• Moira_Mayhem@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I think you are mistaking infiltration for ‘getting spread out too far’.

    Nearly all of what you describe can be most easily attributed to planted agitators.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yes, sure, it can, but I think it’s more of just a sign of the times. I think infiltrating and co-opting an ideology, intentionally, is pretty difficult…unless the infiltrator already has a large platform, they will likely be drowned out. Otherwise I think sabotage is a better (as in more effective) approach to slowing a movement (such as inciting riots).

      For one, communication is rampant and anybody can get a platform. This is great for starting and growing a movement, but this makes it really difficult to maintain a movement. A large number of well-meaning people with a pre-existing platform (namely influencers and YouTube personalities these days) that each interpret and redistribute the message just sligntly different than original. From there it spirals into a huge, multi-pronged game of telephone.

      For two, a lot of the leftist movements inspire democrats to join into the crowd. The democrat party has become the de facto big tent party. At this point it’s embodying the ideals of like 80% of the political compass. Naturally, this attracts a diverse range of idealogies, who want to interpret and spread the movement slightly differently.

      Lastly…it’s fucking tough to lead a movement man. I couldn’t imagine what it takes to essentially corral millions of people around an idea.

      The first and third points are probably why we don’t see a lot of celebrity activists these days to the level of MLK or Malcom X. The increased scale and speed must make it incredibly difficult to get and maintain control.