What's in a Motto?

Saw another silly tweet over the weekend:

Ignoring his misrepresentation of the concept behind the slogan "abolish the family," we now have another instance of a leftist movement being criticized more for its messaging rather than its merits.  This is not novel and is actually a predictable response at this point, harkening back to liberals who quibbled over "defund the police" or reactionaries who decried "black lives matter."  Given that this strategy is now being deployed for relatively fringe ideas, it's good to examine why attacking the message is foolish, even when done in good faith.

It Is Literally Impossible to Convey the Richness of Something in Three Words

This should be obvious, but it isn't always.  People who argue against specific messaging often posit that everything would be fine if only the ambiguities were removed.  But this has never once been true!  Just look at the myriad ways the word "freedom" is used across the entire spectrum of our polity.  Or how the concept of "promoting democracy" is used as a cudgel by American foreign policy to enforce the will of capital.  As such, it's silly to expect any three word phrase to meet this impossible standard of clarity.  Perhaps you could swap it for something like "abolish the commodification and enforcement of the family" or "abolish the social relation of children as property," but a) those are too long, and b) I bet you $100 that the same people are still going to take issue with them.

A Motto as an Invitation to Engage

In the context of activism, this inability to communicate ideas unambiguously with three simple words may seem daunting.  But I would argue it's actually freeing, and perhaps even useful.  Rather than focusing on the inherent shortcoming of language, I would recommend recognizing the opportunity that exists in trying to bridge a potential misunderstanding.  This thought echoes something I've read before with respect to identity politics—namely, that a concept such as identity politics has no absolute moral value, but rather is good when used to start a conversation and bad when used to shut down a conversation.  In the same way, a movement's slogan should be thought of not as "good" or "bad' in and of itself, and instead should be evaluated on the extent to which it invites a conversation.  And given that genuine political change in individuals generally doesn't come directly from catchy slogans, inviting someone to engage is really the only tangible goal of a motto.  Sneaking into your brain, like a sort of Inception for left-wing agitation, if you will.

Provocation is Fine and Good

The obvious counter-argument to the previous paragraph is that unnecessary provocation is counter-productive.  While I very much agree, this misses the point when applied to prescriptive statements.  As such declarations inherently call for change to the current state of things, they will by their very nature provoke the people who benefit from existing hegemony.  This is why it's called a struggle!  This is what politics is!  To quote Gramsci:

"If one applies ones will to the creation of a new equilibrium among the forces which really exist and are operative—basing oneself on the particular force which one believes to be progressive and strengthening it to help it to victory—one still moves on the terrain of effective reality, but does so in order to dominate and transcend it.  What "ought to be" is therefore concrete; indeed it is the only realistic and historicist interpretation of reality, it alone is history in the making and philosophy in the making, it alone is politics."

One Person's Trash Is Another Person's Treasure

This last point is especially relevant here.  As much as one may genuinely be taken aback by a slogan like "abolish the family," it is likely because that person has positive associations with the concept of family.  But I can assure you that is not the case for everyone.  As such, I would ask anyone who take issue with this or any other activist slogan to perhaps consider that you are not the primary target for the message (especially in this case, where current efforts disproportionately come from the queer community).  Capitalism expresses itself through many vectors, so it follows that meaningful anti-capitalist advocacy must at least try to engage with and seek to understand as many of these vectors as it can.  This is one such vector.  Don't lose the forest for the trees.