading a movement to change the US economy, he'd fall under the 1st category; in comparison to this, can you think of who the leader of occupy wall street was? Or who was leading the George Floyd protests? None. Those movements, noble, were based on different groups trying to coordinate and act together. But there wasn't much hierarchy, and there weren't any key leaders or bodies of decision-makers
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Missing Everything [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dTYeMZGzOzw/mqdefault.jpg)
So in one sentence youre saying radical left is bad due to a myriad of reasons, but then you are promoting actions equivalent with protest movements of radical left? I'm a little lost with that point.
radical left has two main branches (historically, currently and theoretically): one is an organized left in some sort of a hierarchical structure (think revolutionary vanguard parties in Cuba, USSR, etc. these are my examples, not Roger's - I am not sure what he thinks about these countries or their revolutions) vs. one that can theoretically organized but is definitely anti-hierarchy (think occupy wall street, paris commune, etc.). Roger is saying, right now the enemies are too strong - we need the hierarchical structure which history has proven to be more effective in snatching power (and he shares his personal reasons for why he thinks a hierarchical organization is better). one thing that unites both these wings of the left is their anti-capitalism and anti-racism and anti-imperialism. I tend to agree with Roger's opinion on this.
and both wings of the left use protest movements - so you cannot differentiate between the two just based on that. What would differentiate the two is this question: does a central committee (or a few people) take big decisions (based on democratic consensus) and are the face of the movement, or is it a diffused movement w/o important figures? So, if Bernie went full socialist (but he's a far cry from a full socialist) and was leading a movement to change the US economy, he'd fall under the 1st category; in comparison to this, can you think of who the leader of occupy wall street was? Or who was leading the George Floyd protests? None. Those movements, noble, were based on different groups trying to coordinate and act together. But there wasn't much hierarchy, and there weren't any key leaders or bodies of decision-makers