Memes of Production

1605 readers

231 users here now

Seize the Memes of Production

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.

Other Great Communities:

founded 4 months ago

MODERATORS

Deceptichum@quokk.au

470

go to hell (quokk.au)

submitted 1 month ago by Deceptichum@quokk.au to c/mop@quokk.au

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Even if that were true, you're simultaneously claiming that these people are willing to sabotage their company, and that they'd be alienated by saying that the work their company does is evil. That doesn't make any sense.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm just saying it's not tactically useful to point out their personal culpability. There are ways to criticize the company without focusing on the employees and I think they will find that more palatable.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It is tactically useful to point out their personal culpability, though. Very much so. Guilt is an incredibly powerful weapon. You just don't want to wield it because you care more about protecting their feelings than you do about getting them to change.

Look at how much influence the Catholic Church has been able to wield in history by using guilt, and theirs wasn't even based on the truth. What do you mean it's "not tactically useful?"

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Leftists aren't the Catholic Church. Their attempts at shaming people were effective because they already had power over people. Something we lack. We need to gain power first, and that means persuading people who don't currently support or agree with us.

By not tactically useful I mean it's counter to what I see as a useful strategy to achieve leftist ends--in other words, liberation from state and capitalist oppression. And I see mass public support as essential for achieving those ends, which means attracting many different types of people to work together to achieve these ends. And while it's certainly possible to build such a coalition without workers at defense firms, it would be easier with them. And if we add up all of the different messaging that excludes people in a similar way, it becomes a far more significant obstacle. Why would ordinary people want to join a political movement they view as preachy weirdos who harshly criticize anyone who doesn't share their exact lifestyle and worldview?

But if you feel otherwise maybe you can articulate whose behavior you think will be influenced by this kind of messaging and what you expect them to do differently after seeing it?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

First off, you again frame this entirely around "expanding the coalition" to include the perpetrators while ignoring how it excuses (practically speaking) their victims. This is pure chauvanism, it's failing to recognize both the inherent humanity of the victims of imperialism, and their ability to contribute to a cause. I'd rather come across as a "preachy weirdo" to war profiteers than as an imperialist to the victims. When you describe this as "anyone who doesn’t share [your] exact lifestyle and worldview" you are minimizing what's going on and trying to make it a subjective issue when it's not. That makes it clear that you don't actually share any kind of moral outrage at them, that you don't share my goals at all, and you're just trying to pretend that it's an issue of "tactics" because you don't want to openly voice what you actually think.

Second, this babying, whitewashing shit doesn't really work to achieve anything. At best, you might get them to vote for a more polite warmongerer, while continuing to do real, tangible harm on a daily basis - but most likely it won't even do that. The way to change people's minds is not through that kind of nonsense, it is by directly confronting them and bringing the conflict directly into the open. This is exactly what MLK said:

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.

Your passive, whitewashing, can't we all just get along approach is counterproductive and flies in the face of creating the necessary tension required to change people's behavior. Which again, I don't think you mind, because you're not actually opposed to what they're doing.