Organized abolitionist movements came pretty early on actually.

They weren't separate. Early abolitionists called for boycotts. Organizations called for boycotts. It is a useful recruiting tool and the actions taken, while insufficient due to their nature, are not worthless, which is the impression people get when you tell them what they're doing won't work and provide no on-ramp to anything else.

Consider the void that is offered to them, generally. Even if a socialust gives alternatives, it's vague. Collective action... with whom? You can't go to the collective action store or vote for collective action or tweet collective action. They either need to create an organization themselves or join one. Which one? If we don't give concrete collective actions to displace (or, far better, supplement) their current individualistic ones, we will come across as armchair activists who don't actually prioritize doing anything about the problem.

Berating people over consumer choices is not going to make an organization, to say nothing of the fact that those orgs did and do exist.

Calls to action are not inherently berating, though it can be helpful to imply there's something wrong with typical consumption, even by individuals, particularly in the imperial core. Putting out a call to boycott all slave cotton if you're a Quaker could be interpreted as berating, but really it's about having an individual call to action as part of building sentiment and solidarity for a movement.

If we were in the 1790s and our primary persuasive contribution was to crap on slave cotton boycotts, all we'd have done alienated some people from our cause. We are in the earliest days of doing anything, of organizing anything. Even saying "we" is nearly farcical, we're a couple thousand dweebs scattered widely and there is no well-known ecosocialist organization we can point people to consistently in our countries. We have to concretely build options for activism like they did, build on top of insufficient activism, keep building until it eventually is sufficient.

Get those libs into your ecosocialist caucus or org. Personally ask them to join and give their information to be contacted. The bread and butter for doing so is by creating an individual call to action and in-person canvassing for that info. Get your group, no matter how small it is, a megaphone, and clipboards. Build on their sentiment.

The ELF got recruits, they did damage and direct action. Yelling at people to consume less without first dismantling corporatism is not going to solve anything.

Insufficiency is not the same as pointlessness and libs will notice the contradiction between their experience + research and such dismissiveness. Don't blow an opportunity to radicalize people motivated to take what action is on the table.

"Do this seemingly impossible thing that you might not even believe in first instead of this tractable thing" won't capture what enthusiasm they have. They have to be onboarded, given things to do, real things. There is no "dismantle capitalism" button, but that's what we sound like to them by default.

Most abolitionists didn’t have slaves in the first place, or have much impact on whether or not slavery was profitable.

That sounds like an argument that individualistic action makes more sense in the case of climate change.

Mass boycotts of slave products, or at least the calls for them, certainly got the attention of the ruling class and were widely known.

Boycotts are fine and all, but framing opposition to corporations first and foremost as “western privileged lefties” and that we must cut down our own consumption primarily; is moronic.

That's a sentiment of frustration at people (Chapos) who use the most ridiculousness rationalizations for refusing to do individual action regarding just about anything, to remove their participation in a select set of horrors in which they've become jaded.

I don't see a lot of threads about, say, a given user becoming a cop being nbd because it's individualistic, though. Chapos understand solidarity and individual consistency in supporting or even participating in movements, but we can say that it seems to be selective. I don't think it's productive to speculate about reasons right now, though. I'll just say to be cognizant of solidarity in these situations, to challenge assumptions about it.

Also your sanctimonious responses to people in this thread keep assuming that everyone who disagrees with you, doesnt cut down on consumption or is not environmentally conscious. (...)

I haven't said anything like that. Are you sure you're thinking of the right person?

People are already doing activism, but don’t exactly have the ability to make a difference and no amount of yelling about consumption is going to give them that power.

My suggested course of action is not "yelling about consumption." Or would you think that BDS and using it to promote membership in (preferably socialist) anti-war, anti-imperialist organizations is just "yelling about consumption"?

Many people don’t have the ability to do personal actions or invest time and money in what amount to insignificant acts.

Everyone can just not eat Sabra hummus. Sabra hummus is not a necessary part of, say, Americans' lives, no matter how poor or overworked or sick. Having a call to action regarding Sabra hummus is also not an inherently shaming act asking too much from anyone, it's a call to solidarity. I'm not thinking to myself, "oh that bastard eating Sabra hummus, why do they hate Palestinian children so much?" But I can see why a Palestinian might get frustrated by socialists crapping on the boycott because it's "individualistic" because what's actually necessary is ending apartheid. Yeah, duh.

And yelling at them and calling them privileged westerners is NOT forming some grand movement, it is just about scolding people and creating an enemy in your mind among the left cause the actual opponent is to hard to fight. It is defeatism just with a different solution

Again this isn't describing me or what I said at all.