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...
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.
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.