* The original title has been updated to better reflect the energy activists expend in engaging with those resistant to truth.
No amount of dialogue, debate, or tolerance can instill empathy in someone unwilling to examine their own worldview. This is why creating healthy boundaries within activist spaces is crucial for our collective well-being.
There is a thin line between helping someone learn and encouraging weaponized incompetence, which is a type of deliberate passivity in which someone acts as though they don't "get it" in order to escape responsibility. It can be equally difficult to find this line when it is your own friends and family.
Friendships fracture during social upheaval because these changes can bring underlying differences in values or beliefs to the surface. In stable times, people may overlook or downplay the systemic problems of the world, but upheaval forces people to confront where they truly stand on issues that affect their lives directly. This creates friction, especially if friends find themselves on opposite sides of controversial topics, or if one person feels misunderstood or dismissed by someone they once trusted.
Upheaval triggers intense emotions like fear, anger, or the urge to advocate for change, people with strong core beliefs and opinions polarize those without them. Sometimes, people change in response to the upheaval itself, re-evaluating what matters most to them. If friends can’t evolve together or support each other’s growth, the friendship might no longer feel as fulfilling. And if there’s a lack of open communication, small misunderstandings or differences can fester and lead to a larger rupture. In essence, upheaval puts stress on friendships, and if the foundation isn't strong enough, these differences can cause fractures that are difficult to mend.
It is important to take the time to grieve fractured relationships during times of social upheaval, it’s equally vital to invest time and energy in cultivating new relationships with people whose values and goals align with your own. This process is at the heart of building solidarity, as real change requires networks of people who not only understand each other but are willing to grow, learn, and support one another.
These new connections are essential to movement-building. When we surround ourselves with people who share similar principles, we create spaces where mutual respect and accountability can flourish. It becomes easier to have the hard conversations and do the personal work that genuine activism demands—self-reflection, and collective growth when you have support. In turn, this fortifies the foundation for meaningful solidarity.
The paradox of tolerance is a philosophy by Karl Popper, in which he explains that if a society accepts everything, even harmful or hateful ideas, it risks destroying itself. If people are free to spread harmful beliefs without limits, they may eventually take over and silence others. To keep a fair and open society, there have to be some boundaries against ideas or actions that try to harm or silence others. This isn’t about being closed-minded; it’s about protecting fairness and safety for everyone.
Under capitalism, self-centeredness is so ingrained that it becomes the baseline. Social and political egoism encourage people to prioritize their individual perspectives, even in spaces meant for collective liberation. In these cases, we’re not up against a lack of information but rather a lack of humility and openness—the core qualities needed for solidarity.
Boundaries Are Essential
Activists are not obligated to endlessly educate or to bear the emotional labour of explaining basic ethics and empathy to those who refuse to listen. Boundaries are not acts of intolerance; they are safeguards that allow us to protect our energy for those genuinely interested in collective liberation.
Investing time in individuals who are closed off to growth not only drains our resources but detracts from those who are already willing to learn, listen, and act. Our energy is better spent cultivating a community of people open to unlearning harmful norms, committed to solidarity, and capable of empathy. Solidarity, cannot be forced upon those who resist it; it is a mutual commitment rooted in shared values and humility.
Lenin believed that principled activism requires a clear commitment to revolutionary goals, not compromising or diluting one’s values to accommodate opposing views. He argued that activists should not negotiate with forces that perpetuate oppression or exploitation, as doing so only strengthens harmful systems and weakens the movement. Instead, he called for a disciplined and unwavering approach, where activists focus on educating and organizing those already receptive to change, rather than wasting energy on those committed to upholding the status quo.
Lenin saw the need for activists to understand the line between constructive engagement and enabling destructive ideas. Principled activism means having the courage to reject alliances with those whose interests who do not align with the movement's core goals, even if that meant standing against popular opinion. The priority is always to advance the cause of the working class, which requires dedication to truth and accountability, not a concession to appease intolerant or reactionary forces.
When people choose not to take a stand, they’re allowing the oppressor to keep causing harm without any resistance, which supports the abuse by creating a silence around it. Neutrality is a form of enabling that shields the abuser from accountability.
The "lesser of two evils" argument collapses when the evil in question is actively happening, it is an illogical fallacy. There’s no real distinction between "lesser" and "greater" evil—both cause harm. Choosing one over the other justifies continued suffering, and when the harm is currently happening, framing it as "less bad" than some hypothetical alternative doesn’t change the reality of the abuse happening right now.
Whataboutism is another way to dodge accountability—it shifts the conversation to other issues, making it seem like everything is equally bad. This way, the real problem is downplayed, and we ignore the people suffering right now. All of these approaches—neutrality, the "lesser evil," and whataboutism—are ways to avoid the harder, more necessary stance: taking a firm stand against oppression and, especially, opposing genocide.
Ultimately, solidarity is about growing together with others who are also committed to self-reflection and systemic change. To find solidarity with individuals who refuse to grow is to undermine the integrity of our collective work. We must remain committed to those who share a sincere openness to learning and evolving. To do otherwise is to waste precious energy that could go toward those willing to stand beside us in our shared struggle.
Towing the mass line is a way for activists to connect their work with the needs and feelings of the people they aim to help. It means understanding the thoughts and experiences of the community and adapting strategies based on what they truly need.
Activists are not leaders or educators; they are part of a collective struggle. Our job is to understand the masses while also being shaped by that struggle. This mutual understanding is what creates a deeper sense of solidarity and shared purpose.
However, towing the mass line also means recognizing when certain ideas or actions are harmful or counterproductive. While it’s crucial to engage with the masses, it’s equally important not to compromise on core principles.
Rosa Luxemburg distinguished between reformism and revolutionary socialism, arguing that reforms within the capitalist system often serve to maintain the status quo rather than bring about real change. She believed that while reforms can provide temporary improvements for workers, they do not address the fundamental issues of capitalism and may even reinforce existing power structures.
Liberal democracies prioritize maintaining the status quo, when capitalism collapses liberalism creates openings for authoritarianism to grow unchecked. Fascist movements have historically exploited these weaknesses within liberal societies, capitalizing on social unrest and discontent.
As a result, democratic values erode, allowing for the rise of oppressive regimes. By prioritizing solidarity with those open to learning and embracing principled activism, we can create a more effective, sustainable and resilient movement.
Book Recommendation: Canada from a Native Point of View * Howard Adams
The Mass Line: How to use it * Liberation Road
Cover Photo: Dendy Darma Satyazi
A really interesting and useful post for thinking about boundaries in organising spaces!