Is agitprop even worth it? I got 3 dislikes and a comment saying “I FOUND ONE” as if I’m some pokemon in under 5 minutes. What could have been done better to persuade more and spark genuine discussion? I’m new to agitprop, so any advice helps especially if it’s coming from experience.
Agitprop on Lemmy.world is very difficult, it’s much easier on Lemmy.ml. My view is that you should focus on the radicalized liberals first, as they are the easiest to turn into comrades, and you should do so in spaces where you aren’t going to be dogpiled on.
If you insist on doing agitprop on Lemmy.world, try to keep it short, small, clear, and on non-controversial topics. As an example, touching Russia/Ukraine on Lemmy.world is already a lost cause, but you can demystify socialism and advocate for it there. Other users may come to more correct positions on Russia/Ukraine by getting more into socialism, and you don’t paint a massive target on your back. As a rule of thumb, you should be ratioing those who you’re talking with, or else you might end up backfiring.
I also recommend reading False Witnesses, “Brainwashing”, and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing” in order to better understand how people think. Identifying what lines you can push in what audiences is 90% of the effort, the last 10% is remaining calm and trying to use your own words rather than endless Marx quotes or whatnot.
Good luck!
Really good advice. Thanks.
No problem, comrade!
Exactly, and I find in general it’s important to keep in mind that you can’t convince somebody who has strongly held opinions by arguing with them. It doesn’t matter how good your argument is or how many sources you have. If a person has a strong view on the subject, they will have their own arguments and rationalizations.
I like to look at it from thermodynamics perspective. Ideas that we hold in our heads don’t exist in isolation, they’re part of a web of different ideas and concepts that form our overall model that we use to reason about the world. If a particular idea is challenged, then all the other concepts that tie to it have to be rethought as well. That’s a big energy expenditure, and it’s easier to simply discard the idea that doesn’t fit with our existing model. As long as a person doesn’t see the need to rethink their world view, they will be hostile to ideas outside it.
Hence, as you point out, you want to focus on having discussions on people who are starting to have doubts about the accuracy of their world model. They’ve already arrived to the conclusion that it doesn’t match what they observe in the world, and this makes them open to new ideas. These kinds of people are already looking for alternative explanations, and if you can present the ideas in a way that help them make sense of the world better than they can now, they will integrate these new ideas and do the necessary work to restructure their overall model.
Exactly, you can’t convince people with strongly held beliefs just by arguing with them, no matter how solid your evidence or how strong your argument is. People with strong views already have their own arguments and justifications.
I like to look at it from thermodynamics perspective. Ideas are part of a complex web of concepts that form our mental model of the world. Challenging a core idea requires rethinking all the other concepts tied to it. Doing so takes a lot of mental energy, and it’s much easier to simply reject the new idea that doesn’t fit. People will remain hostile to outside ideas as long as they don’t see a need to rethink their worldview.
Hence, as you noted, it’s more effective to focus on those who are already questioning their beliefs. These individuals are starting to recognize that their current model doesn’t align with their observations of the world. They’re already searching for alternative explanations, and if you can present a new idea that helps them make better sense of the world, they are much more likely to be receptive. They’ll be willing to put in the effort to restructure their mental model to integrate new ideas that resonate with them.
The goal isn’t to “win” an argument, but to build a bridge. By framing things in a way that resonates, you can find common ground and open a space for a more meaningful conversation where new ideas can be introduced more gently. It’s about planting a seed of an idea and letting it grow, rather than trying to force a full-grown tree into a hostile environment.
cc @[email protected]
Great way to put it, exactly! Spend the effort where it’s most effective and you’ll win in the long run.
Very good advice.
Yes, we spend to much time battling it out with liberals on controversial historical and current event topics and not nearly enough explaining Marxist economics and philosophy, even though the latter is arguably more important. Especially at a time where liberal dominance of media and education have largely snuffed out debates about communist theory and made sure that virtually any and all discussions of communism would revolve around the liberal interpretation of what communists allegedly did or didn’t do in far away countries a long time ago.
Thanks! And you hit the nail on the head, the controversial and harder to tackle concepts come after the basics, which are easier to grasp and more capable of being taught. We often let past generations and their nuance dominate the present, when all it really takes to get liberals to begin to see our frame of view is starting with basic principles.
Even among ourselves, from our memes to our effort posts, we talk a lot more about history and current events than about theory. Recently I’ve been wishing we’d discuss more about theory, not only because we don’t talk about it enough even tough we really don’t, but also because I like talking about economics and philosophy more than about history.
I agree! Would be a fun way to try to sharpen our skills.