This is what I mean whenever I talk about labor aristocratic tendencies. Some try to characterize these sorts of people as not-proletarians, which genuinely just shows they don’t know any history.
Non-bourgeois reactionaries are still proles, but to get them to your side you often need at least an embryonic start of a mass line to get some of them to see the collectivised mistrust others share in the (current) state. This kind of argumentum ad populum is how they got to be libertarians in the first place (who do you think they heard it from?).
This is why I say it’s better to focus on more easily radicalizable groups first. Min-wage earners, lumpenproles, minorities, the disabled, lgbt and all the sorts of people society looks down on already hate ‘big money’ and ‘big industry’ and other powerful entities that they see as corrupting the state and actively making their lives worse. In my conversations with them, they seem to have more tendencies toward collective thought, even if some Westernized brainworms are in there (like, for example, a lot of immigrants have big families and tend to make informal workplace coalitions/proto-unions with coworkers who share their language). By directing energy toward the kind of people the bourgeoise state burns through like fuel, you can talk the individualism out of them in a few conversations rather than months of slogging through metamorphised propaganda.
The people you mention are also the people who might benefit the most from small(er) improvements in material conditions (which collective action and collective thinking could produce even without big, radical social changes). Even something like group shopping at a supermarket to make the most of offers and bulk buying. Taken a step further, group cooking to save on fuel. Then a community starts to form, which people feel part of, rather than so alienated.
Additionally, I think what you suggest is not mutually exclusive from other types of organising. (I’m not saying that you said this, btw – or maybe you did with the ‘first’, but I did not read this as ‘only’.) Focusing efforts where they will be most productive does not have to mean ignoring other avenues.
Aside: The lack of this kind of organising from the Labour Party is what led me to predict that Corbyn might not do as well as some people hoped back in 2019. There was a sense that Corbyn’s Labour wanted to do this after being elected, but that’s too late. A worker’s party needs to serve the people and be seen to serve the people before it even thinks about getting elected.
I mean like, in terms of the effort-to-returns ratio, I’m not saying it wouldn’t be worth it to try and talk with like…libertarian friends or family members or something. But randos are always going to be more difficult, and randos with an incentive to side with the state will be the most difficult. So when judging how you’re going to spend your energy you have to plan accordingly. Racist cousin Steve is going to require more hours of debate than, say, some coworkers that you already know hate your job and talk openly about how much it sucks. But if you spend all your energy on cousin Steve you lose out on the coworkers. You have to decide which of those is more important to you and your goals.
This is what I mean whenever I talk about labor aristocratic tendencies. Some try to characterize these sorts of people as not-proletarians, which genuinely just shows they don’t know any history.
Non-bourgeois reactionaries are still proles, but to get them to your side you often need at least an embryonic start of a mass line to get some of them to see the collectivised mistrust others share in the (current) state. This kind of argumentum ad populum is how they got to be libertarians in the first place (who do you think they heard it from?).
This is why I say it’s better to focus on more easily radicalizable groups first. Min-wage earners, lumpenproles, minorities, the disabled, lgbt and all the sorts of people society looks down on already hate ‘big money’ and ‘big industry’ and other powerful entities that they see as corrupting the state and actively making their lives worse. In my conversations with them, they seem to have more tendencies toward collective thought, even if some Westernized brainworms are in there (like, for example, a lot of immigrants have big families and tend to make informal workplace coalitions/proto-unions with coworkers who share their language). By directing energy toward the kind of people the bourgeoise state burns through like fuel, you can talk the individualism out of them in a few conversations rather than months of slogging through metamorphised propaganda.
Excellent point(s). I agree.
The people you mention are also the people who might benefit the most from small(er) improvements in material conditions (which collective action and collective thinking could produce even without big, radical social changes). Even something like group shopping at a supermarket to make the most of offers and bulk buying. Taken a step further, group cooking to save on fuel. Then a community starts to form, which people feel part of, rather than so alienated.
Additionally, I think what you suggest is not mutually exclusive from other types of organising. (I’m not saying that you said this, btw – or maybe you did with the ‘first’, but I did not read this as ‘only’.) Focusing efforts where they will be most productive does not have to mean ignoring other avenues.
Aside: The lack of this kind of organising from the Labour Party is what led me to predict that Corbyn might not do as well as some people hoped back in 2019. There was a sense that Corbyn’s Labour wanted to do this after being elected, but that’s too late. A worker’s party needs to serve the people and be seen to serve the people before it even thinks about getting elected.
I mean like, in terms of the effort-to-returns ratio, I’m not saying it wouldn’t be worth it to try and talk with like…libertarian friends or family members or something. But randos are always going to be more difficult, and randos with an incentive to side with the state will be the most difficult. So when judging how you’re going to spend your energy you have to plan accordingly. Racist cousin Steve is going to require more hours of debate than, say, some coworkers that you already know hate your job and talk openly about how much it sucks. But if you spend all your energy on cousin Steve you lose out on the coworkers. You have to decide which of those is more important to you and your goals.