My way of thinking to help me be grounded, is to understand that we are not fighting the people, even the people with fascist views, we are fighting fascism, we are fighting neoliberalism and so on, the people who are seduced by that, are consequence of a very well articulated machine of our enemies, but the people ARE NOT our enemies, they might make the will of our enemy but they ARE NOT the enemy, cause we need the people.
And secondly the other thing that is important to always keep in mind, is that people are much much much more often swayed by someone that they respect and that treats them with respect, and respecting somebody even though you disagree viscerally with their ideas can be helpful. Albeit this advice is geared more towards the liberal than the fascist, for the fascist is much more dangerous to get close so we need better strategies, but the point is, if someone likes you they might listen to you more. It’s a hard thing, but to be close to the people, however the people are at the moment, it’s our duty, there is no dancing around it, if we do not work with the people we are not progressing, we are just keeping a circle jerk instead of moving Marxism forward.
That’s a helpful reminder, thanks. If I try to put it in an analogy (metaphor?) it sounds kind of like there’s this alluring light leading the people into the swamp and part of our fight is to convince them to move away from it, to recognize it for what it is, as an illusion put together to drag them under. When I think of it this way, it seems to me that a large part of the fight is dismantling imperialist propaganda first. In other words, rather than trying to prove a positive first to someone who is bent on viewing communism as evil, it may be more effective to focus on finding ways to show them what is dissonant about the things they believe in. After all, for all the accusations of communism or other expressions of anti-imperialism being “cult-like” (one of those “every accusation is a confession” things) the way some people view it as a good/evil dichotomy of “freedom” on one side and “tyranny” on the other is itself cult-like in its thinking; if you are viewed as an outsider to that, you can be vilified really easily. But there’s also a lot of dissonance required to believe in that dichotomy, such as how in the US, some people will simultaneously believe the US is a bastion of democracy while also never being satisfied with who is president or being very cynical (and rightfully so) about how politicians behave.
Not that we can’t do some of both, but it may be that helping people reach the point of anti-imperialism is far more important than preaching communism. Which would be in line with how, if I’m not mistaken, global efforts are more centered right now on an alliance against imperialism than an alliance in favor of socialist states (my impression is, BRICS is a core of that?).
I like the way you’ve put it but I have something to complement, because often when we talk like people are walking to the swamp and we need to convince them to move away it can sound like we are the ones with the answers and are there to show people (don’t know if that’s what you think though) and unfortunately it’s a very common way of thinking among our comrades, I myself am guilty of that many times. So back to the point the way to ofer our side as an option to someone who doesn’t know is, going back to the swamp metaphor, waking a bit by their side and asking hey how are you, how did you get here, what’s going on with your life. Things like that connect with the people talk to them see them who they are what they struggle wirh, so when you wanna explain our position we show how we understand the reasons and causes of their real issues, and why the answers people give to it are often fake. Our job is much more a job of offer then of convincing we just need to take out the barriers that make our side inviable to them, cause our product sells itself, they just need to be in contact with it.
That’s a fair point and something I will try to be conscious of. It sounds like what you’re saying, and correct me if I’m wrong, is we need to have more of a mindset of connecting with the people than preaching to them from on high. And that once we, well to put it one way… once we investigate why it is they think the way they do and investigate what it is they want and the reasons they want it, then we can communicate from there. But without that, we are just guessing and that can go very poorly. What I think of is some people, for example, are in a more comfy position economically, so they may not see the rich/poor issue as being very pressing. While for some others, it may be that the security of their next paycheck is their most pressing concern. When we know, we can empathize, truly care, and show them how these things relate to a broader system. If we don’t know, we can sound like we’re expecting them to be something they aren’t.
Hope that makes sense. Might sound like a lot to extrapolate from it, but kind of thinking it through as I type, to make sure we’re roughly on the same page.
Comrade you are exactly right. About connecting wirh the people that struggle more financially it’s not just a matter of investigating the root of why they think that way(although this is crucial too), but also of learning, the more oppressed is the individual the more they have to teach us about the shape the source the effects of oppression.
As for the people better off the core of the question is the same connecting with them is also crucial, but the argumentation is different, for the poor you don’t have to tell them that they have to worry about a problem, cause the problem makes itself quite loud in their life, but the ones with a bit more money they often feel, since they are not suffering quite as much, that they’re on the same team of a billionaire, and that’s no more than an illusion. But, and here is where things get real tricky, it’s a very very comfortable illusion that they’ll fight to retain, so it makes dispelling such illusion a delicate process of making the truth evident, without sacrificing the connecting we cultivated with them.
So yeah I think you understood me comrade, really happy with our talk, and I really hope that what I’m saying is close to being correct, I feel strongly that it is, and yeah this thoughts do not offer all the answers, but maybe just maybe it asks the right questions.
My way of thinking to help me be grounded, is to understand that we are not fighting the people, even the people with fascist views, we are fighting fascism, we are fighting neoliberalism and so on, the people who are seduced by that, are consequence of a very well articulated machine of our enemies, but the people ARE NOT our enemies, they might make the will of our enemy but they ARE NOT the enemy, cause we need the people.
And secondly the other thing that is important to always keep in mind, is that people are much much much more often swayed by someone that they respect and that treats them with respect, and respecting somebody even though you disagree viscerally with their ideas can be helpful. Albeit this advice is geared more towards the liberal than the fascist, for the fascist is much more dangerous to get close so we need better strategies, but the point is, if someone likes you they might listen to you more. It’s a hard thing, but to be close to the people, however the people are at the moment, it’s our duty, there is no dancing around it, if we do not work with the people we are not progressing, we are just keeping a circle jerk instead of moving Marxism forward.
That’s a helpful reminder, thanks. If I try to put it in an analogy (metaphor?) it sounds kind of like there’s this alluring light leading the people into the swamp and part of our fight is to convince them to move away from it, to recognize it for what it is, as an illusion put together to drag them under. When I think of it this way, it seems to me that a large part of the fight is dismantling imperialist propaganda first. In other words, rather than trying to prove a positive first to someone who is bent on viewing communism as evil, it may be more effective to focus on finding ways to show them what is dissonant about the things they believe in. After all, for all the accusations of communism or other expressions of anti-imperialism being “cult-like” (one of those “every accusation is a confession” things) the way some people view it as a good/evil dichotomy of “freedom” on one side and “tyranny” on the other is itself cult-like in its thinking; if you are viewed as an outsider to that, you can be vilified really easily. But there’s also a lot of dissonance required to believe in that dichotomy, such as how in the US, some people will simultaneously believe the US is a bastion of democracy while also never being satisfied with who is president or being very cynical (and rightfully so) about how politicians behave.
Not that we can’t do some of both, but it may be that helping people reach the point of anti-imperialism is far more important than preaching communism. Which would be in line with how, if I’m not mistaken, global efforts are more centered right now on an alliance against imperialism than an alliance in favor of socialist states (my impression is, BRICS is a core of that?).
Edit: wording
I like the way you’ve put it but I have something to complement, because often when we talk like people are walking to the swamp and we need to convince them to move away it can sound like we are the ones with the answers and are there to show people (don’t know if that’s what you think though) and unfortunately it’s a very common way of thinking among our comrades, I myself am guilty of that many times. So back to the point the way to ofer our side as an option to someone who doesn’t know is, going back to the swamp metaphor, waking a bit by their side and asking hey how are you, how did you get here, what’s going on with your life. Things like that connect with the people talk to them see them who they are what they struggle wirh, so when you wanna explain our position we show how we understand the reasons and causes of their real issues, and why the answers people give to it are often fake. Our job is much more a job of offer then of convincing we just need to take out the barriers that make our side inviable to them, cause our product sells itself, they just need to be in contact with it.
That’s a fair point and something I will try to be conscious of. It sounds like what you’re saying, and correct me if I’m wrong, is we need to have more of a mindset of connecting with the people than preaching to them from on high. And that once we, well to put it one way… once we investigate why it is they think the way they do and investigate what it is they want and the reasons they want it, then we can communicate from there. But without that, we are just guessing and that can go very poorly. What I think of is some people, for example, are in a more comfy position economically, so they may not see the rich/poor issue as being very pressing. While for some others, it may be that the security of their next paycheck is their most pressing concern. When we know, we can empathize, truly care, and show them how these things relate to a broader system. If we don’t know, we can sound like we’re expecting them to be something they aren’t.
Hope that makes sense. Might sound like a lot to extrapolate from it, but kind of thinking it through as I type, to make sure we’re roughly on the same page.
Comrade you are exactly right. About connecting wirh the people that struggle more financially it’s not just a matter of investigating the root of why they think that way(although this is crucial too), but also of learning, the more oppressed is the individual the more they have to teach us about the shape the source the effects of oppression.
As for the people better off the core of the question is the same connecting with them is also crucial, but the argumentation is different, for the poor you don’t have to tell them that they have to worry about a problem, cause the problem makes itself quite loud in their life, but the ones with a bit more money they often feel, since they are not suffering quite as much, that they’re on the same team of a billionaire, and that’s no more than an illusion. But, and here is where things get real tricky, it’s a very very comfortable illusion that they’ll fight to retain, so it makes dispelling such illusion a delicate process of making the truth evident, without sacrificing the connecting we cultivated with them.
So yeah I think you understood me comrade, really happy with our talk, and I really hope that what I’m saying is close to being correct, I feel strongly that it is, and yeah this thoughts do not offer all the answers, but maybe just maybe it asks the right questions.