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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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

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