On The Jacobin Show, Amber Frost offers a critique of some of the intellectual arguments for mutual aid, debunks the myth that the Black Panther Party's free...
Listened to this a few days ago. Here are some of the points I remember that seem like good additions to the conversation about how we can build socialism.
Mutual aid is good, but not everything that's good is socialism.
The goal of socialism is not to more equitably redistribute what little wealth workers currently control; the goal of socialism is for workers to own the means of production.
There are clear limits on what mutual aid can do -- there's a line to the effect of "I can't make insulin in my bathtub." This limits how effective mutual aid can be as part of any dual power theory and limits how effective it can be as training to take control of the means of production. For instance, mutual aid will never be able to match the size and complexity of a federal program.
People are smart enough to figure out what you're doing if your leftist organization plans on using mutual aid as a recruitment tool (and this is true even if you don't condition your efforts on listening to a speech or something). This can easily backfire and cause resentment.
Socialist ideas are good enough to stand on their own. You can convince people that socialism is good even if you're not giving them a meal.
Many mutual aid projects envision creating a community atmosphere, but a lot of people already have communities. They may appreciate the help but not want to get further involved.
All of these are at least worth considering. One criticism is that mutual aid potentially can help with de-stigmatizing socialism, which is a prerequisite to building socialism. It's harder to get people on board with socialism in an environment where socialism is equated with horrible scary foreign governments than it is in an environment where socialists are real people you know who do good things in your city.
A person's material conditions prime them to agree with certain politics, but material conditions do not determine that person's politics. Look no further than the tens of millions of Americans who've had their pockets picked by capitalists their entire lives but who are Republicans to the bone.
We absolutely need to put in the work of convincing people to become socialists, and yeah, that involves talking politics with them. A free meal isn't going to turn them into a socialist any more than stimulus checks turned people into Trump supporters.
Look no further than the tens of millions of Americans who’ve had their pockets picked by capitalists their entire lives but who are Republicans to the bone.
Because what other option have they had? Most these people lost their jobs via NAFTA style trade deals that the Dems love. They were abandoned for cheaper overseas labor and resent Dems for that.
We absolutely need to put in the work of convincing people to become socialists, and yeah, that involves talking politics with them.
Ok? And people are going to be more willing to listen to someone who's proven themselves willing to help then instead of some dickhead they don't know yelling about capitalist constrictions online.
A free meal isn’t going to turn them into a socialist any more than stimulus checks turned people into Trump supporters.
I mean this genuinely, have you done any in person discussion with people? I don't want to sound rude but people are much more inclined to take the point of view of someone they know and trust. So helping people survive is going to build trust which you can then build upon. How can you expect to convince people of your point of view if you set up in opposition to them?
NAFTA had bipartisan support, so it's not as simple as "Democrats did this and people hated it." Blaming NAFTA solely on Democrats (when negotiations started under Reagan and Republican congresspeople made up most of the votes to ratify it) is actually a great example of how political messaging can work independently from material reality.
people are going to be more willing to listen to someone who’s proven themselves willing to help then instead of some dickhead they don’t know... people are much more inclined to take the point of view of someone they know and trust
People get a lot of their politics from people they have no personal connection to, and who have shown little-to-no willingness to help them. The whole pundit class and most politicians fit this description. Besides, serving someone a meal does not mean they know or trust you, and people frequently dismiss the political opinions of people they know and trust in other contexts (think family members).
Agreed that it does, but it's not just propaganda; ideology is all encompassing and more pervasive than propaganda alone, and can justify things that would contradict one's material interests by seeming real and reflecting the everyday experience.
I agree that you'll be able to get some people through the marketplace of ideas. But, you build much bigger, lasting, and more diverse groups through actual mutual aid.
Also, those people will be willing to actually go out and put in work (imo) as opposed to others who might like things in theory, but then never be willing to take action.
Most of those points I’d agree with except the following:
People are smart enough to figure out what you’re doing if your leftist organization plans on using mutual aid as a recruitment tool (and this is true even if you don’t condition your efforts on listening to a speech or something). This can easily backfire and cause resentment.
This makes it sound like mutual aid as a recruitment tool is something nefarious which is nonsense. So what if people know it’s partially to help recruitment and spread a message? I don’t agree at all there is “backfire” potential here.
I help run a mutual aid org. The most radical thing to people when they encounter us is that we don't means test. That alone is a crazy idea for people to find in a neolib hellscape.
We're trying to start some political education stuff, I'm not sure how that will go, but we'll see. Even if it's not going to bring about socialism over night, organizing feels good and gets me involved in real ways offline.
You can't make insulin in a bathtub, but a federation of bottom-up organized groups of chemists and workers can. You don't need federal programs for that.
the goal of socialism is for workers to own the means of production.
The goal of socialism is workers becoming the dominant class, abolishing commodity production, abolishing class distinction and doing production according to need and ability. Still, the biggest issue here with Amber's position is her presentation of socialism is just doing New Deal era labor movement but "more", when that movement ended up failing.
I think point 5 amber presented well enough, but it's not "socialist ideas". Organize people to their immediate interests and what they need (tenant organizing, labor organizing),. Otherwise we're just doing advocacy and charity work.
Listened to this a few days ago. Here are some of the points I remember that seem like good additions to the conversation about how we can build socialism.
All of these are at least worth considering. One criticism is that mutual aid potentially can help with de-stigmatizing socialism, which is a prerequisite to building socialism. It's harder to get people on board with socialism in an environment where socialism is equated with horrible scary foreign governments than it is in an environment where socialists are real people you know who do good things in your city.
Real liberal "marketplace of ideas" bs there from the Brooklyn podcaster.
:geordi-no: Improving people material conditions in order to build a large coalition.
:geordi-yes: Bring people in via twitter shit talk and the marketplace of ideas.
A person's material conditions prime them to agree with certain politics, but material conditions do not determine that person's politics. Look no further than the tens of millions of Americans who've had their pockets picked by capitalists their entire lives but who are Republicans to the bone.
We absolutely need to put in the work of convincing people to become socialists, and yeah, that involves talking politics with them. A free meal isn't going to turn them into a socialist any more than stimulus checks turned people into Trump supporters.
Because what other option have they had? Most these people lost their jobs via NAFTA style trade deals that the Dems love. They were abandoned for cheaper overseas labor and resent Dems for that.
Ok? And people are going to be more willing to listen to someone who's proven themselves willing to help then instead of some dickhead they don't know yelling about capitalist constrictions online.
I mean this genuinely, have you done any in person discussion with people? I don't want to sound rude but people are much more inclined to take the point of view of someone they know and trust. So helping people survive is going to build trust which you can then build upon. How can you expect to convince people of your point of view if you set up in opposition to them?
NAFTA had bipartisan support, so it's not as simple as "Democrats did this and people hated it." Blaming NAFTA solely on Democrats (when negotiations started under Reagan and Republican congresspeople made up most of the votes to ratify it) is actually a great example of how political messaging can work independently from material reality.
People get a lot of their politics from people they have no personal connection to, and who have shown little-to-no willingness to help them. The whole pundit class and most politicians fit this description. Besides, serving someone a meal does not mean they know or trust you, and people frequently dismiss the political opinions of people they know and trust in other contexts (think family members).
I think you're highly underestimating people parasocial relations with celebrities/people on their tv.
Propaganda works.
Agreed that it does, but it's not just propaganda; ideology is all encompassing and more pervasive than propaganda alone, and can justify things that would contradict one's material interests by seeming real and reflecting the everyday experience.
deleted by creator
Both points are valid.
I agree that you'll be able to get some people through the marketplace of ideas. But, you build much bigger, lasting, and more diverse groups through actual mutual aid.
Also, those people will be willing to actually go out and put in work (imo) as opposed to others who might like things in theory, but then never be willing to take action.
Pros and cons to each approach, room for both, no need to malign the proponents of either one.
Most of those points I’d agree with except the following:
This makes it sound like mutual aid as a recruitment tool is something nefarious which is nonsense. So what if people know it’s partially to help recruitment and spread a message? I don’t agree at all there is “backfire” potential here.
I help run a mutual aid org. The most radical thing to people when they encounter us is that we don't means test. That alone is a crazy idea for people to find in a neolib hellscape.
We're trying to start some political education stuff, I'm not sure how that will go, but we'll see. Even if it's not going to bring about socialism over night, organizing feels good and gets me involved in real ways offline.
Using mutual aid as a proof-of-concept definitely has some potential.
You can't make insulin in a bathtub, but a federation of bottom-up organized groups of chemists and workers can. You don't need federal programs for that.
Although having a federation sounds cool, haven't these kinds of structures proven to be inefficient and easily destroyed in the past?
You should check this out: https://openinsulin.org/
huh, neat
The goal of socialism is workers becoming the dominant class, abolishing commodity production, abolishing class distinction and doing production according to need and ability. Still, the biggest issue here with Amber's position is her presentation of socialism is just doing New Deal era labor movement but "more", when that movement ended up failing.
I think point 5 amber presented well enough, but it's not "socialist ideas". Organize people to their immediate interests and what they need (tenant organizing, labor organizing),. Otherwise we're just doing advocacy and charity work.
Amber.