Skip Navigation
Asklemmy @lemmy.ml
Melatonin @lemmy.dbzer0.com

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.

168 comments

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • I liked the (long) piece over here: https://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.

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

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

    THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.

    So... Why are you asking questions about what 'left' means if you don't want answers from the left???

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

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

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

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

    Those seem like two different things to me.

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

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

    THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN'T MEANT FOR YOU.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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 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

    https://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

  • 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....)

    • 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?

      • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    • 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.

    • “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.

  • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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

168 comments