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.

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

SnokenKeekaGuard ,
@SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

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.

memfree ,
@memfree@lemmy.ml avatar

I liked the (long) piece over here: slrpnk.net/post/11395506

tldr;

You can’t blow up a social relationship. The total collapse of this society would provide no guarantee about what replaced it. Unless a majority of people had the ideas and organization sufficient for the creation of an alternative society, we would see the old world reassert itself because it is what people would be used to, what they believed in, what existed unchallenged in their own personalities.

Proponents of terrorism and guerrilla-ism are to be opposed because their actions are vanguardist and authoritarian, because their ideas, to the extent that they are substantial, are wrong or unrelated to the results of their actions (especially when they call themselves libertarians or anarchists), because their killing cannot be justified, and finally because their actions produce either repression with nothing in return or an authoritarian regime.

andrewta , (edited )

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.

Melatonin OP ,

Question: do you consider yourself a liberal?

Got this from queermunist earlier. Didn’t understand why the question was asked. I answered “Yes” though it seemed like a gotcha, but I don’t know what was going on there. I used the words I wanted to use.

DickShaney ,

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.

TokenBoomer ,

It’s a shame that Marxists have to always be nice, friendly and tolerant. We get tired and frustrated with it all too.

DickShaney ,

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.

mozz , (edited )
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

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.

MarciaLynnDorsett ,

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.

mozz ,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

This was literally a conversation I had with queermunist (I am almost sure; it was a while ago but I am fairly confident that was the other participant when I had the exchange). I’m just filling OP in on the content and recommending they try to experiment themselves, because I think it’s an extremely relevant contribution to OP’s understanding of the answer to their question.

smug

Dude I am King Smug; it is 100% fair

manipulative bullshit

Not really

MarciaLynnDorsett ,

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.

mozz ,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

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”

MarciaLynnDorsett ,

yea. how dare you. try engaging on topic and with intellectual honesty.

gAlienLifeform ,
@gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world avatar

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.

mozz ,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

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

gAlienLifeform ,
@gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world avatar

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

Cowbee ,
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

Lemmy has this weird point of view, if you aren’t extreme left then you are not left at all. I’ve seen people make comments like "just be honest you aren’t a liberal ".

Generally, the non-Marxists and non-Anarchists on Lemmy are absolutely liberals.

They want to move the bar so they don’t have to claim they are extremist. I wouldn’t worry about it.

I don’t think Leftists here care about being labeled an extremist or not, the point is to pursuade more people to become Marxists or Anarchists by actually talking about their views openly.

richieadler ,

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”.

Melatonin OP ,

True. But big ships turn slowly.

And the US is one hell of a big ship.

Cowbee ,
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

Usually a large sum of smaller, quantitative changes results in a rapid qualitative change.

richieadler ,

Who says that ship is turning?

TokenBoomer ,

If wanting equality for all people is extremist, then I’m an extremist.

andrewta ,

Nothing extremist about wanting equality

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

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.

andrewta ,

Interesting take. Not sure how you got there though.

Cowbee ,
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

How do you achieve equality for all people?

andrewta ,

Still not sure how asking for equality makes one extremist

Cowbee ,
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

How do you achieve equality?

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.

    GBU_28 ,

    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.

    queermunist ,
    @queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

    Question: do you consider yourself a liberal?

    Melatonin OP , (edited )

    Yes?

    queermunist ,
    @queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

    Liberals have never been leftists.

    This isn’t really a new thing. You can read about leftists a hundred years ago denouncing liberalism.

    vzq ,

    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.

    queermunist ,
    @queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

    Liberals merely became less racist and less sexist, not much else has changed.

    vzq ,

    https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/40bc8eaf-5e8f-4e42-adb4-488d256b623b.png

    OurToothbrush ,

    Definitely not less ableist tho…

    vzq ,

    Not a liberal.

    OurToothbrush ,

    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.

    vzq ,

    Okay but you are ableist though

    Yeah, I’ve been trying to get better.

    which reads as pretty liberal

    Uhhh what?

    Unless you are somehow a monarchist or fascist on lemmy?

    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.

    queermunist ,
    @queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

    other than people in general being garbage.

    The idea that most people are fundamentally broken and worthless is probably correlated with ableism.

    vzq ,

    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.

    Track_Shovel ,

    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.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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?

    Track_Shovel ,

    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

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    Basically the Nordic model is my viewpoint (popular or not on here).

    I wouldn’t describe that as Socialist, really, unless it was in the Global South and explicitly Anti-Imperialist, and even then it would still need to have a trajectory to move onto Socialism eventually. The Nordics themselves rely on brutal exploitation of the Global South to function, and are some of the most Imperialistic countries in the world.

    High nationalisation of the economy with some room for private enterprise.

    The issue in the Nordic Model is that historically, the Capitalist class has maintained dominance, and has slowly turned back previous concessions via state control.

    High taxes, esp. for the rich, High investment in social programs.

    Social Programs are fantastic, but in the context of an Imperialist country we must recognize the source of these Programs.

    Throw in a shit ton of transparency and accountability

    Would be nice, but extremely difficult with a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.

    Track_Shovel ,

    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

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    Consider reading Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. It might help clarify how Capitalism actually functions in the modern era.

    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.

    Stock-standard Socialist/Communist take, if you care.

    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.

    Nobody is advocating for Leftists to randomly go sicko-mode. Revolution is a consequence, not an action.

    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

    The through-line of Leftism is organizing. Join a union, or an org! Try to build up dual-power.

    Track_Shovel ,

    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.

    open.spotify.com/artist/2Mz5qpR3WxbcBwZBsmraWE?si…

    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.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    No problem! I try to be more chill.

    In return I offer Panopticon: his music is bluegrass influenced metal with heavy anticapitalistic lyrics, from Kentucky of all places.

    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.

    Track_Shovel ,

    D…did we just become friends?

    https://slrpnk.net/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tenor.com%2FoVF4gJRGUlYAAAAM%2Fnow-kith-mike-tyson.gif

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    <3

    TopRamenBinLaden ,

    Just chiming in to say Panopticon is great. I enjoyed the civility of the discussion here, as well.

    Track_Shovel ,

    Civility is how you change minds, provided you have a well thought out point of view you can convince others of

    muad_dibber ,
    @muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    The nordic model is not sustainable, and the same thing is currently happening to it (privatization and gutting) as happened to the US after FDR’s new deal.

    Not to mention the fact that welfare in these nordic states are mostly funded off the backs of workers in the global south, as taxes on imports from products produced by those poorly paid southern labor. Take a look at where most of the factories for H&M or Ikea are located for example.

    As long as we leave capitalists in power, this exploitation will only continue to increase.

    Schmoo ,

    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.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    Historical events led to communism being used mostly to refer to the authoritarian ideology championed by the Bolsheviks, so people started using socialism to differentiate themselves from that definition.

    To be clear, the Bolsheviks were definitely Communists and Socialists, and implemented a more democratic and Worker-focused society than Tsarist Russia. Low-bar that may be, the US and Western Powers deliberately attempted to shove a wedge in the Leftist movement by trying to paint the USSR as “not true Communism.”

    Schmoo ,

    To be clear, the Bolsheviks were definitely Communists and Socialists, and implemented a more democratic and Worker-focused society than Tsarist Russia

    I agree that the USSR was more democratic and worker-focused than Tsarist Russia, but saying they were definitely Communists and Socialists depends on your definition of those words. An originalist Marxist for example would vehemently disagree that they were communist because communism was envisioned as this pure ideal stateless society, the “end goal” to work towards. Statelessness is definitely no longer a requirement of communism for modern Marxists, but it used to be.

    US and Western Powers deliberately attempted to shove a wedge in the Leftist movement by trying to paint the USSR as “not true Communism.”

    While this is definitely the case, people at the time had legitimate critiques of the USSR that may have led them to see it as “not true Communism,” see above. Wedges are driven into splits that already exist.

    Because everyone seems to have their own unique definition of what Communism/Socialism is, saying that something is/isn’t socialist/communist should be taken more as an expression of that person’s values than a semantic argument. If someone says they are socialist and [insert government here] is not, what they are really saying is that there are aspects of [insert government here] that they disagree with to the point that it’s a dealbreaker for them.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    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.

    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.

    There were many issues with the USSR, and sometimes even bourgeois elements. However, it was fundamentally a Marxist state building towards Communism.

    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.

    This is unfortunately true, I see it many times, and generally this is sectarian nonsense that gets in the way of coalition building.

    gAlienLifeform ,
    @gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world avatar

    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

    queermunist ,
    @queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

    No socialist uses “liberal” when they mean socialist. Isn’t that interesting?

    gAlienLifeform ,
    @gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world avatar

    Yeah, say what you will about free market acolytes, they know how to jump on to a successful brand

    andyburke ,
    @andyburke@fedia.io avatar

    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.

    davidgro ,

    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.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    Yes, but OP is deliberately asking Leftists on a platform built and maintained by Communists, not the general American public.

    davidgro ,

    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.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    What don’t you understand? Liberalism is a Capitalist ideology, ergo it is right wing. Socialists, Anarchists, Communists, etc. would be left wing.

    davidgro ,

    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)

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    Erika3sis ,
    @Erika3sis@hexbear.net avatar

    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.

    Melatonin OP ,

    How does this relate to violence?

    Erika3sis ,
    @Erika3sis@hexbear.net avatar

    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.

    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

    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.

    Diabolo96 ,

    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.

    Melatonin OP ,

    What “change” are we taking about here?

    Diabolo96 ,

    Slavery, Decolonization, worker rights, women rights, black people rights, “Put any word here” rights,etc…

    Melatonin OP ,

    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.

    Kuori ,
    @Kuori@hexbear.net avatar

    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.

    OurToothbrush ,

    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…

    Kuori ,
    @Kuori@hexbear.net avatar

    you’re absolutely right but some people just cry out for bullying

    Erika3sis ,
    @Erika3sis@hexbear.net avatar

    ♫ 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? ♫

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    Melatonin OP ,

    So you’re telling me none of those lead to more brutal oppression than before?

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    axont ,

    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.

    MarxMadness ,

    I think you are vastly underestimating the horrors of most pre-revolutionary societies, and probably also overestimating what you describe as oppression in post-revoltionary governments.

    On the first point, here’s an excerpt from a JFK speech where he describes pre-revolution Cuba:

    The third, and perhaps most disastrous of our failures, was the decision to give stature and support to one of the most bloody and repressive dictatorships in the long history of Latin American repression. Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years - a greater proportion of the Cuban population than the proportion of Americans who died in both World Wars, and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state - destroying every individual liberty.

    And JFK was no friend of Castro; he greenlit the Bay of Pigs invasion! Revolutions are born from the most brutal forms of exploitation and violence. Not even the wildest anticommunist propaganda about post-revolution Cuba comes close to the reality of what the revolution replaced.

    Hextubewontallowme ,
    @Hextubewontallowme@lemmy.ml avatar

    Ye think slavery, worker rights, and decolonization was done merely by protests and by the mere will of liberalism?

    muad_dibber ,
    @muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    This is historically completely false. I challenge you to find a single historical case where a ruling class has given up their power and wealth without violence or the threat of violence.

    Meanwhile I recommend you read the links we’ve given you.

    match ,
    @match@pawb.social avatar

    user note UI : “thinks slavery was bloodless”

    davidgro ,

    What client is that?

    match ,
    @match@pawb.social avatar

    connect for lemmy!

    happybadger ,
    @happybadger@hexbear.net avatar

    …I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

    …dickinson.edu/…/martin-luther-king-jr-letter-fro…

    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.

    Melatonin OP ,

    Are you actually USING Dr. Martin Luther King Jr as an ADVOCATE FOR VIOLENCE?

    You just crossed over into crazy town.

    happybadger ,
    @happybadger@hexbear.net avatar

    On second thought, this is as good as you get. I’d just give up.

    Kuori ,
    @Kuori@hexbear.net avatar

    dr. king is specifically calling you and yours out here, liberal. you’d do well to listen.

    Asafum , (edited )

    Check where the users are from, you’re going to get much more “atypical” not going to get kind responses 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.

    happybadger ,
    @happybadger@hexbear.net avatar

    Whoa there lil guy. Dogs don’t speak. You bark.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    Excuse us individuals for feeling entirely helpless when it comes to changing the entire capitalist world.

    I think this is just a misunderstanding of Revolutionary Theory, really. Nobody is advocating for random acts of terror.

    Asafum ,

    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”

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    Asafum ,

    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

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

    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.

    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.

    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…

    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 if you play video games.

    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

    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.

    Asafum ,

    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!

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

    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.

    Asafum ,

    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

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    No problem! If you have any questions, you can message me, or ask over in !Marxism 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.

    Wakmrow ,

    Welcome to the resistance lol

    nephs ,

    If you have only minutes, and prefer videos: youtu.be/07E4iQ5z9iY

    MarxMadness ,

    The leftist frustration with liberals comes from statements like this:

    maintain stability instead of shedding blood

    You cannot maintain the stability of capitalism without shedding blood. There is no option where no one gets hurt; violence is baked in to the status quo. How best to reduce the amount of violence in society is another question, but the false dichotomy of stability vs. violence is the root of the disconnect here.

    BoxedFenders ,
    @BoxedFenders@hexbear.net avatar

    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?

    Asafum ,

    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.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    Leftists discourage individual acts as Adventurism. The core through-line of Leftist thought is Mass Action, with differences on how to structure this.

    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.

    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.

    axont ,

    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.”

    muad_dibber ,
    @muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    We should also be wary here tho, MLK did advocate for pacifism for all but the last few months of his life, and he received many a well-deserved roasting from revolutionaries like Malcolm X, and Kwame Ture.

    Everyone should especially listen to Malcolm X - Message to the grassroots for a thorough critique of King’s nonviolent advocacy, and him being a sellout to petty-bourgeois white liberals for most of his career.

    daltotron ,

    MLK did advocate for pacifism for all but the last few months of his life

    I mean this is sort of reframed with the context that he was assassinated for making that turn away from pacifism. I’m not saying that it was the wrong decision even given the hindsight we have now, but it does recontextualize it.

    flamingo_pinyata ,

    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”

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    Melatonin OP ,

    I should have just stuck with Democrat, and gotten rid of the whole idea of leftist and liberal.

    Cowbee ,
    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    within_epsilon ,

    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.

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