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.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    50·
    1 day ago

    I disagree with the notion that these are “losing causes.”

    1. 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.”

    2. 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.

    3. FOSS isn’t losing, it doesn’t need mass adoption because it doesn’t need profit. FOSS is growing though.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.