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.
I still object to your definition of losing. Ethics diets are on the rise, and if Linux became less popular at any point that’s new information to me. I’d say we’re underdogs but things are going well.
As for actually answering, I think I just have a weird attachment to abstract conceptual correctness. Or rather, other people don’t seem to, and that’s why they can ignore things like animal welfare and creepy digital mega-corporations even if they know, on some level, that it’s inconsistent with their stated priorities and values.
I have kids… so clearly yes.
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.
Pay attention to an individual’s definition of “win” condition.
I define a “win” for FOSS on a very small, individual scale. I do not define it as widescale adoption by others. If I successfully replace a proprietary service with a FOSS service for my personal usage, that’s a win. The only “lost cause” re FOSS to me is a FOSS service shutting or being so complicated to implement and maintain that I have to revert to the google service or whatever.
Similar on veganism, a win is me personally making a step improvement on diet, not contingent on shuttering commercial meat production.
There are not lost causes, just struggles you don’t face.
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
It’s not a losing cause if it’s growing
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?
-
because the alternatives are unconscionable. Consumerist capitalist mono-culture is going to eat its own tail and kill everyone in the process.
I do think theory is a very good way to recruit people. When the facts are presented fairly, rational people will not choose capitalism.
In my experience, rationality plays very little in deciding between socialism and capitalism, no matter how fairly the facts are presented. Ultimately, people license themselves to follow narratives their material conditions shape them to, those who believe capitalism is superior do so because they believe they benefit from it. I recommend reasing Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.”
Many of the things you mentioned are not “loosing”. They are chugging along. Slow and steady.
It’s frustrating how slowly things are going (urbanism at least had the excuse of involving expensive physical infrastructure that turns over on the span of decades) but Lemmy didn’t exist 5 years ago and now we have piefed and enough activity that it’s nit a ghost town anymore too. After enough cycles of Yet another corpo hellsite we’ll hit critical mass
The saying is “if you build it, they will come,” not “if a couple million people want an alternative enough, one will materialize out of thin air”
It’s the right cause, and if enough people join it won’t be losing anymore.
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.
