Orion Digest №33 - Convincing, not Telling

Within our grasp is the ability to organize ourselves in a way that allows us to ensure mutual prosperity and survival - a collective that would work to eliminate class division and promote environmental recovery. However, there is one major obstacle, which will occupy the majority of the attention of the Sword of Orion and its sister branches - there are many that do not believe in and actively oppose our cause, and many who simply do not know of the ideas for which we stand.

This is not a problem limited to ESF theory alone, but to many progressive movements in general. There are those who view ideas of economic reform and international unity as dangerous, having been brought up to believe utterly in nationalist and capitalist ideas. To them, it is what is right, and we are as incorrect in our ideals as they may seem to us. No matter how much we tell them, they will just see it as baseless propaganda, and the less people we have on our side, the more difficult change will be to achieve.

There will be many who agree with us, and are willing to lend a hand and their voice to the call for reform, but even if what we do is in the interest of the greater good of humanity, it will be hard to see that from the perspective of others. In some cases, they may understand our cause, but simply will not care, as they are interested primarily in their own self game, as the result of their own circumstances. While we seek to eliminate the desperate conditions that force people to act in only self-interest to survive, those arisen from the same conditions provide our greatest obstacle; why should they trust us when they've made their way through life on their own?

Diplomacy and understanding are the chief tools in this kind of struggle, as to force ones will upon another will leave them bitter and open to revenge. Even if we believe that we are right and that they are wrong, to simply cast aside their concerns and opinions and go about self-assured would not only be ignorant of their own reasons, but would make us no better than those we seek to wrestle power from. If we are to make a better world, we must ensure that we make it united - by the people, for the people, as has often been said.

Instead, it is important in the construction of arguments and media that we first understand the reasoning behind such counter-arguments to eco-socialist federalism, and what context has led our opponents to formulate their opinions, and tailor our message to be unceasing in advocating for our principles, but offering assurance and accountability for their own concerns, rather than dismissing dissent outright. No matter whether dismissal is justified due to the presence of unwarranted hatred, the conditioning that has led to this sort of opposition is an uncomfortable obstacle that is not easily dealt with. Force will be met with force, and the resulting violence will create more enemies and obstacles.

Consider if such a revolutionary force were to rise that sought the establishment of progressive ideals upon the world, or even just a region, and sought to make their beliefs commonplace. They could tell the people of a region of their values, and while they would find some support, there would be those that disagreed, that opposed on the grounds of ignorance and traditionalism. The revolutionaries could try using force, taking over the region and imposing laws, but they would be met with resistance and opposition, and even if they won, it would be on a path paved with bloodshed, with the silent dissenters festering their beliefs and preparing revolution of their own. While the concept of ideas being unable to be destroyed through force is often used in a positive light, such discriminatory and oppressive ideas are similarly durable, and must be fought in different ways, if at all possible.

Already in our interactions through social media have we noticed that even the simplest concepts are rejected by many based on recent historical context - they call us 'brainwashed' or tie us to whatever party they feel applicable because of a fundamental misunderstanding of our cause. Our general message is misconstrued by crowds driven so far into an ideological corner that they view any attempt at change as an attempt to steal freedom and personal security. We could always ignore them, simply try and aim for anyone who agrees with us and sweep the rest under the rug, but then we fall down a slippery slope of being selective. Do we simply not listen to people that don't agree with us? Do we view our ideals as strict and rigid, unable to be tested or amended because they are perfect from the get go? I am not a perfect individual, nor are my ideas unchanging - while I am firm on my stance of humanity's survival and prosperity, taking other opinions into consideration is a method of strengthening one's own argument.

Better yet, while we cannot guarantee that we could appeal to everyone even with convincing, it is worth it to try and meet our opponents on the same level - understand why they come to their conclusions, and convince them, not tell them, that eco-socialist federalism would be beneficial. For example, one common argument against world federalism is that it would be a step towards authoritarianism, and rob people of their personal freedoms. However, in a democratic world structure, not only would the people of the world still be the base of power for government authority, but having an additional and higher layer of jurisdiction accountable directly to people rather than nation states would allow even more of a say in international dealings. If we could understand what they fear and how to appeal to them, we could be looking at a potentially much larger crowd.

For further consideration is a lesson from history - the split between socialist ideologies in Russia and China. (While our ideals are separate from theirs, it's more how they split rather than what they were about.) Marxist-Leninist theory was developed in response to the political context of Russia around the time of their revolution and civil war, but when it came to revolution and establishment of socialism in China, a different approach was developed - Marxist-Leninist-Maoism. Without getting into specifics, MLM theory was more tailored to the socio-political context of China, and yet, while people today debate the worthiness of both theories, each one accomplished its goal. A socialist government was established in both nations, but there was a different solution and path for each one. Given how unique the world is, convincing others and establishing nation states for a federation won't be a universal process - it will be different depending on the context.

It is important to remember we are all people, and that we all have our own reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe. Some of us were brought up to prioritize ambition and greed, others were given reason to fear the unknown and change, and to fight vehemently to stay the same. In the face of extinction, we cannot continue to be at each other's throats, and so, while we may have to resort to facing opponents through conflict and force, it is preferable that, if we are able to better understand them and tailor our message to certain audiences, to connect with people who see a different way to convince them of why we're fighting, our path to a federation may be clearer, and our task of eliminating oppression may become a bit easier.

- DKTC FL