[lbo-talk] rational argumentation

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

Jks:
> >
> > Yes, using indoctrination is a bad thing. One way to
> > fight back is via rational argumentation. We need to
> > have the oppressed do pedagogy on the oppressors.
> 
> Experience suggests that this is not a very effective
> approach. It's goodd to have refutations and critiques
> in hand, for example, s critique of political
> econonomy, one might call it Capital. But it is
> unlikely to persuade those with the strongest interest
> in the existing order, but rather to deligetimate them
> in the eyes ofthose with less interest.  And when

I fully agree with your assessment, Justin.  People are not rational (in
the philosophical or economic sense), but vain and opportunistic
discomfort minimizers.  That means that they will be most likely swayed
by:

- appeals to their vanity (i.e. something that gives them an illusion of
power or self-importance);
- opportunities of an easy gain here and know with little regard for the
price they may pay latter;
- simplistic rationalizations that reduce their cognitive dissonance and
discomfort caused by troubling facts.

The Repugs and marketers are really good at playing that game, as
evidenced by their ability to persuade people to act against their own
economic interests or ethical standards.  Any rational appeal to those
standards is unlikely to succeed, because those standards have already
been subverted by propaganda appeals.  It is as if someone wanted to
hire an attorney to recover money stolen from him and hoped to pay her
with that stolen money.

There is something to be learned from the Soviets in their earlier years
how to effectively use propaganda for progressive causes - by linking
them to the popular perceptions, discourses and stereotypes.  Michael
Moore is on the right track in this respect, but that is another story.

Wojtek