What is a system without the sum of all individuals actions? If you can not convince someone to forgoe the comforts and pleasures of harmful consumption, how are you going to convince them to take on the dangerous and strenuous work of overthrowing capitalism?
I'm sorry to say, but is is highly unlikely that someone who has access to these comforts and is willing to rationalize sacrificing others for them is going to be willing to give them up on the off chance that the revolution is going to succeed. Being in community with people in the global south means feeling a deep shame for being complicit in the destruction of their lives, and refusing it as much as possible.
If you can't get someone to accept this, you are wasting your time trying to recruit them for meaningful action. You are better of trying to mobilize those who have nothing to lose from destroying this system, or those who are at least willing to sacrifice some comfort in order to minimize harm
I hear your point about complicity and the limits of trying to politicise people who won’t give up even small comforts. But systems aren’t just the sum of individual choices—they shape what people can imagine or do. Movements have never required everyone to become personally pure before taking collective action.
Yes, prioritize those who already feel the injustice and are willing to sacrifice. But revolutions also grow by politicising people through struggle, not beforehand. People don’t give up comfort because of moral appeals—they join movements when they see that their real security and dignity can’t exist under the current system. We shouldn’t waste time on the willfully apathetic, but we also shouldn’t narrow our horizon to only those with “nothing to lose.” Movements need both conviction and strategy.
Personal purity is not a prerequisite, it is an indicator of how the movement will handle setbacks. A person which has already sacrificed comfort is simply more likely to persevere through them. There is a lot of revolutionary ethos specifically formulated to guide us in this question, such as those in "Blood In My Eye" and "Revolutionary Suicide":
“Settle your quarrels, come together, understand the reality of our situation, understand that fascism is already here, that people are already dying who could be saved, that generations more will die or live poor butchered half-lives if you fail to act. do what must be done, discover your humanity and your love in revolution. Pass on the torch. Join us, give up your life for the people.” -George Jackson
" “I do not think that life will change for the better without an assault on the Establishment, which goes on exploiting the wretched of the earth. This belief lies at the heart of the concept of revolutionary suicide. Thus it is better to oppose the forces that would drive me to self-murder than to endure them. Although I risk the likelihood of death, there is at least the possibility, if not the probability, of changing intolerable conditions. This possibility is important, because much in human existence is based upon hope without any real understanding of the odds. Indeed, we are all—Black and white alike—ill in the same way, mortally ill. But before we die, how shall we live? I say with hope and dignity; and if premature death is the result, that death has a meaning reactionary suicide can never have. It is the price of self-respect." - Huey Newton
This ethos seems to state that what must guide revolutionaries is not specifically because they are certain they will win and thrive in their lifetimes, or fear for losing security or comfort if the system persists, but for the dignity that is inherent in struggle, love of the coming generations and fear for the suffering they will face if we fail to act.
It is only this love which I can see can guide us to sacrifice, suffer and still persevere through the struggle, because things are certainly bound to get a whole lot worse before they get better. Although I have doubts that one can shame another to find this love, I have trouble seeing how else one can be convinced to feel it. I admit there is probably no simple dichotomy or answer here, something tells me that it is a love and sense of duty for the coming generations which must be centered in this movement, and as a matter of strategy the limited time we have to agitate and mobilize focused on those we have a higher chance of keeping dedicated to the movement.
Beautiful! So wise. And I agree with that. Still I don’t see how all that connect with your initial comment that I took as a critique, maybe I misread?
Thank you, that is very kind of you to say. I guess my critique boils down to that the shame that one feels for partaking in comforts which leads to others destruction and the love and empathy one feels for those facing destruction as a result are two sides of the same coin. They seem inseparable and this tells us that shame is not inherently a feeling that inevitably leads to rumination and apathy, but is also not only something that can help us adhere to a lifestyle which minimizes suffering. It can also help spur action, since if we realize our inaction is a part of the problem our shame in the complicity we live with in the global north can drive us further into struggle.
I guess the conclusion I draw is that it seems, at least to me, from a strategic point of view, that agitating for revolution in circles which are invested in seeking comfort is counterproductive since revolution is inherently an uncomfortable process and that effort invested is very likely lost when setbacks occur. Furthermore, I have trouble seeing how we can get people with such inclinations to invest time away from seeking comfort to work towards revolution without invoking the truth in how shameful it is to seek comfort in a world where that comfort is tied to the destruction of others.
What is a system without the sum of all individuals actions? If you can not convince someone to forgoe the comforts and pleasures of harmful consumption, how are you going to convince them to take on the dangerous and strenuous work of overthrowing capitalism?
I'm sorry to say, but is is highly unlikely that someone who has access to these comforts and is willing to rationalize sacrificing others for them is going to be willing to give them up on the off chance that the revolution is going to succeed. Being in community with people in the global south means feeling a deep shame for being complicit in the destruction of their lives, and refusing it as much as possible.
If you can't get someone to accept this, you are wasting your time trying to recruit them for meaningful action. You are better of trying to mobilize those who have nothing to lose from destroying this system, or those who are at least willing to sacrifice some comfort in order to minimize harm
I hear your point about complicity and the limits of trying to politicise people who won’t give up even small comforts. But systems aren’t just the sum of individual choices—they shape what people can imagine or do. Movements have never required everyone to become personally pure before taking collective action.
Yes, prioritize those who already feel the injustice and are willing to sacrifice. But revolutions also grow by politicising people through struggle, not beforehand. People don’t give up comfort because of moral appeals—they join movements when they see that their real security and dignity can’t exist under the current system. We shouldn’t waste time on the willfully apathetic, but we also shouldn’t narrow our horizon to only those with “nothing to lose.” Movements need both conviction and strategy.
Personal purity is not a prerequisite, it is an indicator of how the movement will handle setbacks. A person which has already sacrificed comfort is simply more likely to persevere through them. There is a lot of revolutionary ethos specifically formulated to guide us in this question, such as those in "Blood In My Eye" and "Revolutionary Suicide":
“Settle your quarrels, come together, understand the reality of our situation, understand that fascism is already here, that people are already dying who could be saved, that generations more will die or live poor butchered half-lives if you fail to act. do what must be done, discover your humanity and your love in revolution. Pass on the torch. Join us, give up your life for the people.” -George Jackson
" “I do not think that life will change for the better without an assault on the Establishment, which goes on exploiting the wretched of the earth. This belief lies at the heart of the concept of revolutionary suicide. Thus it is better to oppose the forces that would drive me to self-murder than to endure them. Although I risk the likelihood of death, there is at least the possibility, if not the probability, of changing intolerable conditions. This possibility is important, because much in human existence is based upon hope without any real understanding of the odds. Indeed, we are all—Black and white alike—ill in the same way, mortally ill. But before we die, how shall we live? I say with hope and dignity; and if premature death is the result, that death has a meaning reactionary suicide can never have. It is the price of self-respect." - Huey Newton
This ethos seems to state that what must guide revolutionaries is not specifically because they are certain they will win and thrive in their lifetimes, or fear for losing security or comfort if the system persists, but for the dignity that is inherent in struggle, love of the coming generations and fear for the suffering they will face if we fail to act.
It is only this love which I can see can guide us to sacrifice, suffer and still persevere through the struggle, because things are certainly bound to get a whole lot worse before they get better. Although I have doubts that one can shame another to find this love, I have trouble seeing how else one can be convinced to feel it. I admit there is probably no simple dichotomy or answer here, something tells me that it is a love and sense of duty for the coming generations which must be centered in this movement, and as a matter of strategy the limited time we have to agitate and mobilize focused on those we have a higher chance of keeping dedicated to the movement.
Beautiful! So wise. And I agree with that. Still I don’t see how all that connect with your initial comment that I took as a critique, maybe I misread?
Thank you, that is very kind of you to say. I guess my critique boils down to that the shame that one feels for partaking in comforts which leads to others destruction and the love and empathy one feels for those facing destruction as a result are two sides of the same coin. They seem inseparable and this tells us that shame is not inherently a feeling that inevitably leads to rumination and apathy, but is also not only something that can help us adhere to a lifestyle which minimizes suffering. It can also help spur action, since if we realize our inaction is a part of the problem our shame in the complicity we live with in the global north can drive us further into struggle.
I guess the conclusion I draw is that it seems, at least to me, from a strategic point of view, that agitating for revolution in circles which are invested in seeking comfort is counterproductive since revolution is inherently an uncomfortable process and that effort invested is very likely lost when setbacks occur. Furthermore, I have trouble seeing how we can get people with such inclinations to invest time away from seeking comfort to work towards revolution without invoking the truth in how shameful it is to seek comfort in a world where that comfort is tied to the destruction of others.