this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
69 points (78.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43755 readers
1266 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 15 points 3 months ago (4 children)

You can be validly left without wanting revolution, as long as you're ok with progress happening over the course of centuries (in a world that has about 25 years left before the majority of us are dead from man-made climate change).

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (10 children)

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).

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 12 points 3 months ago

No way.

Anyone who calls for collapse or revolution is playing out a survivor fantasy where they hope they (and their ideology) will come out on top.

[–] memfree@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] lorty@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is off topic but is there something wrong with the hexbear client or is everyone here just making individual comments at each other instead of replying?

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Which client are you using?

[–] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 12 points 3 months ago

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

[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Someone on here told me earlier I wasn't left enough when I posted a Karl Marx quote lol

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 months ago

Oof. That's a tough audience.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (19 children)

Lemmy has this weird point of view, if you aren't extreme left then you are not left at all. I've seen people make comments like "just be honest you aren't a liberal ".

They want to move the bar so they don't have to claim they are extremist. I wouldn't worry about it.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago

Lemmy has this weird point of view, if you aren't extreme left then you are not left at all. I've seen people make comments like "just be honest you aren't a liberal ".

Generally, the non-Marxists and non-Anarchists on Lemmy are absolutely liberals.

They want to move the bar so they don't have to claim they are extremist. I wouldn't worry about it.

I don't think Leftists here care about being labeled an extremist or not, the point is to pursuade more people to become Marxists or Anarchists by actually talking about their views openly.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (6 children)

If wanting equality for all people is extremist, then I’m an extremist.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

Unsurprisingly, people define words in many different ways. What's your definition? We can't tell you how you should be categorized until you tell us what you think the words mean.

And I don't mean that in a snarky way. For example, some people use the words liberal and leftist synonymously. Many other people don't. And there are many other similar examples involving any kind of political terminology. It really does come down to a question of definitions, which is why it's so easy to have miscommunication on political issues, on top of the fact that people have varying opinions on the issues themselves.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

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

load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί