Capitalists say this justification to justify the status quo as “voluntary participation”
The problem with that logic is that it does nothing to address the exploitation. If the job has to be done then somebody will end up doing it, and if the conditions are poor then that person is being exploited. So, you can improve your own individual situation, but it doesn’t lead to systemic change.
Socialists want to improve the situation of all people as opposed to just making their own position in society better.
If I tell capitalists I want to improve the situation of all people they’ll laugh in my face for sure. It’ll need a better spin for capitalists
Trying to convince capitalists to be altruistic is not a productive use of your time. People who directly benefit from exploiting others aren’t going to change their behavior unless they’re forced to do so. Capitalists constitute a tiny percentage of the overall population. The people who you should be talking to are other workers. Getting workers to understand the nature of their exploitation, and encouraging them to organize against it is the way forward.
Pardon me, by capitalist I meant people who are like part of the Elon fan club or people with no capital who say that they like the system, ex the average Westerner
These kinds of people are hard to reach because they see themselves as benefiting from the system. It’s possible to do, but again I would focus on reaching people who are receptive to the ideas. Ultimately, it’s not going to be possible to convince everyone, nor is it necessary. Movements that drive change can consist of a fairly small percentage of the overall population. I recommend reading a bit of history of communist revolutions in Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, and China as some examples of how effective movements organize in practice.
I saw a post here a long time ago that said we only need 5% of the population to protest and the government doesn’t have enough to suppress that.
A more realistic number is likely 25%, as the study discussed here suggests. That’s still a fairly low percentage of the population. Disturbingly enough this is around the level of support MAGA movement has currently in US.
Not that anybody has more than like three friends anymore nowadays, but this is probably a really good benchmark for how to radicalize your friend group
Right, and we can look at spread of ideas through the lens of pandemics. The key aspect is the replication rate. As long as each individual can radicalize at least a couple of people who go on to do the same, then the movement grows, and it does so at an exponential rate.
And I’d argue that it’s important to focus on quality over quantity here. Getting a dozen people to loosely agree on an idea is far less valuable than getting a couple of people seriously committed towards creating long term change.
According to innuendo studios, that YouTube channel, the way the right does it is quantity over quality, and that did lead to maga
I’d argue the right goes for quality in a sense of appealing to the people who are highly radicalized. They’re not trying to water down their message and appeal to the lowest common denominator. In fact, they’re perfectly fine with people outright hating them.
They know that their message won’t appeal to the majority of the people, but those that get onboard are fully committed to it.
Much more scientific link than the copypasta that was my source.
My sauce was more so addressing police/military trying to repress a movement. Ex Egypt has 100 million ppl, 5% is 5 million people, which is most likely a lot more people than Egypt has police / military.
Your study also explains a lot the manosphere immense influence on society despite the fact that the manosphere started off as literal groups of losers online. ☹️
“It’s not about me, it’s about improving it for everyone”
Used lines like this for years and never had trouble
There was a great comment on Reddit, someone said something like " everyone deserves housing, even ex-felons" and it had like -18 votes
The economist answer is “opportunity costs”: Both for you and usually also your employer it is expensive to switch jobs or train a replacement. So in theory it would be better for both to keep you satisfied.
The problem is that from the employers perspective the threat of firing someone is about the only real “stick” they have to keep people in line and wages low, so they are willing to damage themselves just to keep others afraid. So this is an externality as it is about other employees, not you strictly speaking.
Which is why worker solidarity is so important. So if the boss is threatening to fire workers (for example for refusing to return to the office fulltime), the ones not directly effected also need to go on strike as it is really about keeping them in line as well and only sticking together works as a response from the employees perspective.
Whoa, this is such a good explanation of that dynamic.
poVoq is pro cutie.
“Good luck finding someone who is masochistic enough for this sh*t”
We’re trying to improving working conditions and pay.
We’re trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.
We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.