Asklemmy

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.

Change never comes without a fight. In the shadows, blood is spilled, and it will continue to flow. Today, it's not yours, but tomorrow it might be. Some saw the suffering of others and chose to sacrifice, so others wouldn't have to. At least be thankful for their sacrifice.

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.

Question: do you consider yourself a liberal?

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).

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.

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???

Here's an excellent overview on why pacifism doesn't work, and has never worked.

Red Phoenix - Pacifism - How to do the enemy's job for them. Youtube Audiobook

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

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).

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.

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.

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