I think it's getting easier. I also think that its a complete mistake to see that most workers just spend all day talking about football or whatever. A lot of the time it's because they've been almost trained throughout life to think that this stuff is above them, that it's not for the likes of them etc and I am afraid that the language used by many left wing groups definitely does not help. You will often be surprised by people who dont appear to be interested in this stuff at all.
I want very much to support Kollwitz's post, which is very long and contains a lot of extremely important points most of which I suppose will soon be forgotten! That is one of the troubles with the forum format. Interesting issues come up, and then get overtaken by some other point - which may or may not be quite as interesting (depends who's reading it I suppose) - and a reader can be left feeling that in this market place all ideas and all points made have equal value, and, in the end, nothing matters - or nothing is to be taken all that seriously: we're only passing the time after all.
Kollwit's opening points 1 - 4 are very well said and need addressing if this forum is ever going to go anywhere worthwhile, other than being a place where people let off steam, or try to say what they think which can often be compared to braying into the wind.
The question "what points have different sub-topics reached in their developments?" is vital to an intelligent forum. I suppose what we need is a sort of referee who can offer guidance and clarity on threads that have noteworthy content. NB. Not all threads have or intend "noteworthy" content. But some certainly do, and need to be taken much more seriously, not just allowed to freewheel into nothingness. This suggestion of a "refereeing" person dumps more work onto the ICC, but I guess it requires an ICC person because who else is up to keeping a holistic view of the general line of march of the various ideas and discussions that come up?
Yes, we want a culture of debate. But it won't happen on this forum by accident as Kollwitz excellent post elaborates. It needs guidance and nurturing; rather like a workers' council. Otherwise it just deteriorates into a talking shop, and eventually a pointless bore; a mere exchange of opinions bourgeois style.
Not a referee of course but a chairman, or woman. An important thread for consciousness or organization of the struggle, could have its own chairman. This person could sum things up from time to time - this is vital as ideas are easily lost and forgotten: could indicate areas requiring more consideration; encourage the timid; request more elaboration when it's needed; recall those plunged momentarily into hostility and animosity back to comradeship and point out questions not adequately answered and so on. But kollwitz has explained it all much better above. Isn't he onto something?