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.
TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY
THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.
It takes either a complete lack of self-awareness or a simply incredible amount of gall to ask a yes-no question and then tell all the people most likely to answer one way to zip it. You might as well have just written “la-la-la-la I can’t heaaaar yoooou”
You misunderstand me. It’s simply that it’s a GIVEN that those people would advocate violence. There isn’t any need for them to respond. Their position is known.
It’s like as if I asked if it’s okay to charge over 20% interest on a loan. And all the credit card executives and buy here pay here owners and loan sharks started saying YEAH OF COURSE IT IS!
I kind of already knew where they stood. It’s the same with you.
deleted by creator
Yep, I have no interest at all in living under a communist dictatorship. If see you’ve seen another kind of communism, please let me know what it is. I’d love to be informed about it.
Maybe a lot more violence needs to take place before it works right.
deleted by creator
Yep, I have no interest at all in living under a communist dictatorship. If see you’ve seen another kind of communism, please let me know what it is. I’d love to be informed about it.
PRC, Cuba, USSR, Vietnam, etc. are good examples of societies that were organized along Communist lines, and came with drastic reductions in Poverty and drastic increases in life expectancy and freedom as opposed to previous conditions.
Maybe a lot more violence needs to take place before it works right.
What do you mean?
Yeah yeah, continue to spout your anti-communist propaganda. You already live in a dictatorship, you’re just to propagandized to realize it.
The only dictatorship we want is that of the proletariat, as opposed to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. That is, a true popular democracy.
Maybe listen to what other people have to say and go read communist theory before saying anything you don’t know about.
As it stands your position is not left in any stretch of the imagination.
I’d love to be informed about it.
that is a blatant lie. this entire thread is a monument to your willful ignorance.
The fact that you think communists advocate for violence for its own sake (because you think we’re all bloodthirsty or something), tells us you have no idea what communists views are.
This is an opportunity for you to learn from others, not close your ears because you’ve been inundated with a lifetime of anti-communist propaganda.
You’re asking leftists, the vast majority of which are Revolutionary. Only listening to a minority of Leftists for their opinion and ignoring the majority only gives you an incomplete and biased view.
If all those people disagree with you, what kinds of people do you imagine would say yes? Nancy Pelosi? Chelsea Clinton?
Well believe it or not, communists and anarchists are a fairly small minority of the group that would be “the left” if you call the other guys “the right.”
I expect it’s more than two people I could hear from…🙄
Anyway this post sort of answered the question. The violent talk is coming from socialists, communists, and anarchists here on Lemmy, which have a very unified voice and shout down opposition.
Although I’m sure if they had anything they had to actually run (like a country) they’d be an absolute horror show of fighting, arguing, and bloodbathing each other until they got to the point where the strongest survived and could impose their vision of utopia on the masses.
Although I’m sure if they had anything they had to actually run (like a country) they’d be an absolute horror show of fighting, arguing, and bloodbathing each other until they got to the point where the strongest survived and could impose their vision of utopia on the masses.
Meanwhile in the west AOC and Bernie groveled at the feet of the democratic party by endorsing Biden’s genocidal regime and all they got in return was Biden announcing a plan to cap rent increases at 5%, which can only go through if they win the next election… against a fascist candidate who is far ahead of Biden in almost every swing state.
See why we want revolution?
What? What other groups make up the left then? Do they wield political power? Have they ever gotten to wield political power? Because the only left that has ever gotten to wield political power and use it to liberate the working people from capitalist oppression are the ones who were willing to pick up a gun and fight.
shout down opposition
This is a text forum, you can post or comment as much as you like. People chiming in with similar opinions =/= “shouting down opposition.”
Do you think the Left/Right divide is determined by the absolute median position, or is it determined by actual views, ie a general support for Socialism vs a general support for Capitalism?
Although I’m sure if they had anything they had to actually run (like a country) they’d be an absolute horror show of fighting, arguing, and bloodbathing each other until they got to the point where the strongest survived and could impose their vision of utopia on the masses.
Historically false for pretty much every AES country.
We’re not advocating violence. Your premise is wrong.
But we know our adversaries commonly use violence, so we’re aware it exists, and we know we have to prepare for it.
Are colonialist governments not violent? How do you remove from office a government that commits violence against their people, en masse, to destroy their land with mining operations?
Concrete example: how would the Congolese vote the French out, when anyone organising peacefully against the French is assassinated?
The point is not violence. But it would be naive to ignore the violence of our adversaries.
if you agree with the aims of revolutionaries (a more just society) but disagree with their methods (violent revolution) then you need to prove your method is at least as effective as theirs
thus far, no such evidence exists. all societal progress has come at the expense of bloodshed. perhaps you’ll be the one to change that, but i very sincerely doubt it.
so to answer your question, yes.
I make one “sort of” exception for Czechoslovakia. I regard it as the only time a country became socialist by voting on it, but they had to do a coup with the implicit threat of violence to enforce the new government. The communists won a plurality in 1946 and had a coalition government. Fearing that they’d lose power, they began stacking the cops and courts with ideological communists. This fear turned out to be true after the liberal parties kept doing sneaky tactics to undermine the socialists. So in 1948 the communists had a coup to consolidate power and ally with the USSR.
And I know this wasn’t “bloodless” or “civil” since this all happened in the shadow of WW2.
excellent historical context comrade. :3
they had to do a coup with the implicit threat of violence to enforce the new government
OP would do well to pay attention to this bit in particular as (a version of) this basic framework is also how civil rights groups like the suffragettes and the err civil rights movement progressed their struggles. MLK et al were able to be nonviolent because the implicit threat of more radical black nationalist groups existed. without the backing of force nonviolent protest is easy to ignore by those in power, as we’ve seen with every left-leaning protest movement since the collapse of the USSR
Edit: TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY
THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.
You’re asking why radical leftists reject your reformism. Who other than radical leftists are going to give you an actual answer instead of a pat on the back?
Anyway the answer is liberalism is far more violent, it just exports the violence overseas and commits it at an industrialised level. The infamous “Terror” in France only killed a few thousand people - the Iraq war killed over a million. While millions were killed in the cultural revolution, hundreds of millions were killed by the British Raj. Revolutionary violence is in fact far less violent than regular capitalism, so you’re hated for supporting its continuation.
…I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
That’s where you are right now. You can hopefully do better if you challenge yourself, but I wouldn’t consider you anything different from the most milquetoast liberal hiding behind rhetorical civility while you support the violence of the state. Your progressive politics are at best redistributing the loot of that violence while perpetuating the system causing it, either out of cowardice or malice or apathy. All of them would make you the same judas goat for the imperial slaughterhouse.
Are you actually USING Dr. Martin Luther King Jr as an ADVOCATE FOR VIOLENCE?
You just crossed over into crazy town.
dr. king is specifically calling you and yours out here, liberal. you’d do well to listen.
On second thought, this is as good as you get. I’d just give up.
I think perhaps you should read more of what Dr. King actually advocated for and said. He didn’t endorse violence, but he didn’t condemn it either. He typically didn’t come from it from this moralizing angle either, most of his emphasis was his belief that violence was first and foremost a poor tactic, but at the same time he understood why violence happens. You’ve probably heard his 1967 statement “a riot is the language of the unheard.”
We should also be wary here tho, MLK did advocate for pacifism for all but the last few months of his life, and he received many a well-deserved roasting from revolutionaries like Malcolm X, and Kwame Ture.
Everyone should especially listen to Malcolm X - Message to the grassroots for a thorough critique of King’s nonviolent advocacy, and him being a sellout to petty-bourgeois white liberals for most of his career.
MLK did advocate for pacifism for all but the last few months of his life
I mean this is sort of reframed with the context that he was assassinated for making that turn away from pacifism. I’m not saying that it was the wrong decision even given the hindsight we have now, but it does recontextualize it.
Check where the users are from, you’re going to get much more “atypical”
not going to get kindresponses from hexbears, “we” are quite literally their enemies. “We” are the “white moderates” seeking to maintain stability instead of shedding blood to overthrow the entire developed world. (It’s more than just “amerikkka” out there)Excuse us individuals for feeling entirely helpless when it comes to changing the entire capitalist world.
Hexbear is kind, just with a 0 tolerance policy for liberalism and defenders of liberalism. Maintaining Capitalism without working to replace it does shed blood regardless. “Stability” is maintenance of an inherently violent Status Quo, which is exactly what Dr. King was calling out.
Excuse us individuals for feeling entirely helpless when it comes to changing the entire capitalist world.
I think this is just a misunderstanding of Revolutionary Theory, really. Nobody is advocating for random acts of terror.
True, kind was the wrong word to use. I’ve posted comments in their threads without realizing and got decent replies, they just absolutely hate “us libs”
As a hater of liberalism myself, it’s nice to see people hating it. I think you should participate in more apolitical Hexbear threads, they are probably the kindest overall instance IMO. Might open your eyes into seeing why liberalism is so hated by people who can be extremely tender and caring.
Have you engaged with Leftist theory on your own, before, or just through the eyes of others you’ve interacted with? Might help things make more sense.
I honestly didn’t notice the .ml until now, but I’ve recognized your name around as well and aren’t very abrasive with people either. It’s just the constant “(insert violent ideas) to libs!” and not exactly being a full fledged leftist myself, I can’t help but feel loathed by them especially when you get replies saying you’re “the worst kind of person ever” etc…
As for the theory, it’s been a very very long time so I’m sure I’m overdue to refresh my memory. I don’t remember my specific issues with what I read, but I just know I wasn’t convinced lol
I honestly didn’t notice the .ml until now, but I’ve recognized your name around as well and aren’t very abrasive with people either.
Different people have different strategies for engaging with people. Many older Anarchists and Marxists have become more jaded with Liberals and supporters of Liberalism, as they have had to support their own views countless times. I myself have found that every once in a while I can make people reconsider their positions, and that makes it more worth it to me. I don’t fault the abrasiveness of more jaded Comrades.
It’s just the constant “(insert violent ideas) to libs!” and not exactly being a full fledged leftist myself, I can’t help but feel loathed by them especially when you get replies saying you’re “the worst kind of person ever” etc…
Radicals tend to feel very strongly about their views, depending on what you have said I can see extreme pushback. That’s why I suggest engaging with Leftist communities like Hexbear through their less-political communities, like !Games@Hexbear.net if you play video games.
As for the theory, it’s been a very very long time so I’m sure I’m overdue to refresh my memory. I don’t remember my specific issues with what I read, but I just know I wasn’t convinced lol
Let’s start with what you have engaged with, maybe that would be more productive. I can make general recommendations, but if you have specific works you disagreed with then it might help guide recommendations or discussion.
The leftist frustration with liberals comes from statements like this:
maintain stability instead of shedding blood
You cannot maintain the stability of capitalism without shedding blood. There is no option where no one gets hurt; violence is baked in to the status quo. How best to reduce the amount of violence in society is another question, but the false dichotomy of stability vs. violence is the root of the disconnect here.
If capitalism itself has been identified as the root of the problem, what other solution is there except overthrowing it completely? Do you prefer applying temporary bandaids indefinitely?
My comment wasn’t so much endorsing it’s continued existence, but more exasperation as the thought of an individual having any impact on pretty much the entire world is quite the stretch.
We can learn as much as we like about the alternatives, but making it happen requires action by many many many many people. We can’t even get “libs” in the US to come together on some of the “simplest” shit let alone getting enough people to change the global economic system that gives such mind boggling power to the ultra wealthy.
My comment wasn’t so much endorsing it’s continued existence, but more exasperation as the thought of an individual having any impact on pretty much the entire world is quite the stretch.
Leftists discourage individual acts as Adventurism. The core through-line of Leftist thought is Mass Action, with differences on how to structure this.
We can learn as much as we like about the alternatives, but making it happen requires action by many many many many people. We can’t even get “libs” in the US to come together on some of the “simplest” shit let alone getting enough people to change the global economic system that gives such mind boggling power to the ultra wealthy.
Both Anarchists and Marxists have ideas on how to have this happen, but they mostly boil down to advocacy for organizing and building Dual Power. You may wish to read The State and Revolution if you want to delve into a thorough theoretical text by a Marxist, but it may not make as much sense if you do not already have familiarity with Marxism in general.
Whoa there lil guy. Dogs don’t speak. You bark.
Change never comes without a fight. In the shadows, blood is spilled, and it will continue to flow. Today, it’s not yours, but tomorrow it might be. Some saw the suffering of others and chose to sacrifice, so others wouldn’t have to. At least be thankful for their sacrifice.
What “change” are we taking about here?
Slavery, Decolonization, worker rights, women rights, black people rights, “Put any word here” rights,etc…
Many of those have been accomplished by protests, that led to changes in law, that led to changes in society. Some by war, yes.
None by revolution, that I’m aware of. None by anarchy, that I’m aware of. In most cases revolution seems to throw things the other way, back into slavery, back into repression.
This is ahistorical, really. Revolution has historically happened in progressive movements beyond brutal previous conditions, whether it be the Haitian Slave Revolt, the French overthrow of the Monarchy, the Russian overthrow of the brutal Tsarist regime, the Cuban revolt against slavery and fascism, and more.
I think you would do well for yourself by studying history of revolutionary movements.
So you’re telling me none of those lead to more brutal oppression than before?
If you just want to limit it to Haiti, Cuba, and the USSR, then yes each of those revolutions led to a vastly more humane society than the previous one. It also depends on who you’re asking. Tsar Nicholas II certainly didn’t see the Soviet Union as an improvement. Cuban plantation owners with dozens of slaves didn’t see socialism as an improvement. There are winners and losers in history, the losing side usually isn’t going to be pleased.
And who loses in a revolution? In a successful socialist revolution it’s the capitalist class, colonizers, slavers, the previous bureaucracy, regional landlords. The USSR went from a backwater literal peasant kingdom to a space faring modern country within a single generation, despite a famine and despite the brutal loss of life in WW2. It’s very easy to say the country that sends women to school to become nuclear engineers is not as brutally oppressive as the country with a monarch that forcefully sends women to become nuns. How do you determine oppression? Go look at things like literacy, child mortality, education, home ownership, access to clean water, and what kind of occupations women have. By those metrics, socialist revolutions typically and vastly reduce oppression.
Some have, yes, but of the ones I listed, absolutely not.
Revolution isn’t an action, it’s a consequence of failing and unsustainable conditions. You don’t do a Revolution, it happens and you can participate in it.
I think you are vastly underestimating the horrors of most pre-revolutionary societies, and probably also overestimating what you describe as oppression in post-revoltionary governments.
On the first point, here’s an excerpt from a JFK speech where he describes pre-revolution Cuba:
The third, and perhaps most disastrous of our failures, was the decision to give stature and support to one of the most bloody and repressive dictatorships in the long history of Latin American repression. Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years - a greater proportion of the Cuban population than the proportion of Americans who died in both World Wars, and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state - destroying every individual liberty.
And JFK was no friend of Castro; he greenlit the Bay of Pigs invasion! Revolutions are born from the most brutal forms of exploitation and violence. Not even the wildest anticommunist propaganda about post-revolution Cuba comes close to the reality of what the revolution replaced.
Ye think slavery, worker rights, and decolonization was done merely by protests and by the mere will of liberalism?
deleted by creator
This is historically completely false. I challenge you to find a single historical case where a ruling class has given up their power and wealth without violence or the threat of violence.
Meanwhile I recommend you read the links we’ve given you.
♫ They say in Harlan County, there are no neutrals there: you’ll either be a union man or a thug for J. H. Blair — Which side are you on, which side are you on? ♫
yeah you’re never going to improve as a person. just vote blue no matter who and try not to think about all the violence your empire requires to maintain itself.
Undialectical take, people are constantly changing. Now it may take a lot of quantitative changes for the qualitative affect of not having their head in their ass to come about given how far in there it is, but…
you’re absolutely right but some people just cry out for bullying
What client is that?
connect for lemmy!
O COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY
THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.
lmao so liberals only then.
Yeah lol just validate my clearly very questionable view, you’re only allowed in this thread if you agree with me!
Our current society is based on violence and requires a great deal of it to establish and sustain itself. Are you bothered by this violence?
I think the first question should be what OP considers “violence”. The disagreement start there.
What? Where is this from?
Completely unbothered.
One of the historically proven and least abstract forms of capitalist violence comes in the inability of any society to opt-out of capitalism–to legislate in opposition to the class interests of capital (the common interests of capitalists not shared by the general public)–even to minor extents.
Even within capitalism, decisions must be made, typically by the state, about who is responsible for property damage and personal afflictions. Capitalism means the private ownership of capital, the funding and property that comprises productive enterprise. Because these enterprises are privately owned, their goals are to a greater or lesser extent divorced from the public good; therefore, it is often in the interest of capital to externalize their costs of doing business–to avoid taking responsibility for the costly circumstances they have caused. Contrariwise, it is in the public interest (championed in theory by the state) to force capital to internalize those costs against their will to externalize.
For example, it was in BP’s interest to minimize the appearance of damaged caused by Deepwater Horizon (e.g. spraying dispersants) and thereby minimize their obligations, while it was in the public’s interest to assess the damages thoroughly and liberally.
When a state decides that certain businesses are causing irreparable harm or have acquired their capital illegitimately, by the same right by which externalities are opposed, the state may expropriate or nationalize a formerly private enterprise. However, history furnishes countless examples of democratic nations attempting to take such action, only to have capital directly solicit the state, some subset of the state (such as the military), other states, or peripheral forces to use violence to extinguish such democratic efforts.
Some famous examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'état
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Coup_d'état_of_1953
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d’%C3%A9tat
Thus, even without reference to the minute-by-minute exploitation of the products of workers’ labor that comprises the most ubiquitous violence of the capitalist mode of production, we have incontrovertible historical proof that the apparent voluntarism of people in capitalism is the voluntarism of slaves choosing to comply rather than suffer violent retribution. In a sense, open revolt would be less violent than peaceful acquiescence because the former is not compelled by hopeless domination.
It is not difficult to add a theoretical basis to the historical evidence. Insofar as it has a single purpose, capital has an unambiguous interest in every state of affairs and every possible outcome. In this way, capital has a subjectivity, an ego, independent of the good of any particular person or group of people. Everything that happens either augments the value of capital, diminishes it, or leaves it unchanged. According to this judgement, capital stands in favor, opposed, or indifferent (respectively) to everything in existence. If the state intends to impose regulation that will cost $X, it is in the interest of any regulated capital to spend up to $X to eliminate that regulation–regardless of the good the regulation might do for society as a whole, including the individuals involved in the operations of the business itself. Such individuals are not free to follow their own judgement, but must always act in the interest of their employer capital or else be replaced by someone who will. If in the extreme case, the state is determined to eliminate a capital, the capital has no choice but to deploy all its resources to oppose that end. In the presence of large businesses (or unions of businesses such as a Chamber of Commerce) with the resources to oppose any existing regulatory agent, this dynamic imposes strict limits on freedom of people to self-govern. The mere presence of capital as capital is enough to guarantee violence if certain norms of political life are violated.
Because businesses are often dedicated to facilitating cultural practices, rather than strictly utilitarian productivity, capital can be a powerfully conservative force in every domain of life.
Alternatively - Have a quote
“There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.” - Marky Twink
Which part?
Not talking to you but sentence #1
Capitalism is an inherently exploitative system, and only exists because the State enshrines Private Property Rights. Policing in general serves the status quo, which in current society is Capitalist.
Additionally, Communists and Anarchists are regularly murdered by the state, typically internationally, to destabilize this system and maintain corporate profits via super-exploitation.
And what is the future society you propose that is not based on violence, and how are they keeping bad actors from destroying the system that exists afterwards… after capitalism?
I don’t know why you think we’re proposing a society without violence. We’re proposing a society where the working class wields the violence against the capitalist class until the capitalist class ceases to exist. We don’t like when violence happens to us and people in the same position as us. And if gaining more control over our own lives involves violence against the capitalist class, then that’s what it takes.
I genuinely couldn’t give a shit about a capitalist’s supposed civil rights, and I take John Brown’s advice for how to treat racists.
Socialism is not an inherently exploitative system, it’s a democratization in the hands of the Workers. Socialism would also not necessitate Imperialism, ie exporting Capital and intentionally underdeveloping countries for cheap foreign labor, which is the modern extreme form of Capitalism.
Policing would be necessary, but rather than existing to maintain classist society, it would exist to maintain classless society.
There’s lots of books on the subject, if you want beginner recommendations I can let you know.
I know this is just a forum and the libs are always confused by nuance, but exploitation does occur in socialist countries, just in a vastly different character and at a much smaller scale. Cuba for instance does have private land owners who employee workers, and China of course has various large corporations.
However these are symptoms of the positions the nations find themselves within. Socialist nations tend to find themselves in the middle of capitalist encirclement. Until the last capitalist is extinguished, class based exploitation will continue to exist.
This is gone over in the most basic Marxist works, especially Engels - socialism utopian and scientific, and Lenin’s state and revolution. Here’s a good overview of it.
You are to the right of communists, who will not consider you “validly left” unless your ideology is anti-capitalist at a bare minimum. We consider capitalism to be the greatest cause of violence in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Alternately, you are to the left of fascists, who would consider you “validly left” as they rounded you up for the camps. Validity is all relative.
On another note, I think you massively misunderstand the difference between calls for revolutionary leftist violence and random people cheering on Trump getting shot, for example.
Do you wish to stop capitalism? Do you think the bourgeoisie will willingly give up their cushy lives and positions of power?
No?
If that’s “no” to the first part, you’re simply not a leftist. If that’s “no” to the second part, welcome to team violence.
If someone lives like a king, but directly because their wealth is earned by the suffering and death of thousands, is it not morally just to stop them? At what point is the life of one billionaire worth more than the life of the, say, five hundred children that starved to death because of that billionaire? Is the system of economics that results in that not utterly reprehensible?
We want capitalism to stop killing people. It cannot stop killing people. So we must dismantle capitalism. But the bourgeoisie will defend, violently, the perpetuation of capitalism. Thus, they are taking on a direct moral responsibility for the deaths capitalism causes.
Revolution is only violent because capitalists wield violence to brutally suppress even peaceful protests, and we must respond in kind to defend ourselves. The violence of self-defense is not the same as the violence of oppressors. If the capitalists saw peaceful protests and willingly put their fortunes aside and returned their means of production to common ownership, there would be no need for revolution. But in all history of this struggle they’ve chosen instead to maim and murder protestors.
As a snapshot, Food Not Bombs are an anarchist group who do nothing but give food to the unhoused. Police will arrest every FNB member to stop them, when what they’re doing is literally just feeding the poor. But if FNB members carry firearms, police leave them alone, and the unhoused receive food.
Hey OP. Please look up the “Stonewall riots”.
Directly fighting against the forces that are making & enforcing laws that can & will do harm is the right thing to do. If the people in power / enforcing unfair practices see they are unopposed, they will become stronger in their positions. Complacency allows imbalance.
Will I break windows for Gaza? No. I will not. Who will that help? Who am I fighting? That kind of thing is nonsense.
Will I fight police that are attacking students for protesting? YES. YES I WILL. Because if you fight back, they will understand that you will not allow yourself to be walked all over by unjust enforcement. They will think twice about attacking students next time, because they know people are willing to fight back. If they do not encounter opposition, they know they are safe to do whatever they want.
In short: once a bully realizes that you will hit back, they are less inclined to bully you. Even more so if you are backed up by more people who also hate the bully.
EDIT: To be fair, I don’t hope for “collapse”. However, I do understand why people do. The corrupt system goes so deep that collapse may be the only way to dismantle it, as it is beyond any kind of reform.
Do I want collapse? No. But, unfortunately, it may be necessary. The system cannot be fixed without being dismantled, and I’m not optimistic that we will experience a miracle.
Good sane take, to my understanding
This is everyone’s take here.
I think it’s all about how it’s said. The simpler, the better. Phrasing is important, too.
TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY
THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.
Ok boomer.
Question: do you consider yourself a liberal?
Yes?
Liberals have never been leftists.
This isn’t really a new thing. You can read about leftists a hundred years ago denouncing liberalism.
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
No socialist uses “liberal” when they mean socialist. Isn’t that interesting?
Yeah, say what you will about free market acolytes, they know how to jump on to a successful brand
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.
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.
Liberals merely became less racist and less sexist, not much else has changed.
Definitely not less ableist tho…
Not a liberal.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Yes, but OP is deliberately asking Leftists on a platform built and maintained by Communists, not the general American public.
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.
What don’t you understand? Liberalism is a Capitalist ideology, ergo it is right wing. Socialists, Anarchists, Communists, etc. would be left wing.
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)
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.
Yes and no. The answer isn’t straightforward, so let’s unpack it. Primarily, the qualifier “validly” needs investigation.
What is “validity” when it comes to political positions? Is validity a measure of correctness? Is validity a measure of intention?
If validity is a measure of correctness, then yes, you must be revolutionary if you are a Marxist or Anarchist, the two dominant trains of Leftist thought. Fringe positions like Social Reformists exist, though they have never been successful in achieving anything that can be considered long term leftward progress.
If validity is a measure of intention, then no. Not every progressive-minded person has done thorough research into leftist history, theory, and practice. Progressives can have an idea of what end result they want, without yet putting in the work to understand how to get there.
In the body of your text, there are loaded statements. To be Revolutionary isn’t to “celebrate violence,” or believe “by any means necessary.” Revolutionaries do not oppose Reformism, but believe it a lost cause. For a US-centric example, Reformism would be possible if PSL, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, could win elections consistently, but they cannot because of the two-party duopoly, created by Capitalist investment.
By and large, whether someone is a Revolutionary or Reformist doesn’t come down to purity, but knowledge and positions.
I should have just stuck with Democrat, and gotten rid of the whole idea of leftist and liberal.
You can, if you want. If you generally agree with the DNC, labeling yourself a Democrat is a useful label to quickly get your views across. You wouldn’t be a Leftist, since the goals and views of the DNC are a maintaining of the Capitalist status quo, but you would be a Liberal, if you want a non-party label to use instead.
I do think familiarizing yourself with Leftist theory would help you make sense of where Leftists are coming from.
Becoming familiar with other ideas is beneficial. There is nothing wrong with being a Democrat, Social Democrat or Libertarian. Real people hold these political ideas. My transition over years was Democrat since I opposed hawkish Republican imperialism, but I rejected corporate power, so Social Democrat, but I rejected hierarchical power, so Anarchist. Through reading I know Pacifism meshes with any of these ideas. I have never been a Pacifist, but I applaud anyone that takes the time to explore politics even if we do not agree.
Being able to have conversations with people around you is important. Reading theory from other politics helps. Most people around me consider themselves conservative. They say talking points like “I’m for small government”. Having read Libertarian texts like Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia”, I can discuss the minimal state as a Libertarian idea. I can then transition to “Nozick’s minimal state is not small enough”. In my area this approach opens conversation more than banging a drum about being a Democrat, Leftist, Communist or Anarchist.
Here’s an excellent overview on why pacifism doesn’t work, and has never worked.
Red Phoenix - Pacifism - How to do the enemy’s job for them. Youtube Audiobook
