War profiteers aren’t generally interested in fighting the state. But even to your point, obviously if you want to convince such people to fight the state, you should be criticizing their role as war profiteers. If you don’t call out what they’re doing for the evil that it is, then why would you expect them to “throw sand in the gears?”
Well, the reality is that most people in all professions have little to no interest in fighting the state. But the flip side is that there are some people from all walks of life that will be receptive, so assuming such people can’t be reached is locking important people out of the movement.
Criticism is important but I think it requires a different approach. If you tell people they’re evil they will not listen to you. Almost everyone’s worldview has “I’m a good person” at its foundation, and information that contradicts their foundational viewpoints will be rejected. So I think criticism should be focused on systems and organizations rather than this meme which focuses on individual responsibility.
I’m not “locking anyone out of the movement” by calling them evil war profiteers. If they want to join the movement, they can simply stop being evil war profiteers. I am simply telling the truth.
On the other hand, by welcoming and babying such people, you are alienating their victims. It makes it abundantly clear where your priorities lie. Why would a victim of these war profiteers want to be a part of a movement that whitewashes those who perpetrate or enable the violence they’ve suffered?
What is your vision for what “being part of the movement” would even look like for these people? Unless they’re taking direct action to sabotage and support their industry (in which case they will likely be caught and fired), they are undoubtedly doing far more harm there than they could possibly offset by voting or attending some protest.
I’m not saying it isn’t true. But I just think practically speaking, requiring all leftists to be morally pure nonprofit employees or whatever it is you think would be a more ethical way to survive under capitalism excludes a lot of people. Sure, they could theoretically still participate but if you treat them like shit they’re not going to.
These are huge companies that often have little ideas of what their employees are doing. There are absolutely ways they could be sabotaging their activities without getting fired.
Even if that were true, you’re simultaneously claiming that these people are willing to sabotage their company, and that they’d be alienated by saying that the work their company does is evil. That doesn’t make any sense.
I’m just saying it’s not tactically useful to point out their personal culpability. There are ways to criticize the company without focusing on the employees and I think they will find that more palatable.
It is tactically useful to point out their personal culpability, though. Very much so. Guilt is an incredibly powerful weapon. You just don’t want to wield it because you care more about protecting their feelings than you do about getting them to change.
Look at how much influence the Catholic Church has been able to wield in history by using guilt, and theirs wasn’t even based on the truth. What do you mean it’s “not tactically useful?”
Leftists aren’t the Catholic Church. Their attempts at shaming people were effective because they already had power over people. Something we lack. We need to gain power first, and that means persuading people who don’t currently support or agree with us.
By not tactically useful I mean it’s counter to what I see as a useful strategy to achieve leftist ends–in other words, liberation from state and capitalist oppression. And I see mass public support as essential for achieving those ends, which means attracting many different types of people to work together to achieve these ends. And while it’s certainly possible to build such a coalition without workers at defense firms, it would be easier with them. And if we add up all of the different messaging that excludes people in a similar way, it becomes a far more significant obstacle. Why would ordinary people want to join a political movement they view as preachy weirdos who harshly criticize anyone who doesn’t share their exact lifestyle and worldview?
But if you feel otherwise maybe you can articulate whose behavior you think will be influenced by this kind of messaging and what you expect them to do differently after seeing it?
War profiteers aren’t generally interested in fighting the state. But even to your point, obviously if you want to convince such people to fight the state, you should be criticizing their role as war profiteers. If you don’t call out what they’re doing for the evil that it is, then why would you expect them to “throw sand in the gears?”
Well, the reality is that most people in all professions have little to no interest in fighting the state. But the flip side is that there are some people from all walks of life that will be receptive, so assuming such people can’t be reached is locking important people out of the movement.
Criticism is important but I think it requires a different approach. If you tell people they’re evil they will not listen to you. Almost everyone’s worldview has “I’m a good person” at its foundation, and information that contradicts their foundational viewpoints will be rejected. So I think criticism should be focused on systems and organizations rather than this meme which focuses on individual responsibility.
I’m not “locking anyone out of the movement” by calling them evil war profiteers. If they want to join the movement, they can simply stop being evil war profiteers. I am simply telling the truth.
On the other hand, by welcoming and babying such people, you are alienating their victims. It makes it abundantly clear where your priorities lie. Why would a victim of these war profiteers want to be a part of a movement that whitewashes those who perpetrate or enable the violence they’ve suffered?
What is your vision for what “being part of the movement” would even look like for these people? Unless they’re taking direct action to sabotage and support their industry (in which case they will likely be caught and fired), they are undoubtedly doing far more harm there than they could possibly offset by voting or attending some protest.
I’m not saying it isn’t true. But I just think practically speaking, requiring all leftists to be morally pure nonprofit employees or whatever it is you think would be a more ethical way to survive under capitalism excludes a lot of people. Sure, they could theoretically still participate but if you treat them like shit they’re not going to.
These are huge companies that often have little ideas of what their employees are doing. There are absolutely ways they could be sabotaging their activities without getting fired.
Even if that were true, you’re simultaneously claiming that these people are willing to sabotage their company, and that they’d be alienated by saying that the work their company does is evil. That doesn’t make any sense.
I’m just saying it’s not tactically useful to point out their personal culpability. There are ways to criticize the company without focusing on the employees and I think they will find that more palatable.
It is tactically useful to point out their personal culpability, though. Very much so. Guilt is an incredibly powerful weapon. You just don’t want to wield it because you care more about protecting their feelings than you do about getting them to change.
Look at how much influence the Catholic Church has been able to wield in history by using guilt, and theirs wasn’t even based on the truth. What do you mean it’s “not tactically useful?”
Leftists aren’t the Catholic Church. Their attempts at shaming people were effective because they already had power over people. Something we lack. We need to gain power first, and that means persuading people who don’t currently support or agree with us.
By not tactically useful I mean it’s counter to what I see as a useful strategy to achieve leftist ends–in other words, liberation from state and capitalist oppression. And I see mass public support as essential for achieving those ends, which means attracting many different types of people to work together to achieve these ends. And while it’s certainly possible to build such a coalition without workers at defense firms, it would be easier with them. And if we add up all of the different messaging that excludes people in a similar way, it becomes a far more significant obstacle. Why would ordinary people want to join a political movement they view as preachy weirdos who harshly criticize anyone who doesn’t share their exact lifestyle and worldview?
But if you feel otherwise maybe you can articulate whose behavior you think will be influenced by this kind of messaging and what you expect them to do differently after seeing it?