Paid to protest – career activists

[jondwhite]

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2476-i-know-paid-protesters-are-real-because-im-one-them.html

This seems to me to be a corruption of protest which still has a perception of spontaneity.

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2476-i-know-paid-protesters-are-real-because-im-one-them.htmlThis seems to me to be a corruption of protest which still has a perception of spontaneity.

That is actually quite an interesting and insightful article.  Not that I am suggesting the socialist movement should stoop to employing such opportunistic cynical methods mentioned in the article like using paid actors etc but there are important lessons to be learnt, nevertheless Perhaps the most important of these is the role of the irrational in the art of political persuasion. Historically socialists have attached huge, if not overwhelming, importance to the role of reasoned argument to attract support.  “Scientific socialism” speaks for itself.  The implication being that we should adopt the mindset of a scientist in scrutinizing the evidence.  Similarly the “socialist case” conjures up the image of some legal- eagle forensically sifting through the arguments and directing the laser beam of ruthless logic to separate the wheat from the chaffAll this is well and good but as the saying goes right is not necessarily might. The case for socialism for may be totally convincing at a rational level but why then does it not convince many to become socialists? Part of the reason may be because it understates the significance of the irrational factor in politics.  For sure, it recognises irrationality in others – like the rabid nationalist and the empty slogans of nationalism – but it does not , or at least seems loathe, to extend this insight to recognising the irrationality in all of us, socialist and non-socialist alike.  It may that this one sided and heavy emphasis on rational persuasion alone could be crippling the socialist cause and that paradoxically for that very reason this might not be a very rational approach to take.  It might be more rational to more embrace more obviously irrational – or emotive if you prefer – techniques of persuasion. This criticism on my part, I recognise, might be a little unfair insofar as it comes across as a caricature of what my fellow socialists do.  Of course we are all emotional as well as rational animals – how could we not be?  Our outrage at the kind of grotesque and horrible things that happen in this world is what fuels our socialist commitment.  But the point I am getting at is this – is there some way of more effectively harnessing the irrational or emotional aspects of our own natures and apply or direct it, so as to appeal to that same aspect in others who are not socialists.I don’t have any easy or flip answers to this question.  But the article provides a few straws that might very well turn out to be quite be clutchable.  Like the witty reference to “seizing the memes of production” With regard to the role of memes in the social media, it suggests that “while memes are bad at communicating ideas, they're pretty much the best at generating enthusiasm. They're funny, easily shareable, and they target the apathetic people who might otherwise not vote”.  Maybe we should be getting more into the business of manufacturing memes to include in our toolbox of techniques?Another point the article makes which I think is very important indeed is the numerical factor. It is suggested that Trump used paid activists to bulk up his audiences in the early stages of his Presidential campaign to make the crowds attending his meetings look more impressive.  Significantly, it is pointed that this was no longer considered necessary later on.  The pro Trump movement has by then acquired an unstoppable momentum.I have always felt that something similar would happen in the case of the socialist movement (excepting the reference of paid activists, of course).  It needs to break through a certain critical threshold in terms of numbers for it to begin to take off in a serous way.  This is the way all significant political movements have developed – through exponential rather than arithmetical growth.  I call this the conformist factor.  Being social animals, we tend to conform to the social environment we find ourselves in and in an environment populated by significant numbers of socialists, people are more likely to become socialists themselves. This has multiple implications for the way in which socialists organise even today when our numbers are comparatively tiny and I suggest it would be worth spending some time mulling over what these could be and then putting them into practice.

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2476-i-know-paid-protesters-are-real-because-im-one-them.htmlThis seems to me to be a corruption of protest which still has a perception of spontaneity.

That is actually quite an interesting and insightful article.  Not that I am suggesting the socialist movement should stoop to employing such opportunistic cynical methods mentioned in the article like using paid actors etc but there are important lessons to be learnt, nevertheless Perhaps the most important of these is the role of the irrational in the art of political persuasion. Historically socialists have attached huge, if not overwhelming, importance to the role of reasoned argument to attract support.  “Scientific socialism” speaks for itself.  The implication being that we should adopt the mindset of a scientist in scrutinizing the evidence.  Similarly the “socialist case” conjures up the image of some legal- eagle forensically sifting through the arguments and directing the laser beam of ruthless logic to separate the wheat from the chaffAll this is well and good but as the saying goes right is not necessarily might. The case for socialism for may be totally convincing at a rational level but why then does it not convince many to become socialists? Part of the reason may be because it understates the significance of the irrational factor in politics.  For sure, it recognises irrationality in others – like the rabid nationalist and the empty slogans of nationalism – but it does not , or at least seems loathe, to extend this insight to recognising the irrationality in all of us, socialist and non-socialist alike.  It may that this one sided and heavy emphasis on rational persuasion alone could be crippling the socialist cause and that paradoxically for that very reason this might not be a very rational approach to take.  It might be more rational to more embrace more obviously irrational – or emotive if you prefer – techniques of persuasion. This criticism on my part, I recognise, might be a little unfair insofar as it comes across as a caricature of what my fellow socialists do.  Of course we are all emotional as well as rational animals – how could we not be?  Our outrage at the kind of grotesque and horrible things that happen in this world is what fuels our socialist commitment.  But the point I am getting at is this – is there some way of more effectively harnessing the irrational or emotional aspects of our own natures and apply or direct it, so as to appeal to that same aspect in others who are not socialists.I don’t have any easy or flip answers to this question.  But the article provides a few straws that might very well turn out to be quite be clutchable.  Like the witty reference to “seizing the memes of production” With regard to the role of memes in the social media, it suggests that “while memes are bad at communicating ideas, they're pretty much the best at generating enthusiasm. They're funny, easily shareable, and they target the apathetic people who might otherwise not vote”.  Maybe we should be getting more into the business of manufacturing memes to include in our toolbox of techniques?Another point the article makes which I think is very important indeed is the numerical factor. It is suggested that Trump used paid activists to bulk up his audiences in the early stages of his Presidential campaign to make the crowds attending his meetings look more impressive.  Significantly, it is pointed that this was no longer considered necessary later on.  The pro Trump movement has by then acquired an unstoppable momentum.I have always felt that something similar would happen in the case of the socialist movement (excepting the reference of paid activists, of course).  It needs to break through a certain critical threshold in terms of numbers for it to begin to take off in a serous way.  This is the way all significant political movements have developed – through exponential rather than arithmetical growth.  I call this the conformist factor.  Being social animals, we tend to conform to the social environment we find ourselves in and in an environment populated by significant numbers of socialists, people are more likely to become socialists themselves. This has multiple implications for the way in which socialists organise even today when our numbers are comparatively tiny and I suggest it would be worth spending some time mulling over what these could be and then putting them into practice.

 I agree with your view.Sorry, I think me just posting here will bring around the Mcolme1 troll to tell us this is not socialism and has nothing to do with socialism and we need to read some dusty socialist treatise and realy really suffer in order to be socialist instead of wasting our time on this.  let me know if you'd like to talk privately to avoid raising Mcolme1's wrath.  I'd be happy to talk details with you and extend your idea or modify it to make it better, but I think that might not be something MCome1 would let go without disrupting. 

[Anonymous]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2476-i-know-paid-protesters-are-real-because-im-one-them.htmlThis seems to me to be a corruption of protest which still has a perception of spontaneity.

That is actually quite an interesting and insightful article.  Not that I am suggesting the socialist movement should stoop to employing such opportunistic cynical methods mentioned in the article like using paid actors etc but there are important lessons to be learnt, nevertheless Perhaps the most important of these is the role of the irrational in the art of political persuasion. Historically socialists have attached huge, if not overwhelming, importance to the role of reasoned argument to attract support.  “Scientific socialism” speaks for itself.  The implication being that we should adopt the mindset of a scientist in scrutinizing the evidence.  Similarly the “socialist case” conjures up the image of some legal- eagle forensically sifting through the arguments and directing the laser beam of ruthless logic to separate the wheat from the chaffAll this is well and good but as the saying goes right is not necessarily might. The case for socialism for may be totally convincing at a rational level but why then does it not convince many to become socialists? Part of the reason may be because it understates the significance of the irrational factor in politics.  For sure, it recognises irrationality in others – like the rabid nationalist and the empty slogans of nationalism – but it does not , or at least seems loathe, to extend this insight to recognising the irrationality in all of us, socialist and non-socialist alike.  It may that this one sided and heavy emphasis on rational persuasion alone could be crippling the socialist cause and that paradoxically for that very reason this might not be a very rational approach to take.  It might be more rational to more embrace more obviously irrational – or emotive if you prefer – techniques of persuasion. This criticism on my part, I recognise, might be a little unfair insofar as it comes across as a caricature of what my fellow socialists do.  Of course we are all emotional as well as rational animals – how could we not be?  Our outrage at the kind of grotesque and horrible things that happen in this world is what fuels our socialist commitment.  But the point I am getting at is this – is there some way of more effectively harnessing the irrational or emotional aspects of our own natures and apply or direct it, so as to appeal to that same aspect in others who are not socialists.I don’t have any easy or flip answers to this question.  But the article provides a few straws that might very well turn out to be quite be clutchable.  Like the witty reference to “seizing the memes of production” With regard to the role of memes in the social media, it suggests that “while memes are bad at communicating ideas, they're pretty much the best at generating enthusiasm. They're funny, easily shareable, and they target the apathetic people who might otherwise not vote”.  Maybe we should be getting more into the business of manufacturing memes to include in our toolbox of techniques?Another point the article makes which I think is very important indeed is the numerical factor. It is suggested that Trump used paid activists to bulk up his audiences in the early stages of his Presidential campaign to make the crowds attending his meetings look more impressive.  Significantly, it is pointed that this was no longer considered necessary later on.  The pro Trump movement has by then acquired an unstoppable momentum.I have always felt that something similar would happen in the case of the socialist movement (excepting the reference of paid activists, of course).  It needs to break through a certain critical threshold in terms of numbers for it to begin to take off in a serous way.  This is the way all significant political movements have developed – through exponential rather than arithmetical growth.  I call this the conformist factor.  Being social animals, we tend to conform to the social environment we find ourselves in and in an environment populated by significant numbers of socialists, people are more likely to become socialists themselves. This has multiple implications for the way in which socialists organise even today when our numbers are comparatively tiny and I suggest it would be worth spending some time mulling over what these could be and then putting them into practice.

 I agree with your view.Sorry, I think me just posting here will bring around the Mcolme1 troll to tell us this is not socialism and has nothing to do with socialism and we need to read some dusty socialist treatise and realy really suffer in order to be socialist instead of wasting our time on this.  let me know if you'd like to talk privately to avoid raising Mcolme1's wrath.  I'd be happy to talk details with you and extend your idea or modify it to make it better, but I think that might not be something MCome1 would let go without disrupting. 

 Would you define the meaning of the word troll in this forum? If you apply the definition to yourself, you would recognize that you are the real troll and spammer  Can you go to a hospital and do a heart operation without having study Medicine or receiving a training to become a surgeon? Probably not, it will take years of studying, reading, and training, therefore, in order to become socialist workers must study and read the socialist theoryDusty are the ideas that you have in your brain, they are outdated, they started during the time of Feudalism, and now those are reactionary ideas If you think that socialism is based on dusty ideas,  what are you looking for in this forum?  You should go to a place where they have modern ideas, What about joining the Republican or the Democratic party? They have super advanced political ideas.  

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 I agree with your view.Sorry, I think me just posting here will bring around the Mcolme1 troll to tell us this is not socialism and has nothing to do with socialism and we need to read some dusty socialist treatise and realy really suffer in order to be socialist instead of wasting our time on this.  let me know if you'd like to talk privately to avoid raising Mcolme1's wrath.  I'd be happy to talk details with you and extend your idea or modify it to make it better, but I think that might not be something MCome1 would let go without disrupting. 

 Please note that I am not saying the rational approach to politics has to be abandoned – only supplemented, as it were..  There has to be crystal clarity on and mass awareness of,  the nature of socialism as a non-market non-exchange and non-statist system of production before you can even hope to realise socialism.I disagree strongly with your view that MColme1  is a troll.  That is a ridiculous claim, frankly

[Anonymous]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Sorry, I think me just posting here will bring around the Mcolme1 troll to tell us this is not socialism and has nothing to do with socialism and we need to read some dusty socialist treatise and realy really suffer in order to be socialist instead of wasting our time on this.  let me know if you'd like to talk privately to avoid raising Mcolme1's wrath.  I'd be happy to talk details with you and extend your idea or modify it to make it better, but I think that might not be something MCome1 would let go without disrupting. 

You are the troll .We are workers organised to propagandise the case for the democratic, post-capitalist, production for use, free access,socialist revolution.If you don't wish to learn more about what socialism is and is not, what we are for and against, then bugger off out of our forum.

[alanjjohnstone]

I went on a few protests with my union and got relative overly-generous expenses paid to me. I recall during the UK miners strike, pickets were also paid expenses, a vital income for many.Nor is the idea too far away from the principle of paid officials, political party or union or even MP's pay. Even our own organisation will pay for travel and meals to members. Even anarchists like Emma Goldman was paid speakers fees and the audiences charged to hear her, much like any professional performer. 

[Anonymous]

Didn't Noam Chomsky pay from his own money to rent charter buses for protester? 

[Anonymous]

Matt wrote:

then bugger off out of our forum.

 I didn't' realize you we're the leader who spoke for everyone without their consent and you had ownership of the forum.  Sorry, i thought a socialist forum with socialist would not allow you to own property and didn't have leaders.  Guess I missunderstood you true socialist. 

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 I agree with your view.Sorry, I think me just posting here will bring around the Mcolme1 troll to tell us this is not socialism and has nothing to do with socialism and we need to read some dusty socialist treatise and realy really suffer in order to be socialist instead of wasting our time on this.  let me know if you'd like to talk privately to avoid raising Mcolme1's wrath.  I'd be happy to talk details with you and extend your idea or modify it to make it better, but I think that might not be something MCome1 would let go without disrupting. 

 Please note that I am not saying the rational approach to politics has to be abandoned – only supplemented, as it were..  There has to be crystal clarity on and mass awareness of,  the nature of socialism as a non-market non-exchange and non-statist system of production before you can even hope to realise socialism.I disagree strongly with your view that MColme1  is a troll.  That is a ridiculous claim, frankly

What test would you suggest to determine if there is "crystal clarit and mass awarenes of . . .."Can you give a percent estimate of how close or far we are to this? 

[jondwhite]

'Crystal clarity and mass awareness' is measured by membership numbers of the WSM / SPGB etc.

[Anonymous]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Matt wrote:

then bugger off out of our forum.

 I didn't' realize you we're the leader who spoke for everyone without their consent and you had ownership of the forum.  Sorry, i thought a socialist forum with socialist would not allow you to own property and didn't have leaders.  Guess I missunderstood you true socialist. 

You missed the whole context of what I said and why by only setting out one line to make a purile point.."You are the troll .We are workers organised to propagandise the case for the democratic, post-capitalist, production for use, free access,socialist revolution.If you don't wish to learn more about what socialism is and is not, what we are for and against, then bugger off out of our forum."I stand by that.

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

'Crystal clarity and mass awareness' is measured by membership numbers of the WSM / SPGB etc.

I like that it's at an actionable definition and presumably measurable and countable.  is there a consensus on this definition?  How do we prevent members of the WSM /SPGB, etc, from establishing themselves as the elites or in some way a class above the non-members?Do you know the current rate of growth or decline for membership numbers of WSM/ / SPGB etc?   what is the consensus answer for the percent of the population needs to become members of the WSM / SPGB and achieve crystal clarity to qualify as mass awarenes for the socialist revolution?  100%, 50%, 5%, other? Does socialism, as defined by the consensus of WSM/SPGB etc members. only exist if it is dominant worldwide or can local dominance serve to declare a local region socialist?  100% of the planet or is it 100% of a nation, or is it 100% of a city or is it 100% of a village, or is it 100% of a single persons economic exchanges?

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

'Crystal clarity and mass awareness' is measured by membership numbers of the WSM / SPGB etc.

I like that it's at an actionable definition and presumably measurable and countable.  is there a consensus on this definition?  How do we prevent members of the WSM /SPGB, etc, from establishing themselves as the elites or in some way a class above the non-members?Do you know the current rate of growth or decline for membership numbers of WSM/ / SPGB etc?   what is the consensus answer for the percent of the population needs to become members of the WSM / SPGB and achieve crystal clarity to qualify as mass awarenes for the socialist revolution?  100%, 50%, 5%, other? Does socialism, as defined by the consensus of WSM/SPGB etc members. only exist if it is dominant worldwide or can local dominance serve to declare a local region socialist?  100% of the planet or is it 100% of a nation, or is it 100% of a city or is it 100% of a village, or is it 100% of a single persons economic exchanges?

 Socialism cannot be established by a minority.  Period. That is the position of the WSM and it is one that has been reiterated countless times.  Ipso facto that rules out any kind of elitist or vanguardist perspective. You have to have a majority because you cannot operate a socialist society without the populace understanding and accepting as it were,  the "rules of the game" – the norms,  values and behavioural expectations of a socialist society.  You can argue how much of a majority you require but I think this is being  a bit pedantic.  If 51% of the population were "fully socialist" in outlook then it is more than likely that a further  30-40% of the population would be well on the way to becoming socialists themselves. They might quibble about one or two aspects of socialism  but more than likely would go along with the majority without demur.  This is often the case – even hostile opponents of socialism, display in their dealings with others around them a kind of "socialistic" – for want of a better word – pattern of behaviour or mentality. The point is that the growth of the socialist movement itself progressively modifies the wider social environment in which it exists.  Socialist values and socialist ideas cannot but help seep into this wider enviroment and subtly transform the relation between the movement itself and those outside of it.  My belief is that the latter will come to more and more resemble the former at least in certain respects.  Two radically opposite worldviews cannot coexist and flourish in the same soil in which they are rooted.  One must necessarily draw nourishment away from the other.    Authoritarian fascism for example would be reduced to a tiny insignificant rump, in my view , by the time the socialist movement can be counted in the millions Finally, it is completely unrealistic to expect socialist ideas to flourish in one part of the world and remain insignificant elsewhere.  There are 3 main reasons  for saying this1)  Global communications technology that allow for the near instantaneous dissemination of ideas everywhere and, as well as that, the  stepped up movement of people around the world as carriers of ideas2) Increasing uniformity of conditions and experiences across the world as a result of globalisation and growing interdependencies,  giving rise to increasing convergence in thinking3)  The pro-active decisions of the globally-organised socialist movement in selectively directing propaganda resources to those parts of the world that are lagging  in socialist consciousnesss in order to reduce, if not eliminate altogether,  spatial inequaiities in the extent of this consciousness – which inequalities it will have a very strong interest in reducing for the sake of ensuring a smoother transition to socialism

[jondwhite]

Well the WSM organises on a per-country basis, or more accurately a companion party to conquer each 'state'. Its likely any sort of large Socialist party in opposition would lead to an avalanche of government reforms to try and buy off the working class as happened on a smaller scale with the 'Socialist Party of America' and the New Deal. This alone should be signal enough that socialism poses a viable alternative that the ruling class don't want and that austerity is really a matter of political priorities.Current change in membership depends on over what period. Since Bernie Sanders campaign, the so-called 'Democratic Socialists of America' have seized the opportunity to loudly proclaim tripling membership to over 20,000 and dutiful media establishments have reprinted this.Apart from declaring yourself not to be a vanguard, avoiding vanguardism for me means avoiding becoming a cadre party expecting or judging members on their activity. It also has to be a participatory party and my idea of open primaries (similar but not the same as the US system) seems to be the main way of doing this.

[Author]

Posts