Reform UK is clearly winning over the minds of class unconscious workers. One of them is a young relative of mine. I’d love to have a talk in future, in a good setting, to help the lad out of this reactionary path he’s headed now.
It’s the typical stuff: immigrants committing sexual violence, stealing jobs, out breeding the “whites”, coming into the country illegally, given all the money, not working, benefit exploiting, being uncivilised savages etc.
I’ve heard the co-workers are enforcing this reactionary world view. Obviously I cannot barge in to the workplace, and change the environment, so I’m expecting this will take quite a bit longer than one afternoon tea lasts.
I believe he’ll be a fine lad, if he doesn’t fall any further, and finds a way out. I just feel I shouldn’t let him to dive deeper. There is already plenty of fascist propaganda to dispel.
How would you, dear online comrades, go about setting a young lumpen lad on the path to gain class consciousness?
PS. Title in the tune of Drunken Sailor.
Germ theory is real. If you can make the case that washing your hands will extend your quality of life within the short term the person will be persuaded.
You have to make the case that whatever progressive concern you have, or socialist emancipatory project you want to engage in, will materially benefit the target audience within the short term. It is in that process you will discover who has revolutionary potential; we have to be dialectical materialists.
Germ theory is real, and yet there are people who won’t wear masks despite it clearly being in their material interests to do so and will in fact react with open hostility to anyone who tries to make the case that they should wear a mask. They will not be persuaded no matter what you say, even though it might kill them and their families. They have every reason to accept reality, and yet…
How do you explain this without acknowledging the power of other persuasive forces that are working against germ theory?
I am not saying it’s a done deal. I used germ theory as an example precisely because despite its scientific basis people may have other considerations. You have to consider, for example, what material conditions those people who do not want to wear masks benefit from within the short term by not wearing masks. You have to make the case why in the short term they would benefit by wearing a mask, and if not then consider the class conditions that may make it challenging.
There are certainly material conditions where the short term benefit of not masking might seem to outweigh the longterm benefit of masking, but a person who is convinced that masks don’t do anything will not wear them in any material conditions. It doesn’t matter what the science says, it doesn’t matter what reality is, they will not wear a mask even though it’s in their material interests.
Then in the other direction, there are people who exist under material conditions that make masking very difficult and cumbersome, and yet they do it anyway despite not even having preexisting conditions because they believe masking works.
People have been lied to, and this distorts their ability to understand their material interests.
Science is not apolitical; it is not neutral. You will have to make the case beyond appealing to science (edited to add: as accepted by liberals), ie consider a class analysis? What are the privileges afforded to one that they can get away with not wearing a mask, for example.
Consider the role the ideological superstructure plays and don’t just reduce everything to the material base. The base and superstructure play off of each other, it’s not a one-way relationship.
It’s like you don’t believe that people can be tricked, or that reeducation is as easy as just telling people the truth.
Darkernations is doing the thing the redsails article is preaching against. Only instead of believing they are “special” because they have seen through the lies, they believe everyone can see through the lies but darkernations is one of the “Special Morally superior” who is rejecting the lies.
I’m saying when we fail we have to consider why; I’m saying that people intelligently seek the narratives that they do to uphold their material perspectives which undermines your claim above.
And you give the impression there’s a bit of projection of going on; what you said about the Israelis is downright bigoted against Palestenians, I didn’t want to call that out because it may derail what we are talking about but here we are.
I’m not saying otherwise.
Quoting myself:
You need to do both. There is an ideological battle, you can’t just eschew the ideological terrain to liberals.
Ideology exists. You have to combat it, even if it’s also not possible to win purely on an ideological terrain without also being engaged with the material base.
No argument from me here against that.
What I would like to stress how we go about it in a more exacting way: make one’s case that adopting one’s perspective will provide a material benefit within the short term to the person or group you are targeting and if one fails to do so then consider the relative class characteristics that obstructs this, and thereby refining how and whom you approach.
I’m saying rather strategising with the aim to “reveal the truth” you should instead consider a class analysis and make the case that you can offer a greater material benefit and if you can’t you have to be honest about why. It is more than just a “battle of ideas”; ie not to fall to idealism.
Counterpoint - USA and COVID or vaccines in general.
They are being truer and less hypocritical to the liberal ideal than liberals who are not anti-vaccination.