It’s bad analysis and worse politics, and least for trying to grow a leftist mass movement. It’s bad analysis because one of the most defining features of the American political system is widespread disengagement, and one of the other most defining features is deep-rooted institutional resistance to radical change. So the argument boils down to “passivity equals complicity, even when the deck is heavily stacked against any meaningful form of opposition.”
It’s worse politics because “passivity equals complicity” has been a hotly debated philosophical topic as long as philosophy has existed, so you will never reach a broad concensus on the point. And that’s setting aside the infinite rabbit holes surrounding questions like “what kind of actions do you need to take to not be complicit?,” and the fact that “passivity equals complicity” is an attack on the very people we are trying to win over.
The better framing is: “You know imperialism is evil. Don’t you want to be someone who helps create a better world?”
They’re saying that there is no third camp you are either building consent for the empire or not building consent for the empire.
This is the same exact reasoning as “you’re with us or with the terrorists,” which is why I brought it up. It’s a direct critique of passivity by arguing that there is no such thing as passivity – “you are either building consent for the empire or not building consent for the empire.”
“passivity equals complicity” has been a hotly debated philosophical topic as long as philosophy has existed, so you will never reach a broad concensus on the point
deleted by creator
“You’re either with us, or with the terrorists.”
It’s bad analysis and worse politics, and least for trying to grow a leftist mass movement. It’s bad analysis because one of the most defining features of the American political system is widespread disengagement, and one of the other most defining features is deep-rooted institutional resistance to radical change. So the argument boils down to “passivity equals complicity, even when the deck is heavily stacked against any meaningful form of opposition.”
It’s worse politics because “passivity equals complicity” has been a hotly debated philosophical topic as long as philosophy has existed, so you will never reach a broad concensus on the point. And that’s setting aside the infinite rabbit holes surrounding questions like “what kind of actions do you need to take to not be complicit?,” and the fact that “passivity equals complicity” is an attack on the very people we are trying to win over.
The better framing is: “You know imperialism is evil. Don’t you want to be someone who helps create a better world?”
deleted by creator
This is the same exact reasoning as “you’re with us or with the terrorists,” which is why I brought it up. It’s a direct critique of passivity by arguing that there is no such thing as passivity – “you are either building consent for the empire or not building consent for the empire.”
There is no real passivity though
deleted by creator