PS as I see it. if you ended up leading a left movement. Your actual opinions and ideals would have little to do with it.

You would bee ignored and considered democratically nessesery. While you had no influence. ALA greens etc. but as soon as it looked like you were unifying the left and gaining 20 plus % support. As that is where your votes can be a risk to the status quo.

Every effort would be made to convince the public you are an incapable leader with dangerous ideas.

It has always been that way. Post WW2 when we had a generation that had genuinely seen world suffering one on one. There was a strong move towards socialism. And the trolly wealthy. (Those with passive income / asset wealth ) Lost more control then they had ever done in the past. Much of Europe moved to the left. Equality of asset distribution became more equal then it has ever been. For the first time in history. Average working families could afford to own their own property.

By the 1970s the wealthy started to fight back. And has done anything to prevent it happening again.

Hence why since boomers. Each generation has had a lower % of wealth distribution with a higher % them working each generation. As more and more assets go into the hands of those with wealth. The cost of getting into a passive income position becomes higher and more out of reach for everyday workers.

Yep. Have to say. It worries me a little about the membership led part. Left never agreeing… Well on much at all.

But as the old Churchill saying goes. "Democracy is the worst form of government. Apart from all the others. "