【推文】James Lindsay - Are social movements really centrally controlled, or are they organic?

這是 James Lindsay 最近寫的短推文串（7篇）

連結

• 原推文 - x.com/conceptualjame...

• Thread Reader App版本（一頁版本） - threadreaderapp.com/...

原文及個人翻譯

Despite the evidences of the last few years, many people remain skeptical of conspiracy theory-sounding explanations for social movements. Like, are they really centrally controlled, or are they organic? Well, let me ask you this: do you believe in venture capitalism?🧵

儘管過去幾年的證據，許多人仍然對聽起來像是陰謀論的社會運動解釋持懷疑態度。我的意思是，它們真的受到中央控制，還是有機的？好吧，讓我問你一個問題：你相信風險投資嗎？

The venture capitalist model pretty neatly explains how you can have quasi-coordinated social engineering that isn't centrally manufactured. Think of large NGOs and such as operating like venture capitalists for cultural activism and you pretty much have the model.

風險投資的模式相當清楚地解釋了如何能夠進行非中央製造的準協調社會工程。想想大型非政府組織等像風險投資家一樣運營文化激進主義，你基本上就擁有了這個模式。

The NGOs themselves do have agendas and, in some cases, large-scale orchestrated plans, but they aren't manufacturing most of the social movements that advance their goals. They're finding them, marketing them, and pouring gasoline (lots of money) on them.

In other words, the relevant activism usually likely starts out as an organic phenomenon, and donors who act like venture capitalists for social change keep their eyes open and dump money on the ones that might move the ball in the directions of their goals.

非政府組織本身確實有議程，在某些情況下還有大規模的協調計劃，但他們並不是製造大多數推動其目標的社會運動。他們是在尋找、推廣並為這些運動注入燃料（大量資金）。

換句話說，相關的激進行動通常最初是有機現象，而像社會變革風險投資家一樣的捐贈者會保持警惕，並將資金投入到可能推動其目標的運動中。

This is generally how donors work, so there's nothing intrinsically wrong with doing that, but it's important to understand that many of the biggest donors are networked in donor groups that seek large-scale social change fitting certain profiles and agendas.

The point, though, is that the movements that are made big that can really derail a country, for example, start off and often develop in rather organic ways that then has growth encouraged by the selective dumping and withholding of huge cash.

I hope this has been helpful in leading you to understand how you can have large-scale, quasi-orchestrated activist movements that aren't necessarily centrally planned and directed.

這就是捐贈者通常的工作方式，所以這樣做本身沒有問題，但重要的是要明白許多最大的捐贈者都與尋求大規模社會變革的捐贈者團體有聯繫，這些變革符合特定的模式和議程。

然而，關鍵在於那些真正能夠使一個國家脫軌的大型運動，最初往往以比較有機的方式開始並發展，然後通過選擇性地傾瀉和保留大量資金來促進增長。

希望這有助於你理解如何存在大規模、準協調的激進行動，而這些行動不一定是中央計劃和指揮的。