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.

frauddogg , 29 days ago

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

Erika3sis , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

How does this relate to violence?

Erika3sis , 30 days ago

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.

lorty , 29 days ago

Eventually you’ll realise that voting for the least bad option just makes things worse and never better, and you’ll have to deal with the fact that you can get what you want through the system.

GBU_28 , 30 days ago

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.

andrewta , 30 days ago (edited 30 days ago)

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 , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

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

DickShaney , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago (edited 30 days ago)

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 , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

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

gAlienLifeform , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

True. But big ships turn slowly.

And the US is one hell of a big ship.

Cowbee , 29 days ago

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

richieadler , 29 days ago

Who says that ship is turning?

TokenBoomer , 30 days ago

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

andrewta , 30 days ago

Nothing extremist about wanting equality

Cowbee , 30 days ago (edited 30 days ago)

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 , 30 days ago

Interesting take. Not sure how you got there though.

Cowbee , 30 days ago

How do you achieve equality for all people?

andrewta , 30 days ago

Still not sure how asking for equality makes one extremist

Cowbee , 30 days ago

How do you achieve equality?

BallsandBayonets , 29 days ago

You can be validly left without wanting revolution, as long as you’re ok with progress happening over the course of centuries (in a world that has about 25 years left before the majority of us are dead from man-made climate change).

intensely_human , 28 days ago

Some leftists aren’t so interested in progress, as in making sure everyone is okay.

Jayjader , 28 days ago

making sure everyone is okay.

Given the current state of the world, that would be progress.

intensely_human , 28 days ago

I agree. What I should have said is that some leftists aren’t seeking progress per se, but rather to ensure everyone is okay, per se.

One variable can be a leading indicator of another, but it’s still a different thing to be optimizing for one or the other.

nickwitha_k , 29 days ago (edited 29 days ago)

Does one have to be a revolutionary or iconoclast to be “legitimately” Left? (sorry for the paraphrase)

Not just “no” but fuck no. Anyone suggesting otherwise does not have freedom and liberty for all in mind.

However I find myself being disagreed with quite often, mostly for not advocating or cheering violence, “by any means possible” change, or revolutionary tactics. It would seem that I’m not viewed as authentically holding my view unless I advocate extreme, violent, or radical action to accomplish it.

You’re encountering a mix of naive people, extremists, sock puppets, and the like there. I’m curious as to which contexts you see it in the most. Context is really important. Due example anyone supporting capitalism would be seen adversarily by an M-L communist and a lot of anarchists too.

Those seem like two different things to me.

Pick your battles. If you do not believe in violent revolution to overthrow capitalism but want an M-L to accept you, you’re going to have a bad time. I’d recommend trying to reduce seeking external validation and accept that those with wildly different world views might not see eye-to-eye with you on things, even if you’re both on the same side of center. You’ll be much happier.

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

THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.

I think you may have a few misconceptions there :). I’m an anarchist and believe that the data shows resoundingly that capitalism and the hierarchical structures that it requires are the root cause of much of human suffering as well as pushing the Earth towards becoming uninhabitable to our species.

Do I want to overthrow society? Fuck no. The amount of suffering and death that that would cause is literally beyond human capacity to comprehend. How many would starve or die of preventable disease? The ends do not justify the means.

Do I want capitalism to continue to be the dominant economic system? Absolutely not. It fails to address inequity or the long-term survival of our species. It’s better than feudalism, yes, but, not by enough and out must evolve to meet the species needs, despite the wishes of billionaires.

I treat anarchism as a long project. I know I’ll never see it in my life and that’s ok as long as I put future generations in a place to carry on the baton. Things have been declining, in many ways, due to the Me Generation refusing to relinquish control. I hope that enough of my cohort are willing to put in the effort to fix some of the damage once they’re finally gone (those still holding on to power at this point won’t willingly hand it off to us until they have no choice).

Cowbee , 29 days ago

How are you suggesting Anarchism be implemented? By voting for it? Even if you could, you would have had to build up the power required to sieze the state regardless, Capitalists aren’t going to willingly end Capitalism.

I don’t see how Anarchism is possible without revolution.

AccountMaker , 29 days ago

One idea I really like is slowly circumventing the need for big corporations by having services provided locally. People in a given community developing skills and aiding each other to make themselves as self-sufficient as possible. Then groups of these communities can interact and potentially provide things the other one lacks.

Or something like medieval guilds where people from each profession act together to practice their craft where needed, modified unions or something like that.

Essentially people willingly cooperating to be able to stand up to the capitalists. They have power because we depend on them, both their services and on money which they hoard. Through cooperation and mutual aid, their power can be significantly reduced, without a high risk of violence erupting.

Is this too optimistic and naive? Maybe, but I’m of the opinion that we’d in any case benefit if we started moving in that direction.

Cowbee , 29 days ago

One idea I really like is slowly circumventing the need for big corporations by having services provided locally. People in a given community developing skills and aiding each other to make themselves as self-sufficient as possible. Then groups of these communities can interact and potentially provide things the other one lacks.

On board with this being consistent so far, building up parallel structures and dual-power is a core aspect of Revolutionary Leftist Theory. I do expect Capitalists to crack down on this though, to protect their interests. This happened to Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party.

Or something like medieval guilds where people from each profession act together to practice their craft where needed, modified unions or something like that.

Not really in line with this, seems like an odd direction, unless you’re describing Worker Councils. I still expect Capitalists to stomp this out unless Leftists fight back.

Essentially people willingly cooperating to be able to stand up to the capitalists. They have power because we depend on them, both their services and on money which they hoard. Through cooperation and mutual aid, their power can be significantly reduced, without a high risk of violence erupting.

So this is just Revolutionary theory, but with the added “no violence though” bit. The problem is that this situation would result in violence, and historically has, for all comparable events.

Is this too optimistic and naive? Maybe, but I’m of the opinion that we’d in any case benefit if we started moving in that direction.

We would benefit, you’re describing some form of Revolutionary Theory with the hope that Capitalists lay down and accept their crumbling influence.

AccountMaker , 29 days ago

I should clarify what I meant by “no violence”. I meant that, in the ideal scenario, communities build themselves up so that capitalists become less and less relevant, without exacting violence upon them. Of course, in the event that these communities get attacked by those same capitalists, defence is very reasonable.

The thing is when you tell people that we need a revolution, most picture storming various places, seizing assets and beating up some people in the process, which I think makes a lot of them distance themselves. Presenting a program which focuses on a peaceful development of society is I think much easier to get on board with.

There’s a low to zero chance that any transition away from capitalism will be peaceful and without resistance, but I think it would be better to tell people that the we want to work towards creating a normal life, and we will encounter violent resistence along the way, than to focus on revolutions and overthrowing the ruling class. The end goal is pretty much the same, and the process might inevitably involve the same things, but the former is I think more palatable to most.

Cowbee , 29 days ago

I should clarify what I meant by “no violence”. I meant that, in the ideal scenario, communities build themselves up so that capitalists become less and less relevant, without exacting violence upon them. Of course, in the event that these communities get attacked by those same capitalists, defence is very reasonable.

This is standard Revolutionary Theory, for the most part.

The thing is when you tell people that we need a revolution, most picture storming various places, seizing assets and beating up some people in the process, which I think makes a lot of them distance themselves. Presenting a program which focuses on a peaceful development of society is I think much easier to get on board with.

The thing is, that’s not what Revolutionary Theory entails. Revolution is a consequence, not an action. Building up parallel structures and dual power allows Leftists to help steer the Revolution when it happens.

There’s a low to zero chance that any transition away from capitalism will be peaceful and without resistance, but I think it would be better to tell people that the we want to work towards creating a normal life, and we will encounter violent resistence along the way, than to focus on revolutions and overthrowing the ruling class. The end goal is pretty much the same, and the process might inevitably involve the same things, but the former is I think more palatable to most.

The difference here is that you’ve engaged in sectarianism and threw Revolutionary Leftists under the bus, only to espouse much of the same rhetoric. I do believe that you would be better off coalition-building with other Leftists and trying to better explain Revolutionary Theory to those not yet familiar, as the biggest tool of Leftists is organizing.

save_the_humans , 29 days ago (edited 29 days ago)

You’ve basically just described the cooperative movement. Food, worker, housing, producer co-ops. We need people to start co-ops and for policy to help nurture its growth.

How do we make that happen though? I don’t really know. I like to imagine we need one person to run for president with this as their platform on the democratic ticket just to get the message across. Similar to how Andrew Yang brought universal basic income into the conversation.

Some kind of uniting catalyst for a non violent transition away from capitalism that people can agree with and isn’t just ‘socialism’. Cooperative enterprises though are a stateless form of socialism, so no central planning or big government to tell us what to do. Seems like something that could potentially unite both the left and right if done right.

nickwitha_k , 29 days ago

How are you suggesting Anarchism be implemented? By voting for it?

No. Voting is a tool in the societal “first aid kit”. It’s used to try to limit the harm that the Right would joyously continue to cause and staunch the bleeding. There are many other tools in the toolbox that must be used. Protest, direct action, community building, etc.

Non-corporate cultural, civil, and agricultural infrastructure (monopolization is particularly heavy in US agriculture, thanks to Bork and his defanging of anti-trust enforcement) needs to be developed in order to support the population during transition. This requires cultivating strong, cooperative community renderIt doesn’t feel as great as thinking that we could be there in a day or a week or a year but, a lasting, stable society free of the chains of unjust hierarchy requires a sound foundation.

Even if you could, you would have had to build up the power required to sieze the state regardless, Capitalists aren’t going to willingly end Capitalism.

Absolutely. There’s no way that the power addicts at the top are going to let go willingly. But, without popular support or the ability to provide for societal needs, any revolution is likely to result in installation of a despot and massive amounts of preventable starvation, illness, and death, not to mention societal trauma.

Capitalism has been around for a long time. Moving on to the next thing is going to take time too. Especially, when taking into account the massive efforts sunk into resisting this change by Capital, which have set us back significantly.

I don’t see how Anarchism is possible without revolution.

Revolutionaries NEED practitioners of non-violence, non-revolutionary workers, and other non-combatants as much as the opposite is true. Without the “heart” of the latter, “revolution” is nothing but a self-serving exercise in forcing one’s ideology on the populace, nearly always resulting in atrocities and despotism. When the revolution is over, what then? Without accounting for societal needs, there’s danger of power vacuums drawing worse actors. For successful positive societal change, you need builders.

And non-violence alone is not likely sufficient as it is too easily ignored and suppressed, unless it is clear and plausible that violence is the alternative. Just look at Dr. King and Malcom X.

So, to answer your primary question of “how do I suggest achieving Anarchism”, through multiple avenues. For some, revolution might be their contribution, for others, like myself, it’s education and cultivating community of shared values such as kindness, inclusion, respect, and mutual aid. Getting to a fair and just society will take all kinds.

Cowbee , 29 days ago

So essentially, you’re a Revolutionary Leftist just like the rest of us, but with more finger-wagging, rather than understanding that Revolutionary theory doesn’t mean “pick up a rock and go sicko mode.”

nickwitha_k , 28 days ago

I absolutely do understand that. However, I frequently encounter those who are less cognizant of it (or are just wreckers) that chomp at the bit for violence and make room for no other ways. I’m absolutely a Revolutionary Leftist with allegiance to humanity, not economic or political system, but, context matters and OP was not speaking with the same nomenclature.

Melatonin OP , 29 days ago

Amazing answer from an Anarchist! Thank you for being able to talk without hyperbole. I feel like I would learn a lot from you and I would certainly break bread with you.

Sorry about my immature outburst in the edit, but I felt like I was fighting a hydra. So much noise I wasn’t getting hearing anything.

memfree , 30 days ago

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.

Vanth , 30 days ago (edited 21 days ago)

deleted_by_author

Cowbee , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago (edited 30 days ago)

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 , 29 days ago

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.

skulkingaround , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago (edited 30 days ago)

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 , 30 days ago

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

Therein lies your answer.

Melatonin OP , 30 days ago

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

Cowbee , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

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.

CrabAndBroom , 29 days ago

Someone on here told me earlier I wasn’t left enough when I posted a Karl Marx quote lol

Melatonin OP , 29 days ago

Oof. That’s a tough audience.

Alaskaball , 30 days ago

This is off topic but is there something wrong with the hexbear client or is everyone here just making individual comments at each other instead of replying?

Erika3sis , 30 days ago

Which client are you using?

Alaskaball , 30 days ago

Well it doesn’t necessarily matter anymore because your reply fixed it lol

neidu2 , 30 days ago

No. Stop hanging out with tankies.

Kuori , 30 days ago

stop hanging out with nazis

muad_dibber , 30 days ago

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

Bougie_Birdie , 30 days ago

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 , 30 days ago

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

orcrist , 29 days ago

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.