this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
57 points (62.4% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7210 readers
346 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Listen dude. Im in pretty much full agreement with both of your comments in this thread. But if you're trying to get people converted, especially moderate liberals, don't start off combatively telling them they're supporting a genocide or that they're wasting their time voting. Its just gonna entrench them even more because it's so outside their realm of political understanding.
I mean, I'm anarchosyndicalist. I'm aware of how fucked up the voting system is and how little power I have as an individual, and it pisses me off to be scolded at like that. Ive read People's History, and the manifesto, and Kropotkin (not to mention, a fair amount of chomsky and a lot of David Graeber). Imagine how moderate liberals feel when you slam them with a wall of text? They are not fucking initiated yet.
Like I said to the OP, you gotta meet people where they are. You're right that the left is disorganized, and that most Democrats aren't really leftist but socially progressive capitalists, but if you're gonna convert them you need to ease them into it, not immediately shock them with walls of text and accusations of supporting a genocide. Because they'll just recoil into their somewhat cozy capitalist shell.
If you want people to do something different, don't tell them what they're doing is wrong! I've read Chomsky! You have to work entirely within the political framework that you're trying to tell people to move past!
~~Exactly~~. You joke, but you can't bring someone to your side by immediately making an enemy of them.
edit: Not to mention in Western media, socialism is taboo, communism is literally the devil (Trump recently said at one of his rallies he would deport all the communists, lol) and anarchism is synonymous with chaos.
In order to win these people over, I'm not gonna go up to each one and say "oh hey, by the way, you are a citizen of the worlds largest terrorist organization. the flag you salute is synonymous with an authoritarian empire that even today works to prevent any non-capitalistic democratic movement from occurring. It is a feudal state that extracts tribute from the rest of the world in the form of mass imports and few exports, incurring meaningless debt because at the end of the day it can print more money, lend it to the banks, and not worry about repercussions, because the rest of the world's currency is backed by theirs instead of gold, and if any country step out of line, they can employ violence from any one of the 700+ military bases they control worldwide. Your country controls what money is, inherently, and monopolizes violence, and therefore holds the rest of the world in a headlock, and you are part of the problem" Even though all of that is true.
No, I'm probably gonna say "isn't it kinda wild Obama bailed out the banks in 2008? Like, bankers actually offer nothing of value to society," or "its so terrible that the US has been supporting Israel for so long, as they have continually decimated and oppressed the Palestinian people," and have an interesting (albeit, often terribly sad) discussion from there.
Me not making concessions from my position for the sake of being underhanded with my political goals is not what makes me political enemies. It's supporting a genocide that makes me political enemies.
You know what I have to say about civility? Fuck you.
I mean, just take a look at Lemmy.world or reddit. Your guys' aggressive attitude doesn't work. It turns people off and gets defederation campaigns started. If people care about civility, use civility to help convince them.
Why would I want to take a look at open and flagrant racism? Fuck .world. Fuck reddit.
Alright dude, in that case don't vote, give Trump a better chance, but don't come whining to me when he comes out in support of a single-state solution, and that state is not Palestine. Dunno what else to tell you.
Ohhh nooooo
don't vote for the bad man who says what both sides are going to do
vote for the nice man who says the other thing
or freedom will die
I disagree. You can't soft-pedal someone fully embedded in the propaganda sphere. There are multitudinous ways for them to be recaptured and they will not be inoculated against it if you pretend their positions are valid.
Also your contributions in this thread only reinforce liberalism and the pro-genocide position. Why should I trust your advice?
So far, you appear to be a liberal. In what way are you furthering anarchosyndicalism here? Are you in an org? Do you believe that anarchosyndicalism is served by feeding into bourgeois electoral falsehoods? Your predecessors were burning down bosses' houses.
These are inconsistent positions. If you already agreed and understood you would not be getting "scolded" at all. Though I would say I'm just politely correcting you despite your liberal actions.
So about 2 months into a yearlong leftist onboarding reading group. I'm glad you are reading, but this still makes you very new to these topics.
They will respond in different ways. There is not just one way to push people into taking their first steps. Several strategies and roles should be employed.
My "wall of text" is something like four paragraphs in approachable language.
What does your defense of their pro-genocide electoral stance accomplish?
That is incorrect. You need to know where people are and then dislodge them. There is no meeting. You must pull and agitate.
Most Democrats are incoherent liberals that pick up their positions via exposure to various media outlets. I would not describe them as socially progressive, overall. Some of the most racist people I've met have been Democrats.
Ease them into it how? Your approach so far is not agitational whatsoever. Your rhetoric can only help them retreat to their former positions.
There is an actual genocide happening right now with Dem support. They are, in actuality, supporting a genocide by providing unconditionsl support. This is exactly the kind of topic where you must agitate, as you can motivate those who care about the genocide to seek out a better position. You will lose all of those people if you don't agitate, or worse, help them resettle into the mainstream pro-genocide position.
Some will, some won't. This is always how agitation goes. Have you ever built an org IRL? Opportunism is always self-defeating.
My contributions to this thread have upheld a single liberal value and that's voting, which I don't even think has that much value when you look at the opinions of the majority of Americans on core domestic and international issues vs the actual policies that are implemented by those they vote in. The United States is not a democracy, and simply voting Democrats will not fix anything. Not once have I defended Democrats complicity in the genocide, or the so called free market, their role in maintaining American hegemony through force and the dollar, the immorality of rent and interest collection, etc -- they perpetuate all of that! -- unless you count my noting that the Republicans of the United States are more in support of Israel than Democrats, as they have nobody willing to call the genocide a genocide, whereas Democrats have few, and they (Republicans under Trumps presidency) would and have tried further legitimizing Israel's actions against Palestinians -- mainly by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv and calling West Bank settlements, which are obviously illegal, legal.
Multiple times I've said, yes, Democrats are complicit in genocide, and overall they exist to perpetuate the power of the state, which itself is, at the end of the day, a monopolization of violence through the police. But at the very least, they are less likely to go full privatization, full state authority over women's bodies, and more likely to do something about the genocide other than urge Israel to "get the job done," as Trump has said himself.
So while, ultimately, the Democratic party (along with all other political parties) needs to dissolve in order for individuals in the US to have full political and personal freedom, in the near term that is not going to happen, and even though my vote will almost certainly mean nothing in terms of policy, at least I can do that and try things outside the political system. Whereas not voting is not only symbolically useless, as they'll just see me as another person on the couch, at least voting has a small amount of practicality.
And regarding methods of converting liberals to leftists, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Again, I'll refer to the meaning associated with the terms socialism, communism, and anarchism in the US -- they are demonized to the point where people simply dismiss you if you mention them, and then you've lost your opportunity.
Edit: Also, I appreciate your genuine response, but at the same time the gatekeeping of "well, what have you organized?" is pretty lame. The truth is, nothing. I've organized nothing. But I still believe that unjustified hierarchy is harmful and that at the end of the day what a state is is the ability to use force to uphold that hierarchy.
Au contraire.
Lesser evil arguments against GOP:
"It's just that one party also wants to use those structures to surveil women's bodies, ban books, delegitimize science, push religion, and extract capital from natural resources and workers without restriction."
Both sidesing genocide with a bonus suggestion that you have no idea how to oppise it (even while you left punch people actually fighting against it):
"We have a choice between one person publicly calling for a ceasefire and another who says Israel needs to finish the job.
I'm not sure what you want us to do here."
You then kept asking what else you're supposed to do and I answered you in good faith. You don't seem to like the answer, though. You clung to the rhetoric of bourgeous electoralism and ignored most of what I said while trying to tell me I was agitating incorrectly.
You declaring that you're going to vote for a pro-genocide candidate with more lesser evil genocide (listen to yourself) logic:
"edit: Like idk who's out here praising Kamala Harris and the rest of the Democratic party for their soft-as-shit stance on Israel, but I still gonna vote for her [...]"
Here's you pretending you can lecture others about what American leftists respond to, trying to push back against those calling out support for genocide:
"No offense dude, but I think you are pretty ignorant about American leftists."
You've been a busy little beaver for reaction.
If it doesn't have much value why are you arguing with me and why are you telegraphing who you will vote for (genocide supporter)? Why do you act as if nothing else is posdible? This is just the typical liberal position that treats myopic lesser evil voting as the beginning and end of politics.
When people call it out you push back and declare your unconditional support for Kamala.
Yes those are some if the claims that actually defend Democrats and try to make people feel okay with support for genocide.
If you're doing something against empire you're doing something political. And earlier you were acting like nothing else was possible, jncredulously asking what else you're supposed to do aside from pretend to hand wring and then be the same pro-genocide lever pull as any imperialist. Make up your mind.
I cannot tell you how much I don't care about your vote. Why are you still talking about it?
You will learn that I am right when you actually try to build a left organization IRL and need to both recruit and maintain political lines against liberal tendencies.
This is completely at odds with the experience of anyone doing IRL agitation and recruitment. Younger people in particular are open to socialist positions if you aren't trying to trick them into it or triangulate in the genocide they oppose. Your strategy is very old and always fails. It's called opportunism.
Yes, that was obvious. This is why you have wrong ideas of how to agitate. You've never had to do it and see what works and what doesn't.
You asked what else to do aside from voting and I tried to nudge you towards organizing and self-education. You should go join an org.
Of course unjust hierarchy is harmful. Otherwise it wouldn't be unjust. But the question, inevitably, is how we will concretely do necessary work to defeat our enemies, and to identify who those enemies are and prioritize. To do that you need to be politically educated and you need to be organizing IRL so that you can see what fails and why it fails.
All that text essentially is summarised as "you arguing that Democrats are the lesser evil is defending them, and makes you a liberal."
If calling Democrats evil, while also saying you should vote for them, AND work outside the political system to create meaningful widespread change, makes me a liberal, then I guess I'm a liberal. You can think that means I support genocide if you want, but I won't be organizing with you if that's the case. Hope you have a great day.
No it cannot be honestly summarized as just that. If you are unwilling to engage further feel free to just disengage.
I will wait for you to reply to what I said and will ignore you arguing with yourself.