How is solidarity possible? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15165508
What makes it possible that people come together to oppose people on the basis of working conditions, wages, or institutionalized discrimination?
How do people reach a point where they are willing to risk the violence, retaliation, and severe consequences of action?

Just listening to third grade students talk about a woman who was pivotal in strikes for women in New York in the early 20th century. She was severely beaten to the point of having broken ribs and such personal cost all in the struggle for better working conditions and wages.

How does one develop a will attached to perhaps a certain ideal that they are willing to endure great suffering?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/self-control.htm
Moreover, a person says he is hungry and continues to be hungry. It seems to us that from the common view of a person who experiences hunger and does not eat the food given him regardless of terrible hunger, we can say that his behavior is directed along the line of greatest resistance. The fact of suicide among people, the fact that it is not found in the animal kingdom, has long been considered paradoxical for all teaching on freedom of the will, and not without reason did many philosophers consider it a sign of human freedom. But, of course, as in the case with hunger and in James’ example of the patient on the operating table, here too freedom is, of course, not freedom from necessity, but freedom understood as recognizing necessity. In this plan, the expression “to take oneself in hand” may have a certain literal sense like the expression “to stand the pain, clenching his teeth.” This means that the basis of such freedom, like the basis of freedom with respect to the external world, is recognition of necessity.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/man/ape-man-1.pdf
The conditioned reflexes, which are built upon the unconditioned reflexes, change them in profound ways, and very often as a result of the animal's individual's experience we observe a" distortion of the instincts", i.e., a new direction taken by an innate reaction due to the conditions in which it manifests itself.

A classical example of such "distortion of instinct" is provided by one of Pavlov's experiments in which a conditioned reflex to cauterization of the skin by means of electric current was fostered ina dog. At first, the animal responded to the painful stimulus with a violent defensive reaction, it strained to break out of its stall, seized the device in its teeth, and fought with all its might. But as a result of a lengthy series of experiments, during which the painful stimulus was accompanied by a food stimulus, the dog began to respond to the burning sensations to its skin with a reaction that corresponded usually to feeding. The well-known English physiologist Charles Scott Sherrington, who was present at these experiments, declared, uponlcx)kingatthe dog, "Now I understand the joy of the martyrs as they went to the stake." 2 With these words, Sherrington implied the vast horizon which this classical experiment opened up. In this simple experiment he discerned the prototype of those profound changes in our nature that are induced in us by education and the influence of the environment.
#15169052
I've been trying to think about the answer and all I have come up with as possibilities so far is
a sense of belonging
or
the need for purpose

The sense of belonging comes from an aimless or unwanted (in whatever manner) person finding a group that provides them with a foundation and stability, and they feel an obligation to involve themselves towards the betterment of that group. These people are probably more likely influenced from those around them then they are self-directed. If they do one brave act for the cause, the praise from their group would encourage them to act further.

the need for purpose is a bit more difficult for me to fathom, because I think that if you have never felt such a need it seems almost fool-hardy. These kinds of individuals are somehow born with the notion that they are meant to do something. They have an idee fixe impulse, and if they do not act towards having that impulse satiated they feel senseless and as though they have left something unaccomplished, which eats away at their integrity; and in their mode of thinking, lack of integrity is more detrimental to the well-being of their existence than any sort of inflicted punishment.

Why and how these mindsets develop would require deeper exploration.
#15169055
froggo wrote:I've been trying to think about the answer and all I have come up with as possibilities so far is
a sense of belonging
or
the need for purpose

The sense of belonging comes from an aimless or unwanted (in whatever manner) person finding a group that provides them with a foundation and stability, and they feel an obligation to involve themselves towards the betterment of that group. These people are probably more likely influenced from those around them then they are self-directed. If they do one brave act for the cause, the praise from their group would encourage them to act further.

the need for purpose is a bit more difficult for me to fathom, because I think that if you have never felt such a need it seems almost fool-hardy. These kinds of individuals are somehow born with the notion that they are meant to do something. They have an idee fixe impulse, and if they do not act towards having that impulse satiated they feel senseless and as though they have left something unaccomplished, which eats away at their integrity; and in their mode of thinking, lack of integrity is more detrimental to the well-being of their existence than any sort of inflicted punishment.

Why and how these mindsets develop would require deeper exploration.


I think solidarity has to do with a sense of obligation towards others in your shoes or whom you identify with on a deep level. Whether that is in a profession you share, a social status (like being a mother), or a religious or political identification such as (Roman Catholic social democrat), etc.

I know I have a lot of affiliations or identify with such things. I am a mother, a wife, an anthropologist, a woman, a person who is older in age (55 years old), a Leftist, a alumni from a certain college or unis, an ethnic group, (Puerto Rican), and the list goes on. How does one commit to solidarity around such different identities?

You must prioritize what the purpose of formal and informal identifications with solidarity implies for your daily life. You set goals and standards. The issue with most people is how limited their time is. Most people have a full plate on their time. They have to clean their houses, cook their meals, shop for food, pay bills, throw out the trash on trash day, check their medications or do medical check ups and dental appointments to keep their oral health in order. They have to spend time with their spouse and children. How much time is left for less pressing concerns like groups with meetings and so on? Limited time for sure.

So how to act on those type of solidarity campaigns? Most people donate or give money or volunteer their time in a limited time basis. But in the end the many doing small acts adds up to a lot of clout.

No one should think their small contributions are meaningless. They are the essence of progress.
#15169058
Wellsy wrote:What makes it possible that people come together to oppose people on the basis of working conditions, wages, or institutionalized discrimination?


This is all about personality type:

Some people are naturally conservative (prefer order and the OLD; reject the NEW).
Others are naturally open to experience (prefer the NEW and thinks the OLD is awful).

The big five personality traits are extroversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism.

Openess types tend to be left wingers. If you add extroversion you end up with an activist
Conscientious types tend to be conservative.
This is well known to psychologists.

What is really interesting is that each side believes they are that way because they are smarter than the person that holds an opposing view. They have no clue that they are guided by personality traits.
#15169079
Wellsy wrote:
What makes it possible that people come together



We're herd critters. You can call it tribal, if you want. Banding together against a threat is something you see a lot in nature...
#15169153
froggo wrote:
the need for purpose is a bit more difficult for me to fathom, because I think that if you have never felt such a need it seems almost fool-hardy. These kinds of individuals are somehow born with the notion that they are meant to do something. They have an idee fixe impulse, and if they do not act towards having that impulse satiated they feel senseless and as though they have left something unaccomplished, which eats away at their integrity; and in their mode of thinking, lack of integrity is more detrimental to the well-being of their existence than any sort of inflicted punishment.

Why and how these mindsets develop would require deeper exploration.



I'll suggest that people -- like myself -- may find daily personal experiential life to be insufficient, given the larger social world out there.

Obversely *everyone* has *some* degree of social responsibility since we're all on the same planet, using its resources, etc.


History, Macro-Micro -- simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show
Image
#15169202
I'll suggest that people -- like myself -- may find daily personal experiential life to be insufficient, given the larger social world out there.


I believe that my distinctions are focussing on the second aspect of the OP's question, I suppose I should have clarified;

How do people reach a point where they are willing to risk the violence, retaliation, and severe consequences of action?



Many people see what the issues are, many people, like Tainari are in solidarity in a way that works for them. But my possibilities were imagining the kind of person who would face severe consequences, such as lengthy jail-terms, brutalization by oppressors, etc., likely with the knowledge that their sacrifice may have little impact. The person may not achieve the end sought, but they will be able to have a self-contentment once their ability to carry on acts of solidarity has been shutdown.
Some quotes from Epictetus, to accentuate the process of how such a daring person would decide to dare;
Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them.
It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.
First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do.
No man is free who is not master of himself.

These stoic thoughts would guide the person prior to the event, and it would suffice for a posture of assurance after the event
#15169219
froggo wrote:
I believe that my distinctions are focussing on the second aspect of the OP's question, I suppose I should have clarified;




Many people see what the issues are, many people, like Tainari are in solidarity in a way that works for them. But my possibilities were imagining the kind of person who would face severe consequences, such as lengthy jail-terms, brutalization by oppressors, etc., likely with the knowledge that their sacrifice may have little impact. The person may not achieve the end sought, but they will be able to have a self-contentment once their ability to carry on acts of solidarity has been shutdown.
Some quotes from Epictetus, to accentuate the process of how such a daring person would decide to dare;

These stoic thoughts would guide the person prior to the event, and it would suffice for a posture of assurance after the event



I won't attempt to *proscribe* any given action / tactic, but I do have to note that some actions are more or less *effective* than others.

We could validly ask anyone why they chose to do the action that they did, whatever that happens to be, instead of *other* ones, that may be demonstrably *better*, politically, and tactically.

I mean to indicate that political actions by individuals may not necessarily be readily *viewed*, reasonably, as being political actions, and so may in effect be more on the side of one's own personal *moralism*, or even self-indulgence.

I'll proffer the following as a generic *framework*, for customization for any given situation / reality:


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show
Image
Balkan and Elections

A Serbian friend of mine got a free week end trip […]

Thank you for the support. Some of the BLM prote[…]

A New Study Shows Us the Single Biggest Motivati[…]

Of course it is. Or if its not, it should be. Wh[…]