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.

Randomgal , 29 days ago

If you’re talking about Lemmy specifically, remember this is a left-wing echo chamber, so of course you’ll be shunned if you’re not willing to man the guillotine.

In the real world people understand that change is progressive and requires compromise to avoid the violence of the extremes. I’d suggest touch some grass and put some distance between you and keyboard-leftists that speak like they are playing a video game.

Volunteer in your community, it’s a great way to meet people who are more than Internet posers.

Cowbee , 29 days ago

In the real world people understand that change is progressive and requires compromise to avoid the violence of the extremes. I’d suggest touch some grass and put some distance between you and keyboard-leftists that speak like they are playing a video game.

Genuinely, when has major change happened without violence, or the threat of violence? Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, various anti-fascist and anti-monarchist revolutions, all have happened with either violence or resulted in concessions to avoid violence.

Arkhive , 28 days ago

“In the real world” when applied to the discussion of online vs AFK spaces is a super slippery slope. Legacy Russell discusses this at length in their manifesto Glitch Feminism.

The reasoning here being that language like that is used to discredit and invalidate the usefulness of digital spaces. Tons of minorities rely on digital community to explore senses of self, identity, and political leanings. That is NOT to say Lemmy ISN’T a leftist echo chamber, but it should point out the problem with using its digital nature to discredit anything that is said here. Anonymity is a fantastic tool for world making, particularly black and queer futurism.

Getting more into my own opinion, I agree with the other commenter under your post saying rarely in history have the most pivotal changes come purely from “reform”. Our biggest leaps forward have largely been started my social/political dissidence, which was then responded to with policy changes. Political violence is perpetrated on minorities every day. Using the online nature of this discussion to discredit people that are pointing out that violence and saying pushback is necessary is just pushing many already ostracized individuals out of some of the only spaces they can be safe while discussing such sensitive issues. These spaces allow people to explore futures that offer them even a small sense of upward mobility and stability, even if that means a period of violence before they get there.

I am in fact willing to die for the futures I am capable of imagining. If the futures you imagine are based on slow, inter-generational change via the current political system that is allowed, and incredibly selfless of you. My only pushback would be to look at your own quality of living and ask how many people have access to similar comfort and stability and try to understand why some people might feel the political system has failed, and will continue to fail, them. Personally I’d like to experience at least a small piece of the futures I’ve imagined within my lifetime, and I have little to no faith in this country’s ability to “reform” it’s way into those futures.

shottymcb , 28 days ago

Dying won’t do you much good at getting the future you want. There’s a long history of violent anarchists and socialists that killed or died for their beliefs, and none of that violence led to progress.

I think maybe your ego is a little beyond realistic. My life or yours are will make barely more than an infinitesimal difference in the world. But enough slightly above infinitesimal add up. Maybe be the person that made the world very very slightly better rather than the one that died for nothing?

Reform has made huge differences in our lives, from the magna carta to union activity to the civil rights struggle. Things are immensely better than they were in the 1500s, and it was all incremental.

Arkhive , 28 days ago

Honestly you’re right. At least as far as calling out some of the more wild or poorly worded parts of what I said. That being said I never said reform and incremental change hasn’t helped, only that plenty of incredibly important societal changes have come ONLY after extreme conflict. Of course decisions have been made entirely peacefully, but saying humanities progress hasn’t been violent is a gross mischaracterization of our collective history.

As far as dying goes lol. I said willing, not wanting to. I say that because I realize my willingness to participate in the large scale restructuring, that many believe is necessary, could put me at risk. Hell even just existing as a trans person puts me at a lot of risk let alone being politically active. Between my hobbies and living in a car centric society, I have had enough brushes with death to truly not fear it, and that has honestly changed the types of futures I can imagine. Those futures are more radical, and involve more personal risk, but also have even more wonderful outcomes than any involving the slow burn legislation solutions. The current system IS bad for the vast majority of people, on both sides of the isle. If someone feels otherwise they are in an incredibly lucky position.

Tons of the deaths you mentioned in your first lines did lead to change, and I don’t think I need to paste a list of political figures, throughout our history, even just within the last century, that died for a cause that went on to be successful, even leading to precisely the legislation and incremental change you speak of. Hell even just the killing of average citizens can and has sparked massive moments of political dissent and subsequent change, see the BLM movement as an example.

I’m also by no means using this as an excuse to not participate in the political system. My primary point is instead that I want to also take an active part in making meaningful change within my lifetime, ideally even sooner as I would like some time to enjoy said change before becoming old and decrepit. The political system gives myself, and plenty of other people, no hope in seeing that drastic change in our lifetimes.

Additionally, history is written by the winners. Many of the people that died along the way often get conveniently left out in order to make the history the winners write look even better. There is absolutely history of violence in the struggles unions face. There is absolutely history of violence in the civil rights movement. There is absolutely history of violence in the “charter of English liberties granted by King John on…”

In each of these cases the “reform” you mention has taken serious struggle and sacrifice to get people to actually begin to realize something needs to change. From the incredible violence of colonialism the Magna Carta represents, to the blatant police brutality of the civil rights movement, to the numerous violent crackdowns of union workers, all of the “incremental change” you reference, to me, seems so obviously too little too late. If we wanted to avoid violence tell that to the oppressors, not the people defending their existence. In fact each of the things you reference as being moments of reform almost directly follow huge moments of often bloody conflict. That’s like holding up the Treaty of Versailles and saying “look at how peacefully we got this written and signed” while hastily sweeping the carnage leading up to it under the rug.

The adding up of infinitesimal differences you reference rings just as true for direct action as it does for voting. Another person out at a protest is another pair of handcuffs the police need to buy, is another single use taser they need to fire, and in some cases is another magazine of ammunition they need to empty, all to support the fragile egos of the already wealthy and powerful.

To be clear, I would love nothing more than for the cycle of violence to be broken, but as long as the people in power see those that are different from them as a threat and a source of cheap of not free labor, there will be violence. People out on the street, and open discussions about political violence, are a natural response to oppression. It’s the body’s, the people’s, immune system responding to the oppressive force of an illness in the form of fascism, capitalism, and colonialism.

GrappleHat , 29 days ago

There’s no room for centrists on the internet. I seem to only find centrists in real life, face-to-face. I guess we aren’t loud but we’re here.

(Now here come the downvotes…)

FunkyStuff , 29 days ago

Moralists don’t really have beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child’s toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded. Centrism isn’t change – not even incremental change. It is control. Over yourself and the world. Exercise it. Look up at the sky, at the dark shapes of Coalition airships hanging there. Ask yourself: is there something sinister in moralism? And then answer: no. God is in his heaven. Everything is normal on Earth.

Cowbee , 29 days ago

Why are you a centrist? If someone tells you waterfalls flow downward, and someone else tells you waterfalls flow upward, do you synthesize them into saying waterfalls remain perfectly still?

Where does centrism come from, and is it just arbitrary?

GrappleHat , 29 days ago

Lol!!! No, no, no!! My centrism is not arbitrary!! I don’t try to find a “middle ground” where waterfalls go both ways!!! Love the visual though!

I align with the political right on some issues, and the left with others. And in American politics I find the rhetoric & tribalism of both political parties ridiculous - so I can’t identify with either.

Generally I lean left of center, but I can’t go “full left” because I think the left has some blind spots. And liberals do this annoying thing where they seem to be always be falling all over themselves to prove how self-righteous & progressive they are, & they wind up alienating left-leaning people like me as a result.

Cowbee , 29 days ago

Are you referring to liberals as “the left?” I think we are talking about different things here.

GrappleHat , 29 days ago

Perhaps so. I’m in the US where lingo goes that “Democrats” & “Liberals” are “left”, " Republicans" & “Conservatives” are “right”.

Not sure how that translates globally, so apologies if it’s confusing…

Cowbee , 29 days ago

That’s the Overton Window, a peak into a country’s local positions with respect to the median. Generally, however, leftism is associated with Socialism, ie Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, while rightism refers to Capitalism, ie individual ownership of the Means of Production.

With respect to this post, Revolutionary Leftists are entierely Socialists, whether they be Anarchists or Marxists, not Liberals.

On the global scale, you would be considered right-wing, as America in general is a far-right country.

Wes4Humanity , 29 days ago

Democrats=liberals and they aren’t “left”, they are only left of conservatives, and even then, only on social issues. Dems/libs are conservatives when it comes to fiscal/economic stuff. Which is why the true left has no representation in the US when it comes to the economy, and the 2 capitalist conservative parties will never allow them to have any.

MarxMadness , 29 days ago

I align with the political right on some issues, and the left with others.

What are some examples of these issues?

gAlienLifeform , 30 days ago

I already dropped one wall of text on this post, but something you might find interesting - there was a history podcast called Revolutions that looked at revolutionary periods in history, when it wrapped up the host did a whole series of appendix episodes on different recurring themes he saw in the different periods he looked at, and in one of those he talked about how the word “radical” can be hard to define because throughout history there were people who had radical goals they wanted to achieve through moderate means and people who had moderate goals they wanted to achieve through radical means and the inverse of both of those

yewtu.be/watch?v=0nukt_9HmLE&t=2m21s

So yeah, I think it’s helpful to separate out how big a transformation in society you want to see from how far you’re willing to go to get them

CanadaPlus , 30 days ago (edited 30 days ago)

Gatekeeping is dumb. You are what you are, the rest is description.

Also, this is a pretty communist instance, so it’s no wonder you got “lol liberal” responses. Maybe try .world for a wider perspective on a question like this.

Edit: Or another large, politically generic instance, like sh.itjust.works.

Cowbee , 30 days ago (edited 30 days ago)

Gatekeeping is dumb, but so is calling a square a circle.

Secondly, Lemmy.world actually blocks Leftist instances, while Lemmy.ml does not. You see a wider net on Lemmy.ml, Lemmy.world leans right-wing.

Edit: sh.itjust.works has a large fascist problem, it generally leans right wing overall.

CanadaPlus , 30 days ago (edited 24 days ago)

Ah shit, you replied before my edit. Yes, communication is important, but only exists in context. Asking if you’re “validly” X is pure gatekeeping. The question is if “I’m X” makes what you are more or less confusing to whoever you’re talking to. Although, people rarely ask.

Cowbee , 30 days ago

I generally agree, actually, you can see my top level comment. The question is deliberately posed in a leading manner, Purity Testing is nonsense sectarianism.

Still, the bit on .world doesn’t make much sense, .world explicitly blocks Marxist instances.

CanadaPlus , 30 days ago

Yes, sorry, didn’t know.

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

Cowbee , 30 days ago

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

CanadaPlus , 30 days ago

Also TIL!

muad_dibber , 30 days ago

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

CanadaPlus , 30 days ago

TIL, although OP isn’t on one.

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

Duke_Nukem_1990 , 28 days ago

What positions do you hold that make you consider yourself left of center?

Melatonin OP , 28 days ago

Excellent question, but I’ll think about it on my own. I’ve had enough go rounds in this post

comfy , 28 days ago

@Melatonin highlights the problem with using relative terms like ‘left’ and ‘center’ and ‘far’. They’re subjective, and in my opinion, shouldn’t be used.

I don’t know what country or society you’re in. “Left” can often mean anything from centrist liberalism (Democrat Party) to nothing less than socialism (socialists often consider liberalism to be in the center). Then you get literal Fascists (as in, Mussolini and Mosley types, unlike Nazi fascists) who throw a stone in the whole thing: their heritage comes from both the traditional left (namely syndicalism) and the right (ultranationalism), and don’t neatly fit into progressive or regressive (BUF notably gained many women supporters for their pro-suffrage policies, progressive at the time).

One can avoid arguments like in the OP just by learning the proper terms for political views and ideologies. Are you a progressive liberalist? Are you a social democrat? Are you a democratic socialist? (yes unfortunately those two get confusing)

For more information about the political compass and examples of why it’s not a useful tool, I recommend this video.

Melatonin OP , 28 days ago

Thanks, very good reply.

mayo_cider , 29 days ago

It’s not about left or right, it’s about socialism or liberalism

If calling yourself a leftist makes you feel better, feel free to do so, but don’t get angry when people call out your actual position

andyburke , 30 days ago

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

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

The only time violence is justified 8a in self defense or the defense of others. Political change must be achieved through peaceful means if you want the result to have any chance of enduring.

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

Cowbee , 30 days ago (edited 30 days ago)

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

What is the origin of this statement? That people disagree with you, and therefore must be foreign agents? If you go back to the founding of Lemmy, the Marxists and Anarchists were here first. If anything, the influx of Liberals from Reddit can be considered “outside actors.”

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

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

The only time violence is justified 8a in self defense or the defense of others. Political change must be achieved through peaceful means if you want the result to have any chance of enduring.

Revolution is self-defense against failing and violent Capitalism. Leftists don’t support random acts of terror.

Additionally, Political Change has never been meaningfully achieved via peaceful means. Abolition of Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, the overthrow of Tsarism in Russia and fascism in Cuba, all stemmed from violence or the implicit threat of violence.

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

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

muad_dibber , 30 days ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

theshatterstone54 , 29 days ago

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

Cowbee , 29 days ago

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

match , 30 days ago

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

Cowbee , 30 days ago

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

vzq , 30 days ago

If you define “left” as “communist” then obviously no. But out here in the actual world it usually means “anyone more progressive than a Christian Democrat”.

Cowbee , 30 days ago

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

vzq , 30 days ago

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

Cowbee , 30 days ago (edited 30 days ago)

No, Social Democrats have a different method, ie class colaborationism and Reformism, and a different structure, ie Capitalism with welfare, and Imperialism in the Nordic Countries’ cases.

vzq , 30 days ago

Ah yes, the imperialist Nordic social democrats.

What are you on about exactly?

ZeroHora , 30 days ago

As a citzen in a social democracy in Latin America: This shit only truly worked in countries with a long history of exploitation of their colonies.

vzq , 30 days ago

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

It’s in many regards an expression of privilege.

Cowbee , 30 days ago

The Nordic Countries rely on Imperialism, ie the export of industrial and financial Capital to the Global South to super-exploit the proletariat of intentionally underdeveloped countries for super-profits via paying far less for their labor power.

Why is it that it is cheaper to produce in the Global South? Because wages are lower, yet you can sell for a higher price, and therefore exploit at a higher rate from the international proletariat.

Are you familiar in any way with Marxist theory?

vzq , 30 days ago

Yes of course. It’s basically what the global economy has been like for fucking forever. It seems weird to single out the Nordic social democrats for this though.

What are you trying to get at here?

Cowbee , 30 days ago

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

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

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

The Nordic Countries, ie the scandinavian model, depends on Imperialism and makes no move against this. If a Capitalist, developed country moves towards Social Democracy, they will do nothing to change this Imperialism.

What are you trying to get at here?

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

muad_dibber , 30 days ago

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

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

flamingo_pinyata , 30 days ago

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”