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.

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.

If all those people disagree with you, what kinds of people do you imagine would say yes? Nancy Pelosi? Chelsea Clinton?

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.

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.

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

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."

Check where the users are from, you're going to get much more "atypical" not going to get kind responses 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.

Slavery, Decolonization, worker rights, women rights, black people rights, "Put any word here" rights,etc..

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%27%C3%A9tat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_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?

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.

This is everyone's take here.

Liberals have never been leftists.

This isn't really a new thing. You can read about leftists a hundred years ago denouncing liberalism.

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.

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.

making sure everyone is okay.

Given the current state of the world, that would be progress.

Well it doesn't necessarily matter anymore because your reply fixed it lol

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.

True. But big ships turn slowly.

And the US is one hell of a big ship.

Nothing extremist about wanting equality

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

TIL, although OP isn't on one.

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

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

Why do slash and burn farmers always have to compromise with ecologists, but ecologists never have to compromise with slash and burn farmers?

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.

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.”

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

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

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

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