There’s a lot of people on here who are part of what I’d call losing causes, causes that run counter to the consumerist capitalist mono-culture, I.e. socialism, veganism, FOSS, anti-car urbanism, even lemmy and the fediverse.
I want to know what made you switch from being a sympathizer to an active participant. I believe it’s important for us to understand what methods work in getting people involved in a movement that may not have any immediate wins to motivate people to join.
EDIT: A lot of people objecting to my use of losing so I’ll explain more, all of these causes benefit from popularity and are weakened by there lack of adoption and are thus in direct competition with the capitalist consumerist mono-culture, a competition which they are currently losing.
-
Socialism on a small scale cannot solve the inherent issues of a capitalism that surrounds it.
-
Veganism benefits from more people becoming vegan and restaurants and grocery stores providing vegan options.
-
FOSS, or more specifically desktop Linux, benefits from more people being on it and software developers designing for and maintaining applications for it.
-
The more people that use transit, the more funding it gets and the better it gets.
-
the fediverse benefits from more people veing on it and more diverse communities so those with niche interests besides the above causes can find community here.
On the flip side the capitalist consumerist alternatives to all of these benefit from there popularity and thus offer a better value to most people. The question is about what made you defer that better immediate material value in favor of something else.
There are not lost causes, just struggles you don’t face.
Because I’d rather be right than win. Nice to be both, but the former is a higher priority for me.
I feel like you’re missing the point a bit. Living by values you hold dear is not losing, winning or even necessarily a cause. If your values happen to align with a cause, then supporting it in a way you can is at least somewhat fulfilling.
Now, there are definitely people who join a cause for tangential reasons. For example because they are a vehicle to what they want, such as someone who wants to build and use explosives can just as easily become a fundamentalist, anarchist or fascist. (And history has examples of these sordid folks.) They barely care about any of the causes and will drift wherever they can live by their own values, even if it’s about blowing shit up.
I disagree with the notion that these are “losing causes.”
-
Socialism is necessary. Not only is the largest economy in the world by PPP a socialist country, and is using it to dramatic effect, capitalism and by extension imperialism are dying systems that have no future. Despite governing more of the world, capitalism is in decay, and is thus the “losing side.”
-
Veganism is ethically correct. Not only is animal liberation a valuable pursuit, but it has far lower of an environmental impact. It isn’t a “side,” it’s the correct conclusion.
-
FOSS isn’t losing, it doesn’t need mass adoption because it doesn’t need profit. FOSS is growing though.
-
Anti-car urbanism is improving, socialist countries like the PRC are building huge amounts of effective urban transit. Between the car centric society of today and the urbanist future we desire, there is a transitional period marked by electrification and building up urban transit.
-
Lemmy/fediverse is healthy and stable, and already does what it needs to: provide an alternative for those who want one.
At the end of the day, framing movements as “winning” or “losing” purely on adoption rates is an error. What is important is trajectory and the material basis for transitioning from the present state of things to the next, ie how do the problems of today make the solutions of tomorrow physically compelled? For socialism, it is the decay of capitalism due to its inevitable contradictions, as well as capitalism’s centralization making public ownership and planning in a post-capitalist society remarkably effective. How does that apply to others?
-
I think you’re treating all these mostly unrelated initiatives as an “ideology” in itself and not just things people are interested in.
On the flip side the capitalist consumerist alternatives to all of these benefit from there popularity and thus offer a better value to most people. The question is about what made you defer that better immediate material value in favor of something else.
What makes you think a given person prefers the capitalist options? There are plenty of reasons to like all of these things which is why some people do.
Socialism on a small scale cannot solve the inherent issues of a capitalism that surrounds it.
No, but socialist countries are routinely sheltered from the capitalist driven cataclysms due to their control of the economy. Look at how much China was affected by the 2008 crisis vs Western countries.
Also, socialism in places like Canada necessarily means decolonization of both the Indigenous peoples here and ending our corporate exploitation of both people abroad and Canadians. If that’s not a reason to support it I don’t know what is.
Veganism benefits from more people becoming vegan and restaurants and grocery stores providing vegan options.
The WHOLE DAMN POINT of veganism is to get rid of a luxury (animal products) because you think it’s unethical. Vegans are not bothered by restaurants not catering to them because they simply won’t go.
Also, grocery stores providing grocery options? Ah yes the flop of the vegan tomato left the vegan community reeling. What are you buying at the grocery store of all places that you don’t think it’s always been possible to be vegan? You know you can just buy plants and make your own food right?
FOSS, or more specifically desktop Linux, benefits from more people being on it and software developers designing for and maintaining applications for it.
Linux is measurably more efficient. Like seriously compare the background resource usage of Linux to Windows, Linux can be up to twice as light giving you more resources for your actual applications. Linux is also a lot more private which a lot of people care about over the convenience of a mainstream big tech OS.
Also, the simplicity and dare I say “non-technical user unfriendliness” of Linux is also a draw for technical users who don’t want their computer coddling them. It’s a niche for a reason.
the fediverse benefits from more people veing on it and more diverse communities so those with niche interests besides the above causes can find community here.
Can you elaborate on this one? I don’t know what it means.
I don’t agree with causes to win. I agree with causes because they’re correct. If everyone stopped believing in gravity I wouldn’t follow suit.
I follow my conscience, and I work hard to live up to my principles. If I didn’t, I would have a hard time living with myself.
Most of the causes you list are not defined by losing so idek what this is asking
Many of the things you mentioned are not “loosing”. They are chugging along. Slow and steady.
I don’t really understand why you think a lot of these things are losing causes. FOSS is the backbone of IT. Anti-car urbanism is common in some areas of the world. Lemmy and the Fediverse have been doing great over the last 2 years. Socialism/leftist ideology is on the rise alongside the fascist takeover—it would have been unheard of to have “the squad” in the 90’s.
So where you see losing, I see slow and steady progress happening alongside capitalist fascism that is trying and failing to stop it completely.
All the things you list are things people choose for other reasons than just “winning”.
People choose to be socialists because it’s morally right, not because it’s popular.
People choose Linux and open source software because it benefits them, not because it’s popular.
People choose veganism because it’s morally right and it benefits them, not because it’s popular.
When you say capitalist options offer “a better value” - that’s where you’re making a mistake. These alternatives do benefit people, individually, no matter how few other people join in. And that’s why people join them.
So if you want to motivate people to join a movement, show how it’ll benefit them to join - physically, emotionally, financially, or spiritually.
Minor addendum, historically arguments for socialism, at least from the Marxist viewpoint, have avoided the moral argument in favor of the scientific argument. The moral argument can be framed as perspective, the scientific argument cannot, and is much more solid. That doesn’t mean socialism isn’t morally correct, it is, it’s just also scientifically indisputably correct.
I understand people making choices despite popularity, it seems a lot of people here are of that category, I’m concerned with the people who are choosing not to join a cause because of its lack of popularity, leading to the issues mentioned above. I think this second group is a larger percentage of the population then the first group. I think we can agree that these causes gaining popularity is good, even though they can have value without popularity. So getting that second group into the cause would be good.
I think what your advocating is to just evangelize the benefits and then people will come. But I think there are a lot of people that even if I could explain every benefit of Linux, they’d still stay on windows citing one of the above benefits of popularity, same with a lot of the causes listed above. If we are to say evangelizing is the best/only method then we leave a lot of those people for which education is not enough.
I was looking for people who were at that point of being educated about a cause, but weighed it it less then those benefits of popularity and continued on in the capitalist consumerist system. Then maybe something else pushed those scales to the other side and they chose to join the cause. What was that experience? Was it having a child? Was it an experience with death, spiritual experience, revelation, drug trip, etc. I guess that’s the question.
deleted by creator
I wouldn’t say Palestine is a losing cause. All the ones I listed are minoritarian, some in the low single digit percentage of people, especially in the US. A majority of people in the US and a large majority of the world want a ceasefire. It’s not failing due to lack of popular support, its failimg because a small minority of very powerful people really want this genocide.
If you manage to convert just one or two others to the cause, it’s a win already. If not, at least you are not part of the problem.
And for many of the things you listed I see a lot of progress compared to even 10 years in the past. Slow but steady.
Hope that the work we do will over time become the shade of a tree our grandkids will be able to enjoy.
Sir or Madam, I’m a fan of the Cleveland Guardians and the Columbus Blue Jackets. Both of those are losing causes and will probably be forever.
