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.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        5 months ago

        Capitalism is an inherently exploitative system, and only exists because the State enshrines Private Property Rights. Policing in general serves the status quo, which in current society is Capitalist.

        Additionally, Communists and Anarchists are regularly murdered by the state, typically internationally, to destabilize this system and maintain corporate profits via super-exploitation.

        • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          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?

          • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            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.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            5 months ago

            Socialism is not an inherently exploitative system, it’s a democratization in the hands of the Workers. Socialism would also not necessitate Imperialism, ie exporting Capital and intentionally underdeveloping countries for cheap foreign labor, which is the modern extreme form of Capitalism.

            Policing would be necessary, but rather than existing to maintain classist society, it would exist to maintain classless society.

            There’s lots of books on the subject, if you want beginner recommendations I can let you know.

            • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              ·
              5 months ago

              I know this is just a forum and the libs are always confused by nuance, but exploitation does occur in socialist countries, just in a vastly different character and at a much smaller scale. Cuba for instance does have private land owners who employee workers, and China of course has various large corporations.

              However these are symptoms of the positions the nations find themselves within. Socialist nations tend to find themselves in the middle of capitalist encirclement. Until the last capitalist is extinguished, class based exploitation will continue to exist.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                5 months ago

                100% agreed, Socialism is a process that of course will contain leftover remnants from previous society, Communism is the path to eliminating and resolving these contradictions. I was merely trying to be as simplistic and easily digestible as possible for OP.