However I find myself being disagreed with quite often, mostly for not advocating or cheering violence, “by any means possible” change, or revolutionary tactics. It would seem that I’m not viewed as authentically holding my view unless I advocate extreme, violent, or radical action to accomplish it.
Those seem like two different things to me.
Edit: TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY
THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.
Hey OP. Please look up the “Stonewall riots”.
Directly fighting against the forces that are making & enforcing laws that can & will do harm is the right thing to do. If the people in power / enforcing unfair practices see they are unopposed, they will become stronger in their positions. Complacency allows imbalance.
Will I break windows for Gaza? No. I will not. Who will that help? Who am I fighting? That kind of thing is nonsense.
Will I fight police that are attacking students for protesting? YES. YES I WILL. Because if you fight back, they will understand that you will not allow yourself to be walked all over by unjust enforcement. They will think twice about attacking students next time, because they know people are willing to fight back. If they do not encounter opposition, they know they are safe to do whatever they want.
In short: once a bully realizes that you will hit back, they are less inclined to bully you. Even more so if you are backed up by more people who also hate the bully.
EDIT: To be fair, I don’t hope for “collapse”. However, I do understand why people do. The corrupt system goes so deep that collapse may be the only way to dismantle it, as it is beyond any kind of reform.
Do I want collapse? No. But, unfortunately, it may be necessary. The system cannot be fixed without being dismantled, and I’m not optimistic that we will experience a miracle.
Good sane take, to my understanding
This is everyone’s take here.
I think it’s all about how it’s said. The simpler, the better. Phrasing is important, too.
Change never comes without a fight. In the shadows, blood is spilled, and it will continue to flow. Today, it’s not yours, but tomorrow it might be. Some saw the suffering of others and chose to sacrifice, so others wouldn’t have to. At least be thankful for their sacrifice.
What “change” are we taking about here?
Slavery, Decolonization, worker rights, women rights, black people rights, “Put any word here” rights,etc…
Many of those have been accomplished by protests, that led to changes in law, that led to changes in society. Some by war, yes.
None by revolution, that I’m aware of. None by anarchy, that I’m aware of. In most cases revolution seems to throw things the other way, back into slavery, back into repression.
This is ahistorical, really. Revolution has historically happened in progressive movements beyond brutal previous conditions, whether it be the Haitian Slave Revolt, the French overthrow of the Monarchy, the Russian overthrow of the brutal Tsarist regime, the Cuban revolt against slavery and fascism, and more.
I think you would do well for yourself by studying history of revolutionary movements.
So you’re telling me none of those lead to more brutal oppression than before?
Some have, yes, but of the ones I listed, absolutely not.
Revolution isn’t an action, it’s a consequence of failing and unsustainable conditions. You don’t do a Revolution, it happens and you can participate in it.
Ye think slavery, worker rights, and decolonization was done merely by protests and by the mere will of liberalism?
What client is that?
connect for lemmy!
Lemmy has this weird point of view, if you aren’t extreme left then you are not left at all. I’ve seen people make comments like "just be honest you aren’t a liberal ".
They want to move the bar so they don’t have to claim they are extremist. I wouldn’t worry about it.
OTOH, USians have their Overton window so moved to the right, and it continues to move so fast, that it has a visible Doppler effect.
What in the US some people calls “radical ideas”, most of the world calls “common decency” or “human rights”.
True. But big ships turn slowly.
And the US is one hell of a big ship.
Usually a large sum of smaller, quantitative changes results in a rapid qualitative change.
Who says that ship is turning?
Lemmy has this weird point of view, if you aren’t extreme left then you are not left at all. I’ve seen people make comments like "just be honest you aren’t a liberal ".
Generally, the non-Marxists and non-Anarchists on Lemmy are absolutely liberals.
They want to move the bar so they don’t have to claim they are extremist. I wouldn’t worry about it.
I don’t think Leftists here care about being labeled an extremist or not, the point is to pursuade more people to become Marxists or Anarchists by actually talking about their views openly.
If wanting equality for all people is extremist, then I’m an extremist.
Nothing extremist about wanting equality
According to your original comment, it is. Simply wanting results to fall out of the sky isn’t support, ie if someone says they want everyone to be a billionaire it isn’t genuine support.
Thinking an idea is good, but achieving it is bad, isn’t support.
Interesting take. Not sure how you got there though.
How do you achieve equality for all people?
Still not sure how asking for equality makes one extremist
How do you achieve equality?
Question: do you consider yourself a liberal?
Got this from queermunist earlier. Didn’t understand why the question was asked. I answered “Yes” though it seemed like a gotcha, but I don’t know what was going on there. I used the words I wanted to use.
It depends on your definitions, but many on the left, myself included, don’t consider liberals to be leftists. Liberals are primarily capitalists, and while they are left within the very pro capitalist mainstream, they are not “leftists”, which to me means anticapitalist.
In my experience most liberals at least have problems with capitalism, they just can’t imagine a better system. I think leftists need to be less shitty, and use less gotchas and jargon, especially to people who are allies on social issues. Though this is frustrating when some of you’re local queer elders are small business owners who underpay their employees and hoard property.
It’s a shame that Marxists have to always be nice, friendly and tolerant. We get tired and frustrated with it all too.
Yeh I get it. It can be cathartic to be sarcastic and snippy to liberals, but unhelpful. Especially since most people who self identify as liberals are not ideologically firm neoliberal capitalists, just people with vaguely humanist ideals that don’t know all the right terminology. That’s where we alll were at one point, but some stranger on the internet gettimg pissy because someone hasnt read enough theory doesn’t make them want to learn more or organize with people.
Be as snippy and mean as you want to people who are firm in their shitty beliefs. Like neoliberal politicians, landlords, neo nazis, etc. Not workers trying to make rent.
So, this is a very complex topic I don’t have the time to give the treatment it deserves, but to try to give a very summarized historical viewpoint on it -
Liberalism was a set of ideas that cohered around the 18th century as a reaction to monarchism that emphasized universal civil rights and free markets (there were a ton of weird things going on with noble privileges and state monopolies issued by royal administrations and mercantile economics this was a response to)
Socialism was a set of ideas that cohered around the 19th century as a reaction to liberalism (and the whole industrial revolution) that said universal civil rights didn’t go far enough and we needed to establish universal economic rights. Some socialists think the only way to achieve these things is by overthrowing or limiting the power of governments and ripping up contracts between private parties, which liberals tend not to like.
Progressivism was (sort of, I’m being very reductive here) an attempted synthesis of these traditions that cohered around the early 20th century, and (essentially) argued “ok, free markets but restricted by regulations (e.g. you can’t sell snake oil, you can’t condition the sale of property on the purchaser being a specific race), and open elections for whoever the voters want but with restrictions on the kinda of laws that can be passed” (e.g. no poll taxes).
Like I said, I’m simplifying a lot here and I’d encourage reading Wikipedia pages and other sources on all of these things (like, I’m eliding a whole very dark history progressives have where their attempts to perfect society had them advocating for eugenics and segregation early on because there was academic support for those ideas at the time, and there’s a lot more to be said on how a lot of the first anti-racist voices were socialist ones and why it took progressives and liberals time to get on the right side of that issue, and how fights for colonial independence tended to be led by socialists and against liberals), but the fact that liberals progressives and socialists are all ostensibly “on the left” is a big cause of the infighting we see.
Get outta here with your detailed informative answers
We’re supposed to be having a big partisan argument about who is the poopy head in this sandbox
Lol, yeah, I’m really good at being nuanced and understanding right up until somebody starts talking about a person or subject that hits one of my angry buttons, and then I’m all “Bill Clinton will pay for his many crimes when the revolutionary vanguard takes power!”
But, yeah, when I’m not pissed beyond reason the thought I keep coming back to is that we all need each other to keep fascism at bay
Here’s a fun exercise: Ask queermunist what they think of some left wing issue that isn’t something that would be a good talking point for an outside adversary of the left to use to destabilize it, or make it lose.
They’re very vocal about wanting the left to use violence. They’re very vocal about wanting people not to vote for Biden. Foreign policy in Central and South America? Justice for farm workers? Prison reform? Fuck all that shit, let’s talk about some guns.
Idk, now that I have given the game away they may have a different reaction. 🙂 But that was my experience when I asked about it, and I made from that an inference about them and some other parts of the Lemmy left that may form a good potential answer to the original question you were asking.
how about you don’t engage in bad faith red herrings? instead, you could address the points other people raise in their comments.
this is some smug, manipulative bullshit.
This was literally a conversation I had with queermunist (I am almost sure; it was a while ago but I am fairly confident that was the other participant when I had the exchange). I’m just filling OP in on the content and recommending they try to experiment themselves, because I think it’s an extremely relevant contribution to OP’s understanding of the answer to their question.
smug
Dude I am King Smug; it is 100% fair
manipulative bullshit
Not really
it is manipulative. it is designed to distract from the subject at hand and imply that the person being asked is acting in bad faith if they don’t chase your red herring.
Yeah that was how the person reacted when I asked it that other time, too. Like HOW DARE YOU ASK ME ABOUT MY BELIEFS, THAT IS A DIRTY TRICK
I found it very notable, too, that perfectly normal reaction. Not like “why is Central America relevant to this lol” but “how dare you”
yea. how dare you. try engaging on topic and with intellectual honesty.
You can be validly left without wanting revolution, as long as you’re ok with progress happening over the course of centuries (in a world that has about 25 years left before the majority of us are dead from man-made climate change).
I liked the (long) piece over here: https://slrpnk.net/post/11395506
tldr;
You can’t blow up a social relationship. The total collapse of this society would provide no guarantee about what replaced it. Unless a majority of people had the ideas and organization sufficient for the creation of an alternative society, we would see the old world reassert itself because it is what people would be used to, what they believed in, what existed unchallenged in their own personalities.
Proponents of terrorism and guerrilla-ism are to be opposed because their actions are vanguardist and authoritarian, because their ideas, to the extent that they are substantial, are wrong or unrelated to the results of their actions (especially when they call themselves libertarians or anarchists), because their killing cannot be justified, and finally because their actions produce either repression with nothing in return or an authoritarian regime.
Question: do you consider yourself a liberal?
Yes?
Liberals have never been leftists.
This isn’t really a new thing. You can read about leftists a hundred years ago denouncing liberalism.
deleted by creator
Liberals merely became less racist and less sexist, not much else has changed.
deleted by creator
Definitely not less ableist tho…
deleted by creator
They are being extremely persnickety. I’m hard left, and a vocal opponent of just about anything not left of center. That said, I’m not about to lock a bunch of conservatives in a church and light it on fire.
If I had to pick a box, it’d be socialist, because Communism has been tried, and generally ends up with an oligarchy. I don’t see anything wrong with owning property or earning money, as long as you aren’t curb Stomping people below you to get it.
If I had to pick a box, it’d be socialist, because Communism has been tried, and generally ends up with an oligarchy. I don’t see anything wrong with owning property or earning money, as long as you aren’t curb Stomping people below you to get it.
What Socialist is in favor of maintaining Capitalism in the long term? What do you mean by Oligarchy, and how does that not apply to Capitalists in your “Socialist” system?
Basically the Nordic model is my viewpoint (popular or not on here). High nationalisation of the economy with some room for private enterprise. High taxes, esp. for the rich, High investment in social programs.
Throw in a shit ton of transparency and accountability
Basically the Nordic model is my viewpoint (popular or not on here).
I wouldn’t describe that as Socialist, really, unless it was in the Global South and explicitly Anti-Imperialist, and even then it would still need to have a trajectory to move onto Socialism eventually. The Nordics themselves rely on brutal exploitation of the Global South to function, and are some of the most Imperialistic countries in the world.
High nationalisation of the economy with some room for private enterprise.
The issue in the Nordic Model is that historically, the Capitalist class has maintained dominance, and has slowly turned back previous concessions via state control.
High taxes, esp. for the rich, High investment in social programs.
Social Programs are fantastic, but in the context of an Imperialist country we must recognize the source of these Programs.
Throw in a shit ton of transparency and accountability
Would be nice, but extremely difficult with a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.
What do the words socialist and communist actually mean to you?
I think with the way you’re using the word socialist, what you actually mean is social democrat, which is a newer term people use to mean capitalism but with heavy regulation and strong welfare / social safety nets.
When you ask people who are actually anti-capitalists and consider themselves some flavor of socialist or communist to distinguish between the two you will get as many different answers as people you’ve asked. In Marxist theory socialism is generally understood as a transitional state towards communism. Historical events led to communism being used mostly to refer to the authoritarian ideology championed by the Bolsheviks, so people started using socialism to differentiate themselves from that definition.
The only thing you’ll get most leftists to agree on is that both socialist and communist mean anti-capitalist, and those who disagree are confused liberals.
Historical events led to communism being used mostly to refer to the authoritarian ideology championed by the Bolsheviks, so people started using socialism to differentiate themselves from that definition.
To be clear, the Bolsheviks were definitely Communists and Socialists, and implemented a more democratic and Worker-focused society than Tsarist Russia. Low-bar that may be, the US and Western Powers deliberately attempted to shove a wedge in the Leftist movement by trying to paint the USSR as “not true Communism.”
To be clear, the Bolsheviks were definitely Communists and Socialists, and implemented a more democratic and Worker-focused society than Tsarist Russia
I agree that the USSR was more democratic and worker-focused than Tsarist Russia, but saying they were definitely Communists and Socialists depends on your definition of those words. An originalist Marxist for example would vehemently disagree that they were communist because communism was envisioned as this pure ideal stateless society, the “end goal” to work towards. Statelessness is definitely no longer a requirement of communism for modern Marxists, but it used to be.
US and Western Powers deliberately attempted to shove a wedge in the Leftist movement by trying to paint the USSR as “not true Communism.”
While this is definitely the case, people at the time had legitimate critiques of the USSR that may have led them to see it as “not true Communism,” see above. Wedges are driven into splits that already exist.
Because everyone seems to have their own unique definition of what Communism/Socialism is, saying that something is/isn’t socialist/communist should be taken more as an expression of that person’s values than a semantic argument. If someone says they are socialist and [insert government here] is not, what they are really saying is that there are aspects of [insert government here] that they disagree with to the point that it’s a dealbreaker for them.
I mean, academically speaking you’re totally right, but because Americans discuss politics in extremely simplistic terms a lot of people use the word “liberal” when they mean progressive or socialist or just anything to the left of center, so it would probably be helpful to define these terms a bit
No socialist uses “liberal” when they mean socialist. Isn’t that interesting?
Yeah, say what you will about free market acolytes, they know how to jump on to a successful brand
No, no, you see: the OC got 'em and now we know they’re not a true xxxxxxxxx and therefore their opinion doesn’t matter, in fact, their life may even be forfeit.
In the United States, in the general public (not talking academia here) both ‘liberal’ and ‘leftist’ currently mean ‘not conservative’. There’s really not much more to it than that. Before reading Lemmy comments about it, I wouldn’t have been able to name a distinction between the two terms.
Yes, but OP is deliberately asking Leftists on a platform built and maintained by Communists, not the general American public.
OP may be American and genuinely not know what answering yes to “do you consider yourself a liberal?” implies to said communists. I still don’t have a firm grasp on it myself.
What don’t you understand? Liberalism is a Capitalist ideology, ergo it is right wing. Socialists, Anarchists, Communists, etc. would be left wing.
Yeah, wildly different language. Here pretty much anything short of trying to put women back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, with the minorities out in the cotton fields, is left wing. Left-right is much more about social policy than economic, although the conservatives claim to want smaller government and lower taxes. (While building a giant military, etc.)
So ‘Liberal’ means ‘left wing’ here, and those other terms don’t even have a collective word that comes to mind besides stuff like ‘extremist’. (Also most of us Americans probably conflate socialism and communism anyway)
Does one have to be a revolutionary or iconoclast to be “legitimately” Left? (sorry for the paraphrase)
Not just “no” but fuck no. Anyone suggesting otherwise does not have freedom and liberty for all in mind.
However I find myself being disagreed with quite often, mostly for not advocating or cheering violence, “by any means possible” change, or revolutionary tactics. It would seem that I’m not viewed as authentically holding my view unless I advocate extreme, violent, or radical action to accomplish it.
You’re encountering a mix of naive people, extremists, sock puppets, and the like there. I’m curious as to which contexts you see it in the most. Context is really important. Due example anyone supporting capitalism would be seen adversarily by an M-L communist and a lot of anarchists too.
Those seem like two different things to me.
Pick your battles. If you do not believe in violent revolution to overthrow capitalism but want an M-L to accept you, you’re going to have a bad time. I’d recommend trying to reduce seeking external validation and accept that those with wildly different world views might not see eye-to-eye with you on things, even if you’re both on the same side of center. You’ll be much happier.
Edit: TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY
THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.
I think you may have a few misconceptions there :). I’m an anarchist and believe that the data shows resoundingly that capitalism and the hierarchical structures that it requires are the root cause of much of human suffering as well as pushing the Earth towards becoming uninhabitable to our species.
Do I want to overthrow society? Fuck no. The amount of suffering and death that that would cause is literally beyond human capacity to comprehend. How many would starve or die of preventable disease? The ends do not justify the means.
Do I want capitalism to continue to be the dominant economic system? Absolutely not. It fails to address inequity or the long-term survival of our species. It’s better than feudalism, yes, but, not by enough and out must evolve to meet the species needs, despite the wishes of billionaires.
I treat anarchism as a long project. I know I’ll never see it in my life and that’s ok as long as I put future generations in a place to carry on the baton. Things have been declining, in many ways, due to the Me Generation refusing to relinquish control. I hope that enough of my cohort are willing to put in the effort to fix some of the damage once they’re finally gone (those still holding on to power at this point won’t willingly hand it off to us until they have no choice).
Amazing answer from an Anarchist! Thank you for being able to talk without hyperbole. I feel like I would learn a lot from you and I would certainly break bread with you.
Sorry about my immature outburst in the edit, but I felt like I was fighting a hydra. So much noise I wasn’t getting hearing anything.
How are you suggesting Anarchism be implemented? By voting for it? Even if you could, you would have had to build up the power required to sieze the state regardless, Capitalists aren’t going to willingly end Capitalism.
I don’t see how Anarchism is possible without revolution.
How are you suggesting Anarchism be implemented? By voting for it?
No. Voting is a tool in the societal “first aid kit”. It’s used to try to limit the harm that the Right would joyously continue to cause and staunch the bleeding. There are many other tools in the toolbox that must be used. Protest, direct action, community building, etc.
Non-corporate cultural, civil, and agricultural infrastructure (monopolization is particularly heavy in US agriculture, thanks to Bork and his defanging of anti-trust enforcement) needs to be developed in order to support the population during transition. This requires cultivating strong, cooperative community renderIt doesn’t feel as great as thinking that we could be there in a day or a week or a year but, a lasting, stable society free of the chains of unjust hierarchy requires a sound foundation.
Even if you could, you would have had to build up the power required to sieze the state regardless, Capitalists aren’t going to willingly end Capitalism.
Absolutely. There’s no way that the power addicts at the top are going to let go willingly. But, without popular support or the ability to provide for societal needs, any revolution is likely to result in installation of a despot and massive amounts of preventable starvation, illness, and death, not to mention societal trauma.
Capitalism has been around for a long time. Moving on to the next thing is going to take time too. Especially, when taking into account the massive efforts sunk into resisting this change by Capital, which have set us back significantly.
I don’t see how Anarchism is possible without revolution.
Revolutionaries NEED practitioners of non-violence, non-revolutionary workers, and other non-combatants as much as the opposite is true. Without the “heart” of the latter, “revolution” is nothing but a self-serving exercise in forcing one’s ideology on the populace, nearly always resulting in atrocities and despotism. When the revolution is over, what then? Without accounting for societal needs, there’s danger of power vacuums drawing worse actors. For successful positive societal change, you need builders.
And non-violence alone is not likely sufficient as it is too easily ignored and suppressed, unless it is clear and plausible that violence is the alternative. Just look at Dr. King and Malcom X.
So, to answer your primary question of “how do I suggest achieving Anarchism”, through multiple avenues. For some, revolution might be their contribution, for others, like myself, it’s education and cultivating community of shared values such as kindness, inclusion, respect, and mutual aid. Getting to a fair and just society will take all kinds.
So essentially, you’re a Revolutionary Leftist just like the rest of us, but with more finger-wagging, rather than understanding that Revolutionary theory doesn’t mean “pick up a rock and go sicko mode.”
I absolutely do understand that. However, I frequently encounter those who are less cognizant of it (or are just wreckers) that chomp at the bit for violence and make room for no other ways. I’m absolutely a Revolutionary Leftist with allegiance to humanity, not economic or political system, but, context matters and OP was not speaking with the same nomenclature.
One idea I really like is slowly circumventing the need for big corporations by having services provided locally. People in a given community developing skills and aiding each other to make themselves as self-sufficient as possible. Then groups of these communities can interact and potentially provide things the other one lacks.
Or something like medieval guilds where people from each profession act together to practice their craft where needed, modified unions or something like that.
Essentially people willingly cooperating to be able to stand up to the capitalists. They have power because we depend on them, both their services and on money which they hoard. Through cooperation and mutual aid, their power can be significantly reduced, without a high risk of violence erupting.
Is this too optimistic and naive? Maybe, but I’m of the opinion that we’d in any case benefit if we started moving in that direction.
You’ve basically just described the cooperative movement. Food, worker, housing, producer co-ops. We need people to start co-ops and for policy to help nurture its growth.
How do we make that happen though? I don’t really know. I like to imagine we need one person to run for president with this as their platform on the democratic ticket just to get the message across. Similar to how Andrew Yang brought universal basic income into the conversation.
Some kind of uniting catalyst for a non violent transition away from capitalism that people can agree with and isn’t just ‘socialism’. Cooperative enterprises though are a stateless form of socialism, so no central planning or big government to tell us what to do. Seems like something that could potentially unite both the left and right if done right.
One idea I really like is slowly circumventing the need for big corporations by having services provided locally. People in a given community developing skills and aiding each other to make themselves as self-sufficient as possible. Then groups of these communities can interact and potentially provide things the other one lacks.
On board with this being consistent so far, building up parallel structures and dual-power is a core aspect of Revolutionary Leftist Theory. I do expect Capitalists to crack down on this though, to protect their interests. This happened to Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party.
Or something like medieval guilds where people from each profession act together to practice their craft where needed, modified unions or something like that.
Not really in line with this, seems like an odd direction, unless you’re describing Worker Councils. I still expect Capitalists to stomp this out unless Leftists fight back.
Essentially people willingly cooperating to be able to stand up to the capitalists. They have power because we depend on them, both their services and on money which they hoard. Through cooperation and mutual aid, their power can be significantly reduced, without a high risk of violence erupting.
So this is just Revolutionary theory, but with the added “no violence though” bit. The problem is that this situation would result in violence, and historically has, for all comparable events.
Is this too optimistic and naive? Maybe, but I’m of the opinion that we’d in any case benefit if we started moving in that direction.
We would benefit, you’re describing some form of Revolutionary Theory with the hope that Capitalists lay down and accept their crumbling influence.
I should clarify what I meant by “no violence”. I meant that, in the ideal scenario, communities build themselves up so that capitalists become less and less relevant, without exacting violence upon them. Of course, in the event that these communities get attacked by those same capitalists, defence is very reasonable.
The thing is when you tell people that we need a revolution, most picture storming various places, seizing assets and beating up some people in the process, which I think makes a lot of them distance themselves. Presenting a program which focuses on a peaceful development of society is I think much easier to get on board with.
There’s a low to zero chance that any transition away from capitalism will be peaceful and without resistance, but I think it would be better to tell people that the we want to work towards creating a normal life, and we will encounter violent resistence along the way, than to focus on revolutions and overthrowing the ruling class. The end goal is pretty much the same, and the process might inevitably involve the same things, but the former is I think more palatable to most.
I should clarify what I meant by “no violence”. I meant that, in the ideal scenario, communities build themselves up so that capitalists become less and less relevant, without exacting violence upon them. Of course, in the event that these communities get attacked by those same capitalists, defence is very reasonable.
This is standard Revolutionary Theory, for the most part.
The thing is when you tell people that we need a revolution, most picture storming various places, seizing assets and beating up some people in the process, which I think makes a lot of them distance themselves. Presenting a program which focuses on a peaceful development of society is I think much easier to get on board with.
The thing is, that’s not what Revolutionary Theory entails. Revolution is a consequence, not an action. Building up parallel structures and dual power allows Leftists to help steer the Revolution when it happens.
There’s a low to zero chance that any transition away from capitalism will be peaceful and without resistance, but I think it would be better to tell people that the we want to work towards creating a normal life, and we will encounter violent resistence along the way, than to focus on revolutions and overthrowing the ruling class. The end goal is pretty much the same, and the process might inevitably involve the same things, but the former is I think more palatable to most.
The difference here is that you’ve engaged in sectarianism and threw Revolutionary Leftists under the bus, only to espouse much of the same rhetoric. I do believe that you would be better off coalition-building with other Leftists and trying to better explain Revolutionary Theory to those not yet familiar, as the biggest tool of Leftists is organizing.
deleted by creator
I’d go find some people who aren’t so focused about gatekeeping who is “validly left”.
OP seems to be the one doing that to themselves, though. “Validity” isn’t really a thing, purity checking is nonsense. Marxists and Anarchists believe Revolution is necessary, sure, but don’t generally advocate for random acts of terror or forcing a revolution into happening, ie a coup.
Leftists have a big problem with purity testing. It’s why they never seem to be able to accomplish anything. Instead of joining forces with other leftist groups that share 95% of the same views, they shit all over them for not being 100% aligned.
If they’d suck it up and work together they could actually be a political force and get some of what they want, instead of infighting constantly and accomplishing nothing.
It’s the biggest thing turning me off of leftist ideology. I agree with a decent amount of what they want, but as soon as I say something like “Maybe market economies solve real problems and are suitable for some situations like consumer products” I’m basically turbo hitler to them.
turbo Hitler
Don’t give Nazi punks band names lol.
You’re very much correct. It’s weird that this is the case when the right has no issue aligning to see their broader objectives met. At the very least the left should band together, win and then bring out the slap fighting once victory is achieved.
You have to recognize the historical reasons for not accepting Liberalism among Leftists. Anti-sectarianism is a good thing, yes, but Liberals have historically sided with fascists whenever there has been a significant risk of Leftists gaining support and power. Liberalism is corrupted by the interests of Capitalists.
Victory for whom? Why should leftists concede their core principle( the dismantling of capitalism) to preserve capitalism?
Maybe liberals should give up preserving capitalism and join with leftists.
And yes, the threat of fascism is real, and many leftists, myself included will vote for whichever candidate prevents that. But many, rightfully so, understand the relationship of capitalism and fascism, and can’t bring themselves to “kick the can down the road.”
Why do leftists always have to acquiesce to liberals, but liberals never have to compromise with leftists?
Therein lies your answer.
Why do slash and burn farmers always have to compromise with ecologists, but ecologists never have to compromise with slash and burn farmers?
If you’re going to call people who want to restructure society along more ethical lines “slash and burn farmers” and the maintainers of violent Imperialism and dying Capitalism “ecologists” like an elaborate soyjack meme, rather than honestly engaging with the points raised here, what are you actually trying to accomplish?
Well regulated capitalism has produced more human advancement than any other economic system we have tried.
You’re not alone. There are dozens of us who believe in humanity and progress and realize that some amount of motivation (within reason) helps humans to achieve beneficial things.
Someone on here told me earlier I wasn’t left enough when I posted a Karl Marx quote lol
Oof. That’s a tough audience.
Eventually you’ll realise that voting for the least bad option just makes things worse and never better, and you’ll have to deal with the fact that you can get what you want through the system.
I’m a peaceful person, I try to live by the ethos of causing as little suffering around me as possible. So to me a violent uprising in the name of making a better society is a lot like fighting war in the name of peace: it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
When you see a leftist advocating for violence, I think it’s usually one of three things: someone who is disenfranchised with their perception of what they can do as a an individual to better society, someone who actively wishes to be violent and will attach themselves to whatever cause justifies that violence, or someone on the internet stirring up trouble.
I’m not aware of a violent leftist uprising which didn’t devolve to authoritarianism. Even the French revolution which is often upheld as being a turning point for democracies around the world devolved into a reign of terror and gave us Napoleon.
Yes and no. The answer isn’t straightforward, so let’s unpack it. Primarily, the qualifier “validly” needs investigation.
What is “validity” when it comes to political positions? Is validity a measure of correctness? Is validity a measure of intention?
If validity is a measure of correctness, then yes, you must be revolutionary if you are a Marxist or Anarchist, the two dominant trains of Leftist thought. Fringe positions like Social Reformists exist, though they have never been successful in achieving anything that can be considered long term leftward progress.
If validity is a measure of intention, then no. Not every progressive-minded person has done thorough research into leftist history, theory, and practice. Progressives can have an idea of what end result they want, without yet putting in the work to understand how to get there.
In the body of your text, there are loaded statements. To be Revolutionary isn’t to “celebrate violence,” or believe “by any means necessary.” Revolutionaries do not oppose Reformism, but believe it a lost cause. For a US-centric example, Reformism would be possible if PSL, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, could win elections consistently, but they cannot because of the two-party duopoly, created by Capitalist investment.
By and large, whether someone is a Revolutionary or Reformist doesn’t come down to purity, but knowledge and positions.
I should have just stuck with Democrat, and gotten rid of the whole idea of leftist and liberal.
You can, if you want. If you generally agree with the DNC, labeling yourself a Democrat is a useful label to quickly get your views across. You wouldn’t be a Leftist, since the goals and views of the DNC are a maintaining of the Capitalist status quo, but you would be a Liberal, if you want a non-party label to use instead.
I do think familiarizing yourself with Leftist theory would help you make sense of where Leftists are coming from.
Becoming familiar with other ideas is beneficial. There is nothing wrong with being a Democrat, Social Democrat or Libertarian. Real people hold these political ideas. My transition over years was Democrat since I opposed hawkish Republican imperialism, but I rejected corporate power, so Social Democrat, but I rejected hierarchical power, so Anarchist. Through reading I know Pacifism meshes with any of these ideas. I have never been a Pacifist, but I applaud anyone that takes the time to explore politics even if we do not agree.
Being able to have conversations with people around you is important. Reading theory from other politics helps. Most people around me consider themselves conservative. They say talking points like “I’m for small government”. Having read Libertarian texts like Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia”, I can discuss the minimal state as a Libertarian idea. I can then transition to “Nozick’s minimal state is not small enough”. In my area this approach opens conversation more than banging a drum about being a Democrat, Leftist, Communist or Anarchist.
There’s no room for centrists on the internet. I seem to only find centrists in real life, face-to-face. I guess we aren’t loud but we’re here.
(Now here come the downvotes…)
Why are you a centrist? If someone tells you waterfalls flow downward, and someone else tells you waterfalls flow upward, do you synthesize them into saying waterfalls remain perfectly still?
Where does centrism come from, and is it just arbitrary?
Lol!!! No, no, no!! My centrism is not arbitrary!! I don’t try to find a “middle ground” where waterfalls go both ways!!! Love the visual though!
I align with the political right on some issues, and the left with others. And in American politics I find the rhetoric & tribalism of both political parties ridiculous - so I can’t identify with either.
Generally I lean left of center, but I can’t go “full left” because I think the left has some blind spots. And liberals do this annoying thing where they seem to be always be falling all over themselves to prove how self-righteous & progressive they are, & they wind up alienating left-leaning people like me as a result.
Are you referring to liberals as “the left?” I think we are talking about different things here.
Perhaps so. I’m in the US where lingo goes that “Democrats” & “Liberals” are “left”, " Republicans" & “Conservatives” are “right”.
Not sure how that translates globally, so apologies if it’s confusing…
That’s the Overton Window, a peak into a country’s local positions with respect to the median. Generally, however, leftism is associated with Socialism, ie Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, while rightism refers to Capitalism, ie individual ownership of the Means of Production.
With respect to this post, Revolutionary Leftists are entierely Socialists, whether they be Anarchists or Marxists, not Liberals.
On the global scale, you would be considered right-wing, as America in general is a far-right country.
Democrats=liberals and they aren’t “left”, they are only left of conservatives, and even then, only on social issues. Dems/libs are conservatives when it comes to fiscal/economic stuff. Which is why the true left has no representation in the US when it comes to the economy, and the 2 capitalist conservative parties will never allow them to have any.
If you’re talking about Lemmy specifically, remember this is a left-wing echo chamber, so of course you’ll be shunned if you’re not willing to man the guillotine.
In the real world people understand that change is progressive and requires compromise to avoid the violence of the extremes. I’d suggest touch some grass and put some distance between you and keyboard-leftists that speak like they are playing a video game.
Volunteer in your community, it’s a great way to meet people who are more than Internet posers.
In the real world people understand that change is progressive and requires compromise to avoid the violence of the extremes. I’d suggest touch some grass and put some distance between you and keyboard-leftists that speak like they are playing a video game.
Genuinely, when has major change happened without violence, or the threat of violence? Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, various anti-fascist and anti-monarchist revolutions, all have happened with either violence or resulted in concessions to avoid violence.
“In the real world” when applied to the discussion of online vs AFK spaces is a super slippery slope. Legacy Russell discusses this at length in their manifesto Glitch Feminism.
The reasoning here being that language like that is used to discredit and invalidate the usefulness of digital spaces. Tons of minorities rely on digital community to explore senses of self, identity, and political leanings. That is NOT to say Lemmy ISN’T a leftist echo chamber, but it should point out the problem with using its digital nature to discredit anything that is said here. Anonymity is a fantastic tool for world making, particularly black and queer futurism.
Getting more into my own opinion, I agree with the other commenter under your post saying rarely in history have the most pivotal changes come purely from “reform”. Our biggest leaps forward have largely been started my social/political dissidence, which was then responded to with policy changes. Political violence is perpetrated on minorities every day. Using the online nature of this discussion to discredit people that are pointing out that violence and saying pushback is necessary is just pushing many already ostracized individuals out of some of the only spaces they can be safe while discussing such sensitive issues. These spaces allow people to explore futures that offer them even a small sense of upward mobility and stability, even if that means a period of violence before they get there.
I am in fact willing to die for the futures I am capable of imagining. If the futures you imagine are based on slow, inter-generational change via the current political system that is allowed, and incredibly selfless of you. My only pushback would be to look at your own quality of living and ask how many people have access to similar comfort and stability and try to understand why some people might feel the political system has failed, and will continue to fail, them. Personally I’d like to experience at least a small piece of the futures I’ve imagined within my lifetime, and I have little to no faith in this country’s ability to “reform” it’s way into those futures.
Dying won’t do you much good at getting the future you want. There’s a long history of violent anarchists and socialists that killed or died for their beliefs, and none of that violence led to progress.
I think maybe your ego is a little beyond realistic. My life or yours are will make barely more than an infinitesimal difference in the world. But enough slightly above infinitesimal add up. Maybe be the person that made the world very very slightly better rather than the one that died for nothing?
Reform has made huge differences in our lives, from the magna carta to union activity to the civil rights struggle. Things are immensely better than they were in the 1500s, and it was all incremental.
Honestly you’re right. At least as far as calling out some of the more wild or poorly worded parts of what I said. That being said I never said reform and incremental change hasn’t helped, only that plenty of incredibly important societal changes have come ONLY after extreme conflict. Of course decisions have been made entirely peacefully, but saying humanities progress hasn’t been violent is a gross mischaracterization of our collective history.
As far as dying goes lol. I said willing, not wanting to. I say that because I realize my willingness to participate in the large scale restructuring, that many believe is necessary, could put me at risk. Hell even just existing as a trans person puts me at a lot of risk let alone being politically active. Between my hobbies and living in a car centric society, I have had enough brushes with death to truly not fear it, and that has honestly changed the types of futures I can imagine. Those futures are more radical, and involve more personal risk, but also have even more wonderful outcomes than any involving the slow burn legislation solutions. The current system IS bad for the vast majority of people, on both sides of the isle. If someone feels otherwise they are in an incredibly lucky position.
Tons of the deaths you mentioned in your first lines did lead to change, and I don’t think I need to paste a list of political figures, throughout our history, even just within the last century, that died for a cause that went on to be successful, even leading to precisely the legislation and incremental change you speak of. Hell even just the killing of average citizens can and has sparked massive moments of political dissent and subsequent change, see the BLM movement as an example.
I’m also by no means using this as an excuse to not participate in the political system. My primary point is instead that I want to also take an active part in making meaningful change within my lifetime, ideally even sooner as I would like some time to enjoy said change before becoming old and decrepit. The political system gives myself, and plenty of other people, no hope in seeing that drastic change in our lifetimes.
Additionally, history is written by the winners. Many of the people that died along the way often get conveniently left out in order to make the history the winners write look even better. There is absolutely history of violence in the struggles unions face. There is absolutely history of violence in the civil rights movement. There is absolutely history of violence in the “charter of English liberties granted by King John on…”
In each of these cases the “reform” you mention has taken serious struggle and sacrifice to get people to actually begin to realize something needs to change. From the incredible violence of colonialism the Magna Carta represents, to the blatant police brutality of the civil rights movement, to the numerous violent crackdowns of union workers, all of the “incremental change” you reference, to me, seems so obviously too little too late. If we wanted to avoid violence tell that to the oppressors, not the people defending their existence. In fact each of the things you reference as being moments of reform almost directly follow huge moments of often bloody conflict. That’s like holding up the Treaty of Versailles and saying “look at how peacefully we got this written and signed” while hastily sweeping the carnage leading up to it under the rug.
The adding up of infinitesimal differences you reference rings just as true for direct action as it does for voting. Another person out at a protest is another pair of handcuffs the police need to buy, is another single use taser they need to fire, and in some cases is another magazine of ammunition they need to empty, all to support the fragile egos of the already wealthy and powerful.
To be clear, I would love nothing more than for the cycle of violence to be broken, but as long as the people in power see those that are different from them as a threat and a source of cheap of not free labor, there will be violence. People out on the street, and open discussions about political violence, are a natural response to oppression. It’s the body’s, the people’s, immune system responding to the oppressive force of an illness in the form of fascism, capitalism, and colonialism.
