Does one have to be an iconoclast or revolutionary these days to be validly left? I consider myself to be left of center, and very much in favor of progressive policies.
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.
It takes either a complete lack of self-awareness or a simply incredible amount of gall to ask a yes-no question and then tell all the people most likely to answer one way to zip it. You might as well have just written "la-la-la-la I can't heaaaar yoooou"
You misunderstand me. It's simply that it's a GIVEN that those people would advocate violence. There isn't any need for them to respond. Their position is known.
It's like as if I asked if it's okay to charge over 20% interest on a loan. And all the credit card executives and buy here pay here owners and loan sharks started saying YEAH OF COURSE IT IS!
I kind of already knew where they stood. It's the same with you.
You're asking leftists, the vast majority of which are Revolutionary. Only listening to a minority of Leftists for their opinion and ignoring the majority only gives you an incomplete and biased view.
If all those people disagree with you, what kinds of people do you imagine would say yes? Nancy Pelosi? Chelsea Clinton?
Well believe it or not, communists and anarchists are a fairly small minority of the group that would be "the left" if you call the other guys "the right."
I expect it's more than two people I could hear from...🙄
Anyway this post sort of answered the question. The violent talk is coming from socialists, communists, and anarchists here on Lemmy, which have a very unified voice and shout down opposition.
Although I'm sure if they had anything they had to actually run (like a country) they'd be an absolute horror show of fighting, arguing, and bloodbathing each other until they got to the point where the strongest survived and could impose their vision of utopia on the masses.
China is currently installing the equivalent of 5 nuclear power stations' worth of solar and wind power every week.
Meanwhile in the west AOC and Bernie groveled at the feet of the democratic party by endorsing Biden's genocidal regime and all they got in return was Biden announcing a plan to cap rent increases at 5%, which can only go through if they win the next election... against a fascist candidate who is far ahead of Biden in almost every swing state.
See why we want revolution?
What? What other groups make up the left then? Do they wield political power? Have they ever gotten to wield political power? Because the only left that has ever gotten to wield political power and use it to liberate the working people from capitalist oppression are the ones who were willing to pick up a gun and fight.
Do you think the Left/Right divide is determined by the absolute median position, or is it determined by actual views, ie a general support for Socialism vs a general support for Capitalism?
Historically false for pretty much every AES country.
if you agree with the aims of revolutionaries (a more just society) but disagree with their methods (violent revolution) then you need to prove your method is at least as effective as theirs
thus far, no such evidence exists. all societal progress has come at the expense of bloodshed. perhaps you'll be the one to change that, but i very sincerely doubt it.
so to answer your question, yes.
I make one "sort of" exception for Czechoslovakia. I regard it as the only time a country became socialist by voting on it, but they had to do a coup with the implicit threat of violence to enforce the new government. The communists won a plurality in 1946 and had a coalition government. Fearing that they'd lose power, they began stacking the cops and courts with ideological communists. This fear turned out to be true after the liberal parties kept doing sneaky tactics to undermine the socialists. So in 1948 the communists had a coup to consolidate power and ally with the USSR.
And I know this wasn't "bloodless" or "civil" since this all happened in the shadow of WW2.
excellent historical context comrade. :3
OP would do well to pay attention to this bit in particular as (a version of) this basic framework is also how civil rights groups like the suffragettes and the err civil rights movement progressed their struggles. MLK et al were able to be nonviolent because the implicit threat of more radical black nationalist groups existed. without the backing of force nonviolent protest is easy to ignore by those in power, as we've seen with every left-leaning protest movement since the collapse of the USSR
You're asking why radical leftists reject your reformism. Who other than radical leftists are going to give you an actual answer instead of a pat on the back?
Anyway the answer is liberalism is far more violent, it just exports the violence overseas and commits it at an industrialised level. The infamous "Terror" in France only killed a few thousand people - the Iraq war killed over a million. While millions were killed in the cultural revolution, hundreds of millions were killed by the British Raj. Revolutionary violence is in fact far less violent than regular capitalism, so you're hated for supporting its continuation.
https://housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/teagle/texts/martin-luther-king-jr-letter-from-birmingham-jail-1963/
That's where you are right now. You can hopefully do better if you challenge yourself, but I wouldn't consider you anything different from the most milquetoast liberal hiding behind rhetorical civility while you support the violence of the state. Your progressive politics are at best redistributing the loot of that violence while perpetuating the system causing it, either out of cowardice or malice or apathy. All of them would make you the same judas goat for the imperial slaughterhouse.
Are you actually USING Dr. Martin Luther King Jr as an ADVOCATE FOR VIOLENCE?
You just crossed over into crazy town.
dr. king is specifically calling you and yours out here, liberal. you'd do well to listen.
On second thought, this is as good as you get. I'd just give up.
I think perhaps you should read more of what Dr. King actually advocated for and said. He didn't endorse violence, but he didn't condemn it either. He typically didn't come from it from this moralizing angle either, most of his emphasis was his belief that violence was first and foremost a poor tactic, but at the same time he understood why violence happens. You've probably heard his 1967 statement "a riot is the language of the unheard."
Check where the users are from, you're going to get much more "atypical"
not going to get kindresponses from hexbears, "we" are quite literally their enemies. "We" are the "white moderates" seeking to maintain stability instead of shedding blood to overthrow the entire developed world. (It's more than just "amerikkka" out there)Excuse us individuals for feeling entirely helpless when it comes to changing the entire capitalist world.
Hexbear is kind, just with a 0 tolerance policy for liberalism and defenders of liberalism. Maintaining Capitalism without working to replace it does shed blood regardless. "Stability" is maintenance of an inherently violent Status Quo, which is exactly what Dr. King was calling out.
I think this is just a misunderstanding of Revolutionary Theory, really. Nobody is advocating for random acts of terror.
True, kind was the wrong word to use. I've posted comments in their threads without realizing and got decent replies, they just absolutely hate "us libs"
As a hater of liberalism myself, it's nice to see people hating it. I think you should participate in more apolitical Hexbear threads, they are probably the kindest overall instance IMO. Might open your eyes into seeing why liberalism is so hated by people who can be extremely tender and caring.
Have you engaged with Leftist theory on your own, before, or just through the eyes of others you've interacted with? Might help things make more sense.
I honestly didn't notice the .ml until now, but I've recognized your name around as well and aren't very abrasive with people either. It's just the constant "(insert violent ideas) to libs!" and not exactly being a full fledged leftist myself, I can't help but feel loathed by them especially when you get replies saying you're "the worst kind of person ever" etc..
As for the theory, it's been a very very long time so I'm sure I'm overdue to refresh my memory. I don't remember my specific issues with what I read, but I just know I wasn't convinced lol
Different people have different strategies for engaging with people. Many older Anarchists and Marxists have become more jaded with Liberals and supporters of Liberalism, as they have had to support their own views countless times. I myself have found that every once in a while I can make people reconsider their positions, and that makes it more worth it to me. I don't fault the abrasiveness of more jaded Comrades.
Radicals tend to feel very strongly about their views, depending on what you have said I can see extreme pushback. That's why I suggest engaging with Leftist communities like Hexbear through their less-political communities, like !Games@Hexbear.net if you play video games.
Let's start with what you have engaged with, maybe that would be more productive. I can make general recommendations, but if you have specific works you disagreed with then it might help guide recommendations or discussion.
I don't mean to dismiss your engagement as I do appreciate it, I just pop in on short breaks at work so I can't really delve too deeply into these kinds of things.
Some general recommendations are definitely welcome though, I appreciate the time you took to reply!
Without knowing your exposure, the simplest, fastest, and most straightforward primer is How Marxism Works, by Chris Harman. If you have any objections to Marxism, you likely won't find answers in it though, as it is extremely brief. Additionally, Harman's views on feminism are outdated, believing Marxism to supercede feminism, rather than the two implementing each other.
Otherwise, The Principles of Communism, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Wage Labor and Capital, Value, Price and Profit, Critique of the Gotha Programme, and finally Manifesto of the Communist Party is the best order of the essential Marxist works to understand the majority of the basics. These will walk you through terms, then Dialectical and Historical Materialism (the philosophical side of Marxism and failures of non-Marxist Socialists), 2 brief works on Capitalist critique, a critique of a weaker reformist Socialist Program, and finally a call to action, tying it all together.
Thank you for the list!
Now the question is how long after I check those will I be put on another kind of "list" lol
No problem! If you have any questions, you can message me, or ask over in !Marxism@Hexbear.net or somewhere on Lemmygrad. Lemmy.ml's Communism and Socialism communities aren't too active when it comes to discussing theory.
You realistically won't be added to any lists, haha, but if you're worried you can use a VPN and download the files locally.
Welcome to the resistance lol
If capitalism itself has been identified as the root of the problem, what other solution is there except overthrowing it completely? Do you prefer applying temporary bandaids indefinitely?
My comment wasn't so much endorsing it's continued existence, but more exasperation as the thought of an individual having any impact on pretty much the entire world is quite the stretch.
We can learn as much as we like about the alternatives, but making it happen requires action by many many many many people. We can't even get "libs" in the US to come together on some of the "simplest" shit let alone getting enough people to change the global economic system that gives such mind boggling power to the ultra wealthy.
Leftists discourage individual acts as Adventurism. The core through-line of Leftist thought is Mass Action, with differences on how to structure this.
Both Anarchists and Marxists have ideas on how to have this happen, but they mostly boil down to advocacy for organizing and building Dual Power. You may wish to read The State and Revolution if you want to delve into a thorough theoretical text by a Marxist, but it may not make as much sense if you do not already have familiarity with Marxism in general.
Whoa there lil guy. Dogs don't speak. You bark.
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?
If you just want to limit it to Haiti, Cuba, and the USSR, then yes each of those revolutions led to a vastly more humane society than the previous one. It also depends on who you're asking. Tsar Nicholas II certainly didn't see the Soviet Union as an improvement. Cuban plantation owners with dozens of slaves didn't see socialism as an improvement. There are winners and losers in history, the losing side usually isn't going to be pleased.
And who loses in a revolution? In a successful socialist revolution it's the capitalist class, colonizers, slavers, the previous bureaucracy, regional landlords. The USSR went from a backwater literal peasant kingdom to a space faring modern country within a single generation, despite a famine and despite the brutal loss of life in WW2. It's very easy to say the country that sends women to school to become nuclear engineers is not as brutally oppressive as the country with a monarch that forcefully sends women to become nuns. How do you determine oppression? Go look at things like literacy, child mortality, education, home ownership, access to clean water, and what kind of occupations women have. By those metrics, socialist revolutions typically and vastly reduce oppression.
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?
♫ They say in Harlan County, there are no neutrals there: you'll either be a union man or a thug for J. H. Blair — Which side are you on, which side are you on? ♫
yeah you're never going to improve as a person. just vote blue no matter who and try not to think about all the violence your empire requires to maintain itself.
Undialectical take, people are constantly changing. Now it may take a lot of quantitative changes for the qualitative affect of not having their head in their ass to come about given how far in there it is, but..
you're absolutely right but some people just cry out for bullying
What client is that?
connect for lemmy!
Our current society is based on violence and requires a great deal of it to establish and sustain itself. Are you bothered by this violence?
I think the first question should be what OP considers "violence". The disagreement start there.
What? Where is this from?
Completely unbothered.
One of the historically proven and least abstract forms of capitalist violence comes in the inability of any society to opt-out of capitalism--to legislate in opposition to the class interests of capital (the common interests of capitalists not shared by the general public)--even to minor extents.
Even within capitalism, decisions must be made, typically by the state, about who is responsible for property damage and personal afflictions. Capitalism means the private ownership of capital, the funding and property that comprises productive enterprise. Because these enterprises are privately owned, their goals are to a greater or lesser extent divorced from the public good; therefore, it is often in the interest of capital to externalize their costs of doing business--to avoid taking responsibility for the costly circumstances they have caused. Contrariwise, it is in the public interest (championed in theory by the state) to force capital to internalize those costs against their will to externalize.
For example, it was in BP's interest to minimize the appearance of damaged caused by Deepwater Horizon (e.g. spraying dispersants) and thereby minimize their obligations, while it was in the public's interest to assess the damages thoroughly and liberally.
When a state decides that certain businesses are causing irreparable harm or have acquired their capital illegitimately, by the same right by which externalities are opposed, the state may expropriate or nationalize a formerly private enterprise. However, history furnishes countless examples of democratic nations attempting to take such action, only to have capital directly solicit the state, some subset of the state (such as the military), other states, or peripheral forces to use violence to extinguish such democratic efforts.
Some famous examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_of_1953
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
Thus, even without reference to the minute-by-minute exploitation of the products of workers' labor that comprises the most ubiquitous violence of the capitalist mode of production, we have incontrovertible historical proof that the apparent voluntarism of people in capitalism is the voluntarism of slaves choosing to comply rather than suffer violent retribution. In a sense, open revolt would be less violent than peaceful acquiescence because the former is not compelled by hopeless domination.
It is not difficult to add a theoretical basis to the historical evidence. Insofar as it has a single purpose, capital has an unambiguous interest in every state of affairs and every possible outcome. In this way, capital has a subjectivity, an ego, independent of the good of any particular person or group of people. Everything that happens either augments the value of capital, diminishes it, or leaves it unchanged. According to this judgement, capital stands in favor, opposed, or indifferent (respectively) to everything in existence. If the state intends to impose regulation that will cost $X, it is in the interest of any regulated capital to spend up to $X to eliminate that regulation--regardless of the good the regulation might do for society as a whole, including the individuals involved in the operations of the business itself. Such individuals are not free to follow their own judgement, but must always act in the interest of their employer capital or else be replaced by someone who will. If in the extreme case, the state is determined to eliminate a capital, the capital has no choice but to deploy all its resources to oppose that end. In the presence of large businesses (or unions of businesses such as a Chamber of Commerce) with the resources to oppose any existing regulatory agent, this dynamic imposes strict limits on freedom of people to self-govern. The mere presence of capital as capital is enough to guarantee violence if certain norms of political life are violated.
Because businesses are often dedicated to facilitating cultural practices, rather than strictly utilitarian productivity, capital can be a powerfully conservative force in every domain of life.
Alternatively - Have a quote
"There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves." - Marky Twink
Which part?
Not talking to you but sentence #1
Capitalism is an inherently exploitative system, and only exists because the State enshrines Private Property Rights. Policing in general serves the status quo, which in current society is Capitalist.
Additionally, Communists and Anarchists are regularly murdered by the state, typically internationally, to destabilize this system and maintain corporate profits via super-exploitation.
And what is the future society you propose that is not based on violence, and how are they keeping bad actors from destroying the system that exists afterwards... after capitalism?
I don't know why you think we're proposing a society without violence. We're proposing a society where the working class wields the violence against the capitalist class until the capitalist class ceases to exist. We don't like when violence happens to us and people in the same position as us. And if gaining more control over our own lives involves violence against the capitalist class, then that's what it takes.
I genuinely couldn't give a shit about a capitalist's supposed civil rights, and I take John Brown's advice for how to treat racists.
Socialism is not an inherently exploitative system, it's a democratization in the hands of the Workers. Socialism would also not necessitate Imperialism, ie exporting Capital and intentionally underdeveloping countries for cheap foreign labor, which is the modern extreme form of Capitalism.
Policing would be necessary, but rather than existing to maintain classist society, it would exist to maintain classless society.
There's lots of books on the subject, if you want beginner recommendations I can let you know.
I know this is just a forum and the libs are always confused by nuance, but exploitation does occur in socialist countries, just in a vastly different character and at a much smaller scale. Cuba for instance does have private land owners who employee workers, and China of course has various large corporations.
However these are symptoms of the positions the nations find themselves within. Socialist nations tend to find themselves in the middle of capitalist encirclement. Until the last capitalist is extinguished, class based exploitation will continue to exist.
100% agreed, Socialism is a process that of course will contain leftover remnants from previous society, Communism is the path to eliminating and resolving these contradictions. I was merely trying to be as simplistic and easily digestible as possible for OP.
lmao so liberals only then.
Yeah lol just validate my clearly very questionable view, you're only allowed in this thread if you agree with me!
Do you wish to stop capitalism? Do you think the bourgeoisie will willingly give up their cushy lives and positions of power?
No?
If that's "no" to the first part, you're simply not a leftist. If that's "no" to the second part, welcome to team violence.
If someone lives like a king, but directly because their wealth is earned by the suffering and death of thousands, is it not morally just to stop them? At what point is the life of one billionaire worth more than the life of the, say, five hundred children that starved to death because of that billionaire? Is the system of economics that results in that not utterly reprehensible?
We want capitalism to stop killing people. It cannot stop killing people. So we must dismantle capitalism. But the bourgeoisie will defend, violently, the perpetuation of capitalism. Thus, they are taking on a direct moral responsibility for the deaths capitalism causes.
Revolution is only violent because capitalists wield violence to brutally suppress even peaceful protests, and we must respond in kind to defend ourselves. The violence of self-defense is not the same as the violence of oppressors. If the capitalists saw peaceful protests and willingly put their fortunes aside and returned their means of production to common ownership, there would be no need for revolution. But in all history of this struggle they've chosen instead to maim and murder protestors.
As a snapshot, Food Not Bombs are an anarchist group who do nothing but give food to the unhoused. Police will arrest every FNB member to stop them, when what they're doing is literally just feeding the poor. But if FNB members carry firearms, police leave them alone, and the unhoused receive food.
You are to the right of communists, who will not consider you “validly left” unless your ideology is anti-capitalist at a bare minimum. We consider capitalism to be the greatest cause of violence in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Alternately, you are to the left of fascists, who would consider you “validly left” as they rounded you up for the camps. Validity is all relative.
On another note, I think you massively misunderstand the difference between calls for revolutionary leftist violence and random people cheering on Trump getting shot, for example.
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.
That’s a bit of a red herring, since “liberal” is not exactly a term that means the same thing to everyone.
It’s a semantics game, and a very ignorant or disingenuous one at that.
Liberals merely became less racist and less sexist, not much else has changed.
Definitely not less ableist tho..
Not a liberal.
Okay but you are ableist though, which reads as pretty liberal. Unless you are somehow a monarchist or fascist on lemmy? Which is funny for other reasons.
Yeah, I’ve been trying to get better.
Uhhh what?
My country is an actual monarchy. Almost everyone is a monarchist. Not me, but it’s not directly correlated with ableism, other than people in general being garbage.
The idea that most people are fundamentally broken and worthless is probably correlated with ableism.
I mean, there are more things at play here than are obvious in my comment, but you are right that it’s not a great attitude to have.
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.
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
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.
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.
Social Programs are fantastic, but in the context of an Imperialist country we must recognize the source of these Programs.
Would be nice, but extremely difficult with a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.
I'm not totally well versed in global politics, tbh. Exploiting people is wrong no matter how you slice it; I wasn't aware of the exploit of southern nations for Nordic gain.
Maybe I am a confused liberal as one commenter mentions, but only in terms of what box I fit in. I know what I want. Equality and justice for all people. Freedom to earn a bit extra if we apply ourselves. Not so much extra that we are engorged ticks on society, amassing more money that you could ever spend in several life times.
I'm not willing to go with violence to achieve these ends, because that quickly turns into a feeding frenzy and 'justice' is indiscriminate and often in the hands of people who should not be administering.
My viewpoint is entirely irrelevant because my country is on the point of electing populists, and what I desire may as well be the fucking moon
Consider reading Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. It might help clarify how Capitalism actually functions in the modern era.
Stock-standard Socialist/Communist take, if you care.
Nobody is advocating for Leftists to randomly go sicko-mode. Revolution is a consequence, not an action.
The through-line of Leftism is organizing. Join a union, or an org! Try to build up dual-power.
Thanks for the resource and general info.
Also, huge thanks for not beating me over the head with strong opinions, and acting more of a guide/talking rationally on a hot button topic on lemmy.
In return I offer Panopticon: his music is bluegrass influenced metal with heavy anticapitalistic lyrics, from Kentucky of all places.
https://open.spotify.com/artist/2Mz5qpR3WxbcBwZBsmraWE?si=1eWCmMzNT-WoogOy34mtUQ
Careful exploring his music. Some of it goes from light and relaxing to bludgeoning you with metal within the same song. I recommend his Kentucky album to start.
Just chiming in to say Panopticon is great. I enjoyed the civility of the discussion here, as well.
No problem! I try to be more chill.
I've listened to The Rime of Memory dozens of times, haha. If you like Metal, try Hostile Architecture by Glasgow band Ashenspire, and God's Country by Oklahoma City band Chat Pile.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Not entirely true, actually. Marx was not an Anarchist, and often fought vehemontly against them. You may wish to visit Critique of the Gotha Programme. Communism, in Marx's original view, would still have a Government, just not a State. The State for Marx is specifically the apparatus of government by which one class oppresses the others. Notably, the State according to Marx could only whither away globally, not in a single country. Marx himself would say the USSR was absolutely a Socialist state working towards Communism.
There were many issues with the USSR, and sometimes even bourgeois elements. However, it was fundamentally a Marxist state building towards Communism.
This is unfortunately true, I see it many times, and generally this is sectarian nonsense that gets in the way of coalition building.
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)
It depends on if you're referring to the Overton Window, which is essentially a Tower of Babel sitiation, or if you're referring to global structures.
Ok boomer.
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.
Labels don't matter. Stop worrying about whether people think you are left or right wing. Your beliefs are yours and will continue to evolve and thats all that matters.
Sincerely, A pro revolutionary tactics man.
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.
Left and right are always relative terms. I like to describe those who feel like they are or could be represented by a political party in the governing coalition of an average western liberal democracy, as the "non plus ultra" left. This comes from the old story of the Pillars of Hercules on either side of the Strait of Gibraltar, which were said to bear the warning "non plus ultra" — "nothing further beyond". For as far as people knew back then, there truly was no land for sailors to find further to the west of that point; but now Europeans are well aware that there is a whole gargantuan continent across the Atlantic, a continent that makes the idea of the Iberian peninsula and the Maghreb as the furthest western extent of land in the world seem downright laughable.
And so those who call themselves left-wing, but who would be comfortably represented in the government of a liberal democracy... Well, they would be left-wing by the standards of the beliefs which can be comfortably represented in the government of such a country. So they're left-wing to that extent. But in the grand scheme of things, they're no further left of the parliamentary center compared to Marxists and anarchists, than Gibraltar is west of the Prime Meridian compared to Alaska. As I'd see it, frankly, all the beliefs which can find success in a liberal democracy, can be said to occupy the same "continent" of politics; and all those beliefs which cannot, can be said to occupy a different "continent", and those on the former continent would certainly stand to benefit from "crossing the sea", so to speak.
How does this relate to violence?
Put simply, in the trolley problem, my continent would pull the lever, and your continent would give drugs to the people tied to the tracks to ease the pain.
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).
Some leftists aren’t so interested in progress, as in making sure everyone is okay.
Given the current state of the world, that would be progress.
I agree. What I should have said is that some leftists aren’t seeking progress per se, but rather to ensure everyone is okay, per se.
One variable can be a leading indicator of another, but it’s still a different thing to be optimizing for one or the other.
I liked the (long) piece over here: https://slrpnk.net/post/11395506
tldr;
No way.
Anyone who calls for collapse or revolution is playing out a survivor fantasy where they hope they (and their ideology) will come out on top.
Not just "no" but fuck no. Anyone suggesting otherwise does not have freedom and liberty for all in mind.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is standard Revolutionary Theory, for the most part.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is off topic but is there something wrong with the hexbear client or is everyone here just making individual comments at each other instead of replying?
Which client are you using?
Well it doesn't necessarily matter anymore because your reply fixed it lol
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.
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.
Who says that ship is turning?
Usually a large sum of smaller, quantitative changes results in a rapid qualitative change.
Generally, the non-Marxists and non-Anarchists on Lemmy are absolutely liberals.
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?
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.
Dude I am King Smug; it is 100% fair
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.
Unsurprisingly, people define words in many different ways. What's your definition? We can't tell you how you should be categorized until you tell us what you think the words mean.
And I don't mean that in a snarky way. For example, some people use the words liberal and leftist synonymously. Many other people don't. And there are many other similar examples involving any kind of political terminology. It really does come down to a question of definitions, which is why it's so easy to have miscommunication on political issues, on top of the fact that people have varying opinions on the issues themselves.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I already dropped one wall of text on this post, but something you might find interesting - there was a history podcast called Revolutions that looked at revolutionary periods in history, when it wrapped up the host did a whole series of appendix episodes on different recurring themes he saw in the different periods he looked at, and in one of those he talked about how the word "radical" can be hard to define because throughout history there were people who had radical goals they wanted to achieve through moderate means and people who had moderate goals they wanted to achieve through radical means and the inverse of both of those
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=0nukt_9HmLE&t=2m21s
So yeah, I think it's helpful to separate out how big a transformation in society you want to see from how far you're willing to go to get them
What positions do you hold that make you consider yourself left of center?
Excellent question, but I'll think about it on my own. I've had enough go rounds in this post
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.
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.
Gatekeeping is dumb. You are what you are, the rest is description.
Also, this is a pretty communist instance, so it's no wonder you got "lol liberal" responses. Maybe try .world for a wider perspective on a question like this.
Edit: Or another large, politically generic instance, like sh.itjust.works.
Gatekeeping is dumb, but so is calling a square a circle.
Secondly, Lemmy.world actually blocks Leftist instances, while Lemmy.ml does not. You see a wider net on Lemmy.ml, Lemmy.world leans right-wing.
Edit: sh.itjust.works has a large fascist problem, it generally leans right wing overall.
Ah shit, you replied before my edit. Yes, communication is important, but only exists in context. Asking if you're "validly" X is pure gatekeeping. The question is if "I'm X" makes what you are more or less confusing to whoever you're talking to. Although, people rarely ask.
I generally agree, actually, you can see my top level comment. The question is deliberately posed in a leading manner, Purity Testing is nonsense sectarianism.
Still, the bit on .world doesn't make much sense, .world explicitly blocks Marxist instances.
Yes, sorry, didn't know.
Edit: Although OP isn't on one. Or at least dbzer0 isn't to my knowledge.
dbzer0 is generally an Anarchist instance, though there are Marxists. They are federated with Lemmy.world to my knowledge.
Also TIL!
@Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com This highlights the problem with using relative terms like 'left' and 'center' and 'far'. They're subjective, and in my opinion, shouldn't be used.
I don't know what country or society you're in. "Left" can often mean anything from centrist liberalism (Democrat Party) to nothing less than socialism (socialists often consider liberalism to be in the center). Then you get literal Fascists (as in, Mussolini and Mosley types, unlike Nazi fascists) who throw a stone in the whole thing: their heritage comes from both the traditional left (namely syndicalism) and the right (ultranationalism), and don't neatly fit into progressive or regressive (BUF notably gained many women supporters for their pro-suffrage policies, progressive at the time).
One can avoid arguments like in the OP just by learning the proper terms for political views and ideologies. Are you a progressive liberalist? Are you a social democrat? Are you a democratic socialist? (yes unfortunately those two get confusing)
For more information about the political compass and examples of why it's not a useful tool, I recommend this video.
Thanks, very good reply.
Socdems are valid if underrepresented. Maybe start a socdem community?
Are SocDems really "left" if they support Capitalism and are against Socialism?
If you define “left” as “communist” then obviously no. But out here in the actual world it usually means “anyone more progressive than a Christian Democrat”.
I define "Left" as a supporter of Socialism, ie an Anticapitalist. Simple as, someone who supports a change in the status quo.
Well then you’re only real disagreement with social democrats is in method, and you are going to have the Ugly Talk.
No, Social Democrats have a different method, ie class colaborationism and Reformism, and a different structure, ie Capitalism with welfare, and Imperialism in the Nordic Countries' cases.
Ah yes, the imperialist Nordic social democrats.
What are you on about exactly?
As a citzen in a social democracy in Latin America: This shit only truly worked in countries with a long history of exploitation of their colonies.
Fair. Large domestic reserves of fossile fuels don’t hurt either.
It’s in many regards an expression of privilege.
The Nordic Countries rely on Imperialism, ie the export of industrial and financial Capital to the Global South to super-exploit the proletariat of intentionally underdeveloped countries for super-profits via paying far less for their labor power.
Why is it that it is cheaper to produce in the Global South? Because wages are lower, yet you can sell for a higher price, and therefore exploit at a higher rate from the international proletariat.
Are you familiar in any way with Marxist theory?
Yes of course. It’s basically what the global economy has been like for fucking forever. It seems weird to single out the Nordic social democrats for this though.
What are you trying to get at here?
Yes, Colonialism and now Imperialism are brutal, but unfortunately have been long lasting.
The Nordic Countries, ie the scandinavian model, depends on Imperialism and makes no move against this. If a Capitalist, developed country moves towards Social Democracy, they will do nothing to change this Imperialism.
Capitalism isn't Socialism, ergo Social Democrats have little in common with Leftists.
No. Stop hanging out with tankies.
stop hanging out with nazis
It's not about left or right, it's about socialism or liberalism
If calling yourself a leftist makes you feel better, feel free to do so, but don't get angry when people call out your actual position
Here on the fediverse we may be getting targeted by outside actors who want nothing more than to foment violence in western democracies.
True leftists reject violence in all forms. It is coercion. It is evil. End of story.
The only time violence is justified 8a in self defense or the defense of others. Political change must be achieved through peaceful means if you want the result to have any chance of enduring.
Anyone on here advocating for violence deaerves to be labeled for what they are: part of the problem with the world today.
What is the origin of this statement? That people disagree with you, and therefore must be foreign agents? If you go back to the founding of Lemmy, the Marxists and Anarchists were here first. If anything, the influx of Liberals from Reddit can be considered "outside actors."
Are you genuinely saying that Karl Marx was not a "True Leftist?" Kropotkin? Goldman? Fred Hampton? Che? Dessalines?
Revolution is self-defense against failing and violent Capitalism. Leftists don't support random acts of terror.
Additionally, Political Change has never been meaningfully achieved via peaceful means. Abolition of Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, the overthrow of Tsarism in Russia and fascism in Cuba, all stemmed from violence or the implicit threat of violence.
Do you believe Leftists here support violence for the sake of violence? No, it's because there is no alternative.
Political spectrum of Left-Center-Right is not only pointless but very much harmful.
You have some goals in common with other people but you disagree on the means of achieving them. That's it. Doesn't make any of the views less valid. It makes them opposed in some circumstances, which is different from "validity"