1) There's two things that work: Direct Action and pressure campaigns.

in a pressure campaign, you've got to figure out who's got decision making power and target them specifically. It can be a politician who's a swing vote, a boss who's refusing to recognize a union, the bargaining team for the police officers guild, or a landlord who's refusing repairs.

Figure out your leverage. Workers have leverage in that they provide labor. tennants have leverage in providing rent. voters provide votes. There's other kinds of pressure too, for example, landlords often care about impressing neighbors, coworkers, charitable organization board members, and fellow congregants. Universities need to retain students. But! you might not have leverage over every target! A massive chain's shareholders might be able to eat the impact of a strike, but a local manager might lose his job because of it. In that case, your leverage is over him, not the shareholders.

Every action should be part of an escalation campaign. In other words, start small (petitions, buttons, pins, etc.), build up bigger, maybe to flyering. Then work up to pickets. After that, protests, after that, vandalism and blockades, etc. This way, the longer things go on, the worse it gets for your target. They can make it all stop by giving a raise, or doing repairs, or freezing the rents, or ceasing construction. It is not enough to just protest!

In direct action, you make what you want happen yourself. Churches hate hunger, so they organize food banks; food banks are now the most effective form of welfare in america. Animal rights activists hate mink farming, so they sabotage the farms; the PNW fur industry is now a 10th the size it was in the 80s. Puerto Ricans were being denied aid after a hurricane, so they snuck into the aid warehouses and delivered it themselves. The IWW hated having bosses, so they elected their own and refused to recognize the company's. Revolution is direct action on a mass scale

2) Don't be a weirdo! The other day, a Maoist came up to me in a red scarf and started asking me questions about my struggles as a worker. The maoist asthetic is off-putting and corny. Acting like you're a third party outside of the working class is cringe. You're a worker, I'm a worker. If you want to find out about my struggles, gripe about work with me. Calling it social investigation makes you think of yourself as a detective. You're not a detective, you're my pal getting drinks after work.

DSA grew so fast because they called themselves "democratic socialists." That's just optics. A lot of DSA work is the same as ML party work: strike support, salting, socialist education, mutual aid, shooting practice. But they got more members because they used words and asthetics americans are comfortable with. Ditch the red scarf and the hammer and sickle and the fealty to Mao. It doesn't mean don't read and apply Mao, it just means be normal.

3) you've got to be engaged in struggles in your own life. You can't just ask other people to have a revolution for you. In the 70s, socialist parties had their members all take jobs in the same factories and organize fighting unions in them. Your party can go into warehouses, hospitals, meatpacking plants, even universities! Anywhere there's thousands of workers. The IWW helps general membership organize each others workplaces. Salting or organizing where you stand doesn't matter. What matters is that you're helping each other to organize in your own lives. you can do the same thing living in the same apartment building or forming a solidarity network to fight for each others stolen deposits. You can even go to the same church!

Protests ask other people to act. Organizing in your own life prepares you and your community to act. If you're raising awareness about imperialism, you're asking other people to act. On the other hand, if you organize with the diaspora, in their apartments, in their workplaces, in their churches, you're creating the capacity to overthrow their oppressors with them.

4) You can't win without people

Militancy is good, but you've got to warm most people up to it. You do this through one on one conversations or by fighting and winning to demonstrate it can be done (and then through more one on ones).

If you're not sure if you can pull off a big action, do a structure test! You can test individuals by asking them to do something like "get so and so to sign a petition." You can structure test coworkers through petitions, getting people to wear pins or holding a mock strike vote. You can structure test neighborhoods by going door to door asking people to sign pledge cards or give you their contact info.

If your structure test fails, it's time to do more one on ones. If you act with a small group, you'll get retaliated against. There's safety in numbers, so build numbers.

what might this look like? A few hypotheticals:

Stop cop city:

What if local groups ran escalation campaigns against local offices of contractors and funders associated with the project? What happens to the project when investment managers at local banks are subjected to pressure campaigns? When regional directors of building contractors are as well? How about when shareholders start getting phone zapped?

Defund the Police:

What if the next time the cops were bargaining a contract with the city and putting up resistance to reform, we mounted pressure on their bargaining team? How dedicated to qualified immunity would their bargainers be when there's a pressure campaign on the landlords and their pastors? What if we were in power in the unions and could threaten to kick the police out of the labor council if they weren't open to reforms?

Covid 19:

What if our response to Covid had been to organize for sick time and ventilation upgrades in our workplaces? If we were in warehouses and could win those reforms in a 5000 person workplace, that would have a huge impact on viral spread.

In short: Stop protesting, start organizing.

  • ChapoChatGPT [any]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Meeting people where they're at and putting in reasonable effort to understand social norms/cues to effectively influence people.

    It's essential to separate the tactical concept from the value judgement here, because we don't want to become norm enforcers that bully people who aren't "normal", but we do need to put constant effort into achieving our goals. If certain behaviors or patterns aren't conducive to our goals we need to critically assess and engage with them. There's obviously a ton of nuance involed, but we need to be able to give and take criticism, internalizing some amount of dynamicity and growth potential both personally and socially.

      • ChapoChatGPT [any]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Everyone is capable of improvement, and someone unable to take criticism isn't going to be useful to any movement.

        There's a distinct difference between "criticism" as a value judgement, used to enforce in-group/out-group behavior, and constructive criticism coming from within a group towards other members of that group. The former is toxic and unhelpful, the latter is necessary for any level of relationship or organization to function.

        I'm not a neurotypical social butterfly, this isn't me pointing at an Other and telling it to be more like me. This is me, a part of a larger group, saying that we as a group need to help each other improve. We're not going to get anywhere in our current form.

        Fortunately, everyone is dynamic, in a constant process of becoming who we are, full of tensions and impulses and energies that we can influence. We aren't stagnant objects to be cast aside just because we don't presently match a necessary ideal.

          • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Neurodivergent (autistic) people who force themselves to constantly be in the lookout for social norms and police their own behavior are statistically more likely to hurt themselves. This isn’t a thing people can just improve on. I don’t think neurotypical people can even improve when it comes to social interaction. I’ve never seen a single person fundamentally change their behavior in a way that makes them more likable or charismatic, only curbing behavior that hurts themselves or others directly, or practice for specific scenarios that come up often.

            This is completely untrue for all the NT and ND people I've dealt with. At a bare minimum, there's a reason why teenagers are socially awkward relative to adults. It's because teenagers, by virtue of lacking experience, have poor social skills which they then improve on so that by the time they're adults, they are no longer socially awkward. I would say your average 30 year old ND is less socially awkward than your average 13 year old NT. On a more tragic note, people who have abusive parents tend to be better at reading people's body language and facial expressions, and it's not just a case of them being NT (because they're good relative to NTs with supportive parents). It's because living under the roof of abusive parents force them to be good at reading their abusive parents' expression so they know when the abusive parents would lash out at them.

            As an aside, it's completely unhelpful to conceptualize social skills as some charisma stat point. It's like conceptualizing physical prowess as simply athleticism when athleticism is completely multifaceted. Someone who is good at swimming doesn't predispose them to be good at gymnastics. This extends even to seemingly similar physical activity (sprint running vs marathon running). Social skills are the same thing. You can be good at giving a presentation but suck at dating, be good at actively listening to a distressed friend but suck at selling yourself in a job interview.

            Having said that, I also believe there's a cost/benefit metric towards improving any given social skill and that the cost/benefit metric for certain social skills is too high for certain NDs, meaning there's no real point in wasting time and effort just to marginally improve those social skills that no one would notice or appreciate.

          • Dryad [she/her]
            ·
            1 year ago

            This isn’t a thing people can just improve on.

            Speak for yourself, jackass. If you want to argue that you're completely incapable of improving some skill or another be my guest, but don't do it by arguing that I am incapable and imply that someone who doesn't agree with you is being bigoted against me.

              • Dryad [she/her]
                ·
                1 year ago

                I legitimately believe that skill improvement is an illusion

                Well you're wrong and should reconsider such silliness.

                  • Dryad [she/her]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Well I have done it myself, I'm sorry to hear that you don't know how to build skills :edgeworth-shrug:

                      • Dryad [she/her]
                        ·
                        1 year ago

                        More the former. Not speech drills specifically because I don't have those kinds of problems, but stuff like actively consciously learning stuff like body language, facial expressions, eye contact, tone of voice, etc. None of that came naturally to me so I learned it.

          • ChapoChatGPT [any]
            ·
            1 year ago

            curbing behavior that hurts themselves or others directly, or practice for specific scenarios that come up often.

            I mean this is a great example of what I'm talking about, realizing certain thoughts/behaviors aren't useful to one's goals and trying to change them, or putting effort into practicing things one isn't good at but wants to be better at, that's all part of the dynamic process of becoming. This idea that neurodivergent people can't improve or alter their behavior is significantly more ableist than the idea that they can. I've altered my own behavior that I realized was toxic many times. I've altered my thought processes significantly in order to better interact with myself and the world around me. The person I was 10 years ago is unrecognizable to the current me. Similar potential and processes are there for every single person I know in real life, neurodivergent or otherwise.

            The idea that anyone can't change is idealist and defeatist and easily disprovable by observing anyone for a moderate period of time. That doesn't mean that they should necessarily, but the idea is if a person has goals and is part of a group that has goals, some amount of effort is reasonably spent achieving those goals. Conforming to arbitrary norms doesn't matter in and of itself, though.

            And yes, this dynamicity can and should also happen at the group level, not just the individual level. If a person in a group doesn't feel comfortable or isn't effective at being the spokesperson for the group, then that role should be filled by someone else. There's a lot of work that needs done.

            But most of us are interacting as individuals with other individuals since we don't have access to an org. In which case it's generally a good standard to try and do the best we can, as well as try to improve and practice at it.

              • ChapoChatGPT [any]
                ·
                1 year ago

                It's certainly a problem with the phrase "be normal", which acts as a signifier for a broad array of concepts, only one of which is particularly useful. I know the intent of it was good faith so I interpreted it as that useful concept instead of the others. But if it came from anyone who wasn't a comrade I'd react differently.

                This discussion has an interesting meta aspect to it in that we're hashing out the concept of communicating criticism or need for improvement without reinforcing unnecessary or harmful norms.