There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

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.

orcrist ,

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.

andyburke ,
@andyburke@fedia.io avatar

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.

Cowbee , (edited )
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

Here on the fediverse we may be getting targeted by outside actors who want nothing more than to foment violence in western democracies.

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.”

True leftists reject violence in all forms. It is coercion. It is evil. End of story.

Are you genuinely saying that Karl Marx was not a “True Leftist?” Kropotkin? Goldman? Fred Hampton? Che? Dessalines?

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.

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.

Anyone on here advocating for violence deaerves to be labeled for what they are: part of the problem with the world today.

Do you believe Leftists here support violence for the sake of violence? No, it’s because there is no alternative.

muad_dibber ,
@muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Those “western countries” you’re referring to, are not democracies, its more accurate to call them capitalist dictatorships.

Capitalists stand above and control the political system, stack candidates to those who’ve proven themselves to be good little capitalists puppets, and own the organs of media and limit public discussion to pro-capitalist talking points.

True leftists reject violence in all forms. It is coercion. It is evil. End of story.

Anyone on here advocating for violence deaerves to be labeled for what they are: part of the problem with the world today.

There’s no need to “one-true-leftist” us here, especially since the major branches of leftism (Marxism and most branches of Anarchism), are all pretty much agreed that pacifism doesn’t work, and is a strategy promoted by capitalists and petit-bourgeois idealists to quell dissent. A ruling class has never given up their power or wealth without violence or the threat of violence. Good article on this:

Red Phoenix - Pacifism - How to do the enemy’s job for them. Youtube Audiobook

theshatterstone54 ,

Is Dessalines the dude that made Jerboa, the Lemmy Client?

Cowbee ,
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

It’s the same Dessalines who made and continues to develop Lemmy itself, as well as Jerboa.

frauddogg ,
@frauddogg@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Edit: TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY

THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.

So… Why are you asking questions about what ‘left’ means if you don’t want answers from the left???

https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/d192ac62-9165-4c22-bc6e-58abb17d1d15.jpeg

Vanth , (edited )
@Vanth@reddthat.com avatar

deleted_by_author

    •
    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    axont ,

    When is violence permissable or moral then? Absolutely never? You have to imagine the types of situations people in the world face. I know a person from Gaza who was nearly finished with his university studies, now he lives in a tent with his mother and his little sister is dead. When I’m able to talk with him, he expresses almost nothing but violence and hatred against the Israeli state and the IDF.

    Are you saying my friend Ali is in a bubble he should get out of? Or are you simply talking about your own experiences? Because even if so, you should at least feel some inclination of rage towards the people who did this to my friend.

    muad_dibber , (edited )
    @muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    What about self-defense?

    https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/842fe85d-1349-4110-aa7c-2b353ad174ca.jpeg

    Is a person defending themselves from an attacker, morally wrong for using violence? And if you concede that it isn’t, then what about workers banding together to defend themselves from the injustices of enforced poverty, starvation, homelessness, and war?

    Edit: Pacifism - How to do the enemy’s job for them

    FunkyStuff ,

    No one is telling you you need to do violence, though. No one in Lemmygrad or Hexbear believes that the time to take to the street and start shooting is right now, obviously it wouldn’t achieve anything and would just be a waste of life, that’s why fascists are the ones committing mass shootings. What we believe is that when the contradictions mount to the point that the ruling class clashes down on its opposition with violent force, we need to be organized and ready to carry out the revolution come hell or high water, like every single socialist revolution in the past. Whether or not you personally want to participate is irrelevant because the historical process in which capital undermines its own existence is inevitable, some amount of time from now the crisis of capitalism necessarily must reach a point where its contradictions can’t be reconciled anymore and either the ruling classes succeed at preserving the system, or the workers succeed in transforming it into something new. Furthermore, regardless of your own participation in the violence necessary to maintain capitalism right now, that violence is happening anyway, and it’s orders of magnitude larger than the violence that the left is capable of, even if we were the bloodthirsty maniacs some liberals claim us to be. The black book of communism claims that communism’s death toll nears 100 million, but every 10 years far more than 100 million people die because of preventable illnesses, hunger, and conflict, which are all direct effects of the decaying economic system. If you reject to resist that system, then you’re complicit too, even when so little is asked of you.

    Kuori ,
    @Kuori@hexbear.net avatar

    O COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY

    THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.

    lmao so liberals only then.

    FunkyStuff ,

    Yeah lol just validate my clearly very questionable view, you’re only allowed in this thread if you agree with me!

    SharkEatingBreakfast , (edited )
    @SharkEatingBreakfast@sopuli.xyz avatar

    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.

    Melatonin OP ,

    Good sane take, to my understanding

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    This is everyone’s take here.

    SharkEatingBreakfast ,
    @SharkEatingBreakfast@sopuli.xyz avatar

    I think it’s all about how it’s said. The simpler, the better. Phrasing is important, too.

    CanadaPlus , (edited )

    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.

    Cowbee , (edited )
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    CanadaPlus , (edited )

    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.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    CanadaPlus ,

    Yes, sorry, didn’t know.

    Edit: Although OP isn’t on one. Or at least dbzer0 isn’t to my knowledge.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    dbzer0 is generally an Anarchist instance, though there are Marxists. They are federated with Lemmy.world to my knowledge.

    CanadaPlus ,

    Also TIL!

    muad_dibber ,
    @muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    lemmy.world (and blahaj.zone) blocks the communist instances, yet they aren’t blocked by us. So really you’re only going to get a censored and anti-communist perspective from those instances.

    CanadaPlus ,

    TIL, although OP isn’t on one.

    It still seems pretty lefty over there for the most part.

    match ,
    @match@pawb.social avatar

    Socdems are valid if underrepresented. Maybe start a socdem community?

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    Are SocDems really “left” if they support Capitalism and are against Socialism?

    vzq ,

    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”.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    I define “Left” as a supporter of Socialism, ie an Anticapitalist. Simple as, someone who supports a change in the status quo.

    vzq ,

    Well then you’re only real disagreement with social democrats is in method, and you are going to have the Ugly Talk.

    Cowbee , (edited )
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    vzq ,

    Ah yes, the imperialist Nordic social democrats.

    What are you on about exactly?

    ZeroHora ,
    @ZeroHora@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    vzq ,

    Fair. Large domestic reserves of fossile fuels don’t hurt either.

    It’s in many regards an expression of privilege.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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?

    vzq ,

    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?

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    Yes of course. It’s basically what the global economy has been like for fucking forever.

    Yes, Colonialism and now Imperialism are brutal, but unfortunately have been long lasting.

    It seems weird to single out the Nordic social democrats for this though.

    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.

    What are you trying to get at here?

    Capitalism isn’t Socialism, ergo Social Democrats have little in common with Leftists.

    muad_dibber ,
    @muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    Look at where H&M or IKEA have most of their factories. Super-exploited wage workers in the global south are funding (via a tax on imports of products they produced) the nordic welfare states.

    I suggest reading John Smith - Imperialism in the 21st century for more on this.

    skulkingaround ,

    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.

    Track_Shovel ,

    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.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    TokenBoomer , (edited )

    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.”

    TokenBoomer ,

    Why do leftists always have to acquiesce to liberals, but liberals never have to compromise with leftists?

    Therein lies your answer.

    Melatonin OP ,

    Why do slash and burn farmers always have to compromise with ecologists, but ecologists never have to compromise with slash and burn farmers?

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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?

    andyburke ,
    @andyburke@fedia.io avatar

    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.

    Zoift ,
    @Zoift@hexbear.net avatar

    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?

    Melatonin OP ,

    What? Where is this from?

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    Which part?

    Melatonin OP ,

    Not talking to you but sentence #1

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    Melatonin OP ,

    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?

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    axont ,

    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.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    axont , (edited )

    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.

    muad_dibber , (edited )
    @muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    This is gone over in the most basic Marxist works, especially Engels - socialism utopian and scientific, and Lenin’s state and revolution. Here’s a good overview of it.

    Zoift ,
    @Zoift@hexbear.net avatar

    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:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'état

    en.wikipedia.org/…/Iranian_Coup_d'état_of_1953

    en.wikipedia.org/…/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'état

    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

    ZeroHora ,
    @ZeroHora@lemmy.ml avatar

    I think the first question should be what OP considers “violence”. The disagreement start there.

    Kuori ,
    @Kuori@hexbear.net avatar

    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.

    axont ,

    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.

    Kuori ,
    @Kuori@hexbear.net avatar

    excellent historical context comrade. :3

    they had to do a coup with the implicit threat of violence to enforce the new government

    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

    neidu2 ,

    No. Stop hanging out with tankies.

    Kuori ,
    @Kuori@hexbear.net avatar

    stop hanging out with nazis

    muad_dibber ,
    @muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/eee18cf3-9a04-49c4-aa35-941c398b4780.jpeg

    Bougie_Birdie ,
    @Bougie_Birdie@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    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.

    muad_dibber ,
    @muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/b0097eda-d079-4f7c-99d1-82cb1e986238.jpeg

    TheDoctor ,
    @TheDoctor@hexbear.net avatar

    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.

    ProfessorOwl_PhD ,
    @ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net avatar

    Edit: TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY

    THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.

    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.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •