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.
You're viewing a single thread.
249 comments
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: