I'm seeing some dumb-ass takes about how "online isn't real" and how it's "a drop in the bucket." But seriously, how did you all become aware of leftist ideas? How does anyone in nations such as the US become politically literate? How many of you were former atheist edgelords or shitposters on reddit?
Seriously, online does matter. It wasn't Fox News that created the alt-right Charlottesville rally. It was the fucking Sargon/skeptic/manosphere pipeline, which was primarily a youtube phenomenon. Or how about the comrades that listened to Chapo, and were inspired to travel to Iowa to help Bernie win the Iowa caucus? For Christ's sake just look at how much of an influence Facebook has had on the CHUDs. To ignore that we live in a neoliberal hellscape where the vast majority of us only find some kind of solace or connection in the online world is to ironically ignore material conditions. Something can be "not real" but still have a HUGE affect on the "real world" (e.g. money, gender). Have the recent voices of trans comrades and POC comrades about their issues here not taught anyone anything? Doesn't take a genius to see this.
For those that scream "rEaD tHeOry" take a step back and think, what the hell were many those "classic Marxist texts?" A lot of them were political pamplets or, as others have pointed out before, literally debate-bro replies to others. How is that any different than online shit now? Honestly, if Marx et. al were alive today, wouldn't they use podcasts, tweets, and youtube vids to spread their messages?
TL;DR: online does matter. Seriously, how did any of you become politically aware, be honest.
When it gets to the point where outdoor cats turns into a huge heated struggle session, maybe we do need to log off a bit, and take a walk.
So? One time Mao tried to murder every single pigeon in China. Along with rats, flies, and mosquitos.
He even went so far as to declare:
birds are public animals of capitalism
Eventually China even had to start importing the bird from the USSR in order to keep the food chain afloat.
Mao tried to murder every single pigeon in China
Come on everyone knows it was sparrows
The four pests to be eliminated were rats, flies, mosquitoes, and sparrows. The extermination of sparrows is also known as Smash Sparrows Campaign (Chinese: 打麻雀运动; pinyin: Dǎ Máquè Yùndòng) or Eliminate Sparrows Campaign (Chinese: 消灭麻雀运动; pinyin: Xiāomiè Máquè Yùndòng),
Aren't sparrows just another name for pigeons? Like Pigs and Hogs? Or Crow and Jackdaws?
idk about the translation but sparrows & pigeons are very different birds
like, different orders (5th tier in biological taxonomy)
As someone who is a scientist who studies sparrows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls sparrows pigeons. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
This is my first comment on this forum. I got on Reddit in August 2010 because a girlfriend introduced me to it. I ignored it for about exactly a year. Then I got addicted. I had an internet timer extension at one point, and after 3 years it said I had an average daily time on Reddit of 5 hours. Since that point in 2011, I've consistently been on Reddit around that much. So if I'm sensible, we could say I was on Reddit around 365 x 9 x 4.5. What's that number come out to?
When it gets to the point that I write up several extensive and thoughtful paragraphs, hit send, then have to immediately check reveddit or some similar site just to see whether or not I hit some wrong "trigger" word that caused my comment to be shadow-removed instantly, no fucking notification to me, it starts to make me beyond bothered, particularly when all context in my comment was ignored and the more words I use the more likely it is that I'll trigger a wrong one.
I could go outside. I should go outside. But I'm also living in this world where technology has created an almost heroin-like addiction, where we've all gotten so normalized to everything that I've lived a million different lives in every movie, TV show, video game, and I can still look at my government and society and it feels about as logical as shooting myself in the foot to ignore it. We're so twisted and controlled by propaganda that we allow complete sociopaths to dominate us, owning their own private islands where they can use humans like objects.
Going outside is a temporary avoidance. It's necessary to remain sane, but I can't do anything really without still being trapped in thoughts of all this perpetual exploitation around me. People dying for absolutely no reason, or specifically so people can form new ways to profit in the future. Terrorist groups being funded so we can send people to die and kill perpetually.
Reality is just as much what we allow our government to get away with. We're letting that reality escape us, and it means our apathy is simultaneously hurting people, causing suffering and more struggle for people in the future, and giving endless power to the absolute worst kinds of people.
Online serves the same function as the old party newspapers. It's important, but if all you're doing is reading and writing articles you're missing the point.
imagine getting onto the radio during WW2 to shout at people that radio doesn't matter
"Warm regards from the front. STOP. The telegraph doesn't matter. STOP. Go outside instead of endlessly obsessing over Morse Code. STOP."
Radio is a passive experience for the listener, whereas social media is not.
Please explain to me how the family sitting around their radio was actually communicating back through it to H.G. Wells.
the family is communicating with eachother about what they're listening to in exactly the same way that people commenting on a thread posted by a content reactor are interacting with eachother about the content they are consuming. It seems to you that it'd be fundamentally more isolated & less interactive because you didn't grow up around it
No, it's not. Radio is a broadcast technology that serves a fundamentally different purpose from social media and would be comparable to Netflix or television. Social media has put technology in between the family talking to eachother IRL while listening to the radio.
social media is mostly just consuming content that content creators have put out, and interacting with people in the comments under it. It's the same as radio except its not ur family ur reply guy'ing to & the only way to think otherwise is if u think ur in the same boat as every verified twitter user or famous fb page admin because ur replying to what they post which I guess would be peak reply guy ideology
No one can just show up on the radio now and say "Yeah, I'm gonna do a show for an hour", the same way they couldn't do that during radios golden age. It was a one way production-->consumption relationship, a curated monologue, whereas social media is a largely uncurated dialogue. Posts aren't media, and that's ultimately what most of social media activity boils down to, not content creation. Me tweeting how I want the lady from Uncut Gems to step on my balls and getting 5000 replies isn't content creation anymore than me saying it IRL and having everyone yell at me counts as a theater production.
Of course online matters, but the point is people hanging around here are already on our side. Debate is good but at some point if you aren't actively organizing then politics is just a hobby for you. That's fine but I would probably want a less depressing hobby.
The internet is just a tool for discussion
That fact we’re all talk is the real problem
Capitals motivate irl action with the Internet every day. Changes in genuinely help beliefs lead to changes in actions. That’s why it’s important to not make socialist thought performative. Because then you’re incentivizing pretending to hold beliefs
Capitals motivate irl action with the Internet every day.
Yeah for real. And leftists constantly critique capitalists when they do this. And ironically where do they post their critiques? Online of course.
I can’t tell how many levels of “you criticize capitalism, yet you participate in it” this is on
Edit: Not trying to be a dick I’m genuinely not sure what point you’re trying to make
Oh okay then yeah. I was commenting on the original thread this one was a response to and got them confused
I mean I replied to someone else in this post that said that online didn't matter, but that same person had previously commented how important Jimmy Dore's platform was. So in that sense there is some hypocrisy there.
Well no, i think the internet has been sold to us as the ultimate discussion forum, information superhighway.
but it over sells what is possible on these platforms, and we need periodic reminder.
You can yell at stupid takes all you want, but eventually you have to tackle your racist uncle at the family meetup, and we have to remember inaction is a privilege in even the smallest conflict.
Have to remember people that were literate back in the day were more adept at reading, since it requires practice and that was the entertainment aside from maybe radio and newspaper. So reading ol pamphlet was no big deal, or having it read by a friend. Lots of reading by friends.
Conditions are different here in US 21st century there isn't a whole lot of functional literacy among the masses, I'd ass throw a much higher than official number like maybe 30-60% (corresponding to class factor as well) are functionally illiterate, unable to make use of much more than the basics. For reading theory you need to be at least proficient and would have to understand nuisance, subtlety, sarcasm, and even when to take things as they are. The bourgeoisie knows this, why you think the educational system is utter trash? If they can read and understand they can question. There's chuds on a popular conspiracy theorist forum trying to read the mere Manifesto and stumbling about like a fish in confusion and element. It's more sad than funny, and they use this misunderstanding to reinforce their reactionary views.
Its a desperately alienated society, you're not going to have a friend read you a 50 pg text, even if they could it takes way too much time and isn't as entertaining as say laughing at a silly meme or watching a youtube vid. People are stressed, depressed, do you think they want to read a big ass book after a long shift coughing out a lung? Nah, not when there's other fun distractions.
Its like some Trots fetishizing newspapers into the age of the computer, that's the past technology and situations change, where do people spend their time now? That's what to focus on. Get the message out, treat them as humans (alienation is dehumanizing) and if they have the ability and resources (time), yes point at the theory books. Even back in the day it was the vanguard, propagandists in party, academics and what not that focused on really being involved with theory everyone else just learnt enough to try to live it.
It was the books themselves in my case and my fatal sense of curosity, this was before the internet got super mainstream as today.
ppl read more now than they used to if you count reading stuff online instead of only counting novels. Yeah, ppl aren't as good at reading novels or writing letters than they used to back in the day but let's unthaw some asshole from the 1600's & throw him into reddit and see how he fucking fares
I'll give you that, yes we do read in general more, but it usually isn't long or full of intricacies as theory is. Theory is more akin to legal-ese imo these days.
Nobody read theory back then either lol I assure you the past had no more grand philosophers than the present does. Idk if u imagine like the era that marx & engels lived in was full of marxes & engelses but if u do u need to square your worldview off with 1 question: why did nobody listen to them?
but if u do u need to square your worldview off with 1 question: why did nobody listen to them?
What do you mean nobody listened to them millions of people did lol how do you think these movements got off the ground in the first place?
You brought up 3 liberal democratic revolutions, I'm not sure what these have to do with this.
Not disagreeing there, more like those that could were more apt to read at the degree this calls for, not that they actually went through with it. They even made bad interpretations back then.
let’s unthaw some asshole from the 1600’s & throw him into reddit and see how he fucking fares
He just keeps linking to Rembrandt's "The Pig That Pooped on its Balls"
The point isn't that you can't look up stuff online or organize events online. The point is that you can't do politics online. If you want to unionize your workplace you can discuss things online and stuff but you need to actually get offline to go to actually do it. If you're trying to organize tons of people and are new at it, you can use the internet to read on how to do it. But actually doing it happens offline. You have to go talk to people face to face and hold events and do things that aren't posting. If you're trying to conduct community defense because you're worried fash are coming to town, you can plan online but you need to show up to face them. The Charlottesville rally didn't happen online. Heyer didn't die because she posted some stuff. They were in the streets facing off.
You have a misunderstanding if you think people are suggesting you must literally go without the internet. Using these online spaces as a reprise to talk and relax and joke isn't doing activism. The problem is when people think posting gritty memes and doing raids on reddit is doing something. Listening to podcasts isn't activism. Even reading theory isn't activism. You have to go do things. If you absolutely can't go do things because you're in danger or just don't want to but won't admit that online, that's fine. Not everyone has to do stuff. But we also don't have to pretend the not doing stuff is doing stuff.
I agree that politics requires offline action. I'm mainly responding to the notion that online influence is just a "drop in the bucket" when it clearly isn't. And nowadays I can't think of any offline action that wasn't directly the result of something that happened online, or vice-versa. So I would push back on the notion that you can't do politics online.
nowadays I can’t think of any offline action that wasn’t directly the result of something that happened online, or vice-versa
Pretty much. Online is a part of reality that, unsurprisingly, is affected by and influences the rest of reality (i.e. everything offline). Ignoring either aspect is one-sided and prone to ineffective action.
I think we're going to talk past each other here because it's not clear what we're talking about. Okay so back to the union example. You can talk about forming a union online, you can research how to do it online, you can share meeting dates online, you can chat with other organizers about it online, you can even video conference meetings during a pandemic online. But in that example online is just a meeting space. 30 years ago the same thing was accomplished by renting a recreation center. Nobody would argue that renting a room to hold a meeting is central to organizing.
And nowadays I can’t think of any offline action that wasn’t directly the result of something that happened online, or vice-versa
Can you name a couple of examples?
Can you name a couple of examples?
Charlottesville, like I said before. I'd wager that almost everyone but the top-brass there were dudes who got radicalized online and decided that this was their day to finally go out in the real world.
Also, like I said, the chapos that were inspired to volunteer for the Bernie campaign by traveling to Iowa and other places.
Nobody would argue that renting a room to hold a meeting is central to organizing.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that meeting is not central to organizing?
No I'm saying the meeting place isn't central. A chat room, a break room, a field, can all be meeting places.
Charlottesville would have happened if the internet didn't exist. It's not the first time nazis had a rally in the US. Nothing about it is uniquely online. Other than it was covered heavily online. Which is just media attention.
Charlottesville would have happened if the internet didn’t exist. It’s not the first time nazis had a rally in the US. Nothing about it is uniquely online.
This I would definitely push back on. Almost everything about it was uniquely online, from the demographics of participants to the leaders to the symbolism (i.e. pepe shit). Sure there was some old school elements in there but it was the youth that really energized it.
Pepe shit is aesthetics. Nazis aren't nazis because of frog memes. People don't change the entire ideology because of frog pictures. How were the demographics uniquely online? You mean because the people who showed up had an online presences it means they only would have showed up if the internet existed? Again Nazis don't need the internet to show up to places. Nazis having facebook profiles doesn't mean having a facebook profile makes you a Nazi. Perpetually online Nazis showing up to a rally doesn't mean being perpetually online causes you to be a Nazi. Case in point: us. If the internet didn't exist those people would likely still be nazis. Or if not specifically them, some other percentage of young white conservatives. And you said it yourself, youth. Youth are more likely to use the internet (though with some pushback because the online boomer is a thing), and they're more like to game too. Would you suggest that the gaming scene is central to the leftist project? Afterall gamergate was a thing. Chuds did things online and people in the "real" world reacted to it. So should we be focusing on creating a leftist gaming league? Or is it just that the people involved in all that were already heavily online and so that's where it played out?
Nazis aren’t nazis because of frog memes.
It's a pipeline, and online shit is what funnels people in one direction or another. You're right that politics would exist without the internet, and that people would find these ideologies without the internet, but the internet makes that growth process faster and easier to manipulate.
People don’t change the entire ideology because of frog pictures. How were the demographics uniquely online?
Listen, I don't wanna get debate-broey here (which btw you started by quote-replying me above), but the demographics were a bunch of young, white males who were radicalized through some sort of Sargon/atheist/libertarian/manosphere pipeline. Their ideologies were changed through online stuff.
Case in point: us. If the internet didn’t exist those people would likely still be nazis.
I think this ignores the fact of online radicalization, which I've talked about already. It's also kind of essentialist, tbh.
And you said it yourself, youth. Youth are more likely to use the internet (though with some pushback because the online boomer is a thing), and they’re more like to game too. Would you suggest that the gaming scene is central to the leftist project? Afterall gamergate was a thing. Chuds did things online and people in the “real” world reacted to it. So should we be focusing on creating a leftist gaming league? Or is it just that the people involved in all that were already heavily online and so that’s where it played out?
I think you're just proving my point here. Like I said, I don't wanna get debate-broey with you, but what you and I are doing here is basically a political exchange, and it's bound to affect the readers of our exchange.
How I moved left from being a brainwashed Bush supporter from a shitty Highschool government professor: Colbert Report -> John Stewart -> Reddit -> Bernie Sanders sub -> Leftist subs like Late Stage Capitalism and Chapo. Throw in all the youtube videos I've watched along the way. Videos of Michael Parenti were the final straw that made me a communist. Had it not been for the internet I'd, at best be a shitlib. lol rChapo memes were so good it actually made me want to learn more about Socialism and Communism.
Yeah I mean the fact that people in this thread are saying "online doesn't matter because it's just a place to shoot the shit" is kinda boggling. Like if you're just gonna shoot the shit, then not why not do it on r*ddit or some other place? They chose this place, so online shit DOES play a role in their politics.
It's denial. Refusal. Stubbornness. You're set in your ways at what is without a single doubt only the very beginning of the greatest change to the fabric of our civilization since agriculture.
A wise person once said (https://hexbear.net/post/67786/comment/701856):
Yes, you can hate Dore all you want (and I have stopped listening to him a long time ago), but he is the only “left” podcaster that I know that some of the working class people I know irl listen to (and to a lesser extent, I hate to say this, TYT).
Of course this is a limited sample size based on my personal experience, but if you ask me I have no doubt that Dore’s platform is reaching the working class people.
The same person also said (https://hexbear.net/post/67786/comment/701834):
The real question to ask here is why did it take a foul mouthed comedian to bring up an idea and a strategy that resonates with so many struggling working class people?
Oh wait... that was... you.
So does "radicalization" not matter, as you say now? Or should I listen to the you from 7 days ago?
This is dangerous when people are radicalized with shaky foundations. They are just as easy to sway toward becoming reactionaries
But you're talking about how Jimmy Dore is reaching people? So is online stuff good or not? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
There is almost systemic effort to promote political education, generate discussions on theory and political discourse, strategy, tactics, on organizing both locally, internationally or virtually.
Maybe but I haven't seen anything like this. This seems like a stretch.
OP makes a good point here, I don't know of any "systematic effort" to promote leftist political education, strategy, etc. Also, it is kinda weird to talk about how Jimmy Dore and TYT are reaching the working class but shit on online radicalization at the same time.
Radicalization means nothing.
I mean.... the New Zealand shooter? All sorts of lone wolf white supremacist attacks? All sorts of jihadist attacks?
Yeah I made this point about Charlottesville in another comment. Online does matter, especially radicalization pipelines.
Social media is 21st-century propaganda that ordinary people have at least some control over.
For me it was reading Glenn Greenwald's blog. edit: really it was his column on Salon by then
