How do you figure? People in general don’t listen to well thought out arguments, they’re mostly driven by pithy quips, buzzwords, and emotional arguments. And positioning ourselves on the defense just makes us look weak, and weakness is a poor emotional argument.
Progressive, socialist policies are extremely popular. Progressive, socialist terminology is extremely unpopular. What we actually need is a full-throated promotion of socialist policy without hobbling ourselves by using socialist language. Keep that shit in the cadre, meet the proletariat where they actually are.
If someone can correctly identify actual socialist policies as socialist, they’re probably already a socialist, so there’s nothing to defend. You can just innocently say “Oh is it? Huh, maybe those socialists are onto something then”.
The whole reason socialist terminology is poisoned is because the people have been told that “socialism” means the government owning everything, forcing you to live in commie blocks, and taking all your money to give to party insiders and freeloaders.
In either case, promoting the policies without the terminology is still the best course of action. The socialists will understand what you’re getting at, the masses will get to consider the policies without the baggage of propaganda.
You’re not a robot, you aren’t forced into the defensive by questions. Conversations are free response, you aren’t forced to follow a logical script. Logic is for coming to conclusions, not sharing them. That’s the job of rhetoric, and rhetoric relies on directing the conversation, not being directed. Persuasion is more important than reason here.
However, I can’t help notice the rise of independent media is allowing people to have opinions that haven’t been able to hold before. The anti-genocidal anti-zionism we see is completely transmitted by non-corporate mainstream outlets. Would Mamdami have been possible if everyone only watched CNN and the New York Times and not Hasan Piker or Democracy Now? I don’t think so.
So maybe it depends on the venue, but until we can make openly leftist arguments on mainstream media, we’re going to be fighting uphill.
And it’s already started with anti-Israel sentiment; Al-Sayed was on some cable show openly calling Israeli’s actions genocide–absolutely unthikable a few months ago.
Which is exactly why we need a full-throated defense of socialism.
How do you figure? People in general don’t listen to well thought out arguments, they’re mostly driven by pithy quips, buzzwords, and emotional arguments. And positioning ourselves on the defense just makes us look weak, and weakness is a poor emotional argument.
Progressive, socialist policies are extremely popular. Progressive, socialist terminology is extremely unpopular. What we actually need is a full-throated promotion of socialist policy without hobbling ourselves by using socialist language. Keep that shit in the cadre, meet the proletariat where they actually are.
How do you defend yourself against the true claim that your socialist policies are socialist? At some point, you have to stand your ground, no?
Anyway, the larger problem is the entire media landscape is hostile, which YouTube and podcasts are helping with.
If someone can correctly identify actual socialist policies as socialist, they’re probably already a socialist, so there’s nothing to defend. You can just innocently say “Oh is it? Huh, maybe those socialists are onto something then”.
The whole reason socialist terminology is poisoned is because the people have been told that “socialism” means the government owning everything, forcing you to live in commie blocks, and taking all your money to give to party insiders and freeloaders.
In either case, promoting the policies without the terminology is still the best course of action. The socialists will understand what you’re getting at, the masses will get to consider the policies without the baggage of propaganda.
You’re not a robot, you aren’t forced into the defensive by questions. Conversations are free response, you aren’t forced to follow a logical script. Logic is for coming to conclusions, not sharing them. That’s the job of rhetoric, and rhetoric relies on directing the conversation, not being directed. Persuasion is more important than reason here.
I guess.
However, I can’t help notice the rise of independent media is allowing people to have opinions that haven’t been able to hold before. The anti-genocidal anti-zionism we see is completely transmitted by non-corporate mainstream outlets. Would Mamdami have been possible if everyone only watched CNN and the New York Times and not Hasan Piker or Democracy Now? I don’t think so.
So maybe it depends on the venue, but until we can make openly leftist arguments on mainstream media, we’re going to be fighting uphill.
And it’s already started with anti-Israel sentiment; Al-Sayed was on some cable show openly calling Israeli’s actions genocide–absolutely unthikable a few months ago.