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.

  • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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).

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          So essentially, you’re a Revolutionary Leftist just like the rest of us, but with more finger-wagging, rather than understanding that Revolutionary theory doesn’t mean “pick up a rock and go sicko mode.”

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I absolutely do understand that. However, I frequently encounter those who are less cognizant of it (or are just wreckers) that chomp at the bit for violence and make room for no other ways. I’m absolutely a Revolutionary Leftist with allegiance to humanity, not economic or political system, but, context matters and OP was not speaking with the same nomenclature.

      • AccountMaker@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          On board with this being consistent so far, building up parallel structures and dual-power is a core aspect of Revolutionary Leftist Theory. I do expect Capitalists to crack down on this though, to protect their interests. This happened to Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party.

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

          Not really in line with this, seems like an odd direction, unless you’re describing Worker Councils. I still expect Capitalists to stomp this out unless Leftists fight back.

          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.

          So this is just Revolutionary theory, but with the added “no violence though” bit. The problem is that this situation would result in violence, and historically has, for all comparable events.

          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.

          We would benefit, you’re describing some form of Revolutionary Theory with the hope that Capitalists lay down and accept their crumbling influence.

          • AccountMaker@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I should clarify what I meant by “no violence”. I meant that, in the ideal scenario, communities build themselves up so that capitalists become less and less relevant, without exacting violence upon them. Of course, in the event that these communities get attacked by those same capitalists, defence is very reasonable.

            The thing is when you tell people that we need a revolution, most picture storming various places, seizing assets and beating up some people in the process, which I think makes a lot of them distance themselves. Presenting a program which focuses on a peaceful development of society is I think much easier to get on board with.

            There’s a low to zero chance that any transition away from capitalism will be peaceful and without resistance, but I think it would be better to tell people that the we want to work towards creating a normal life, and we will encounter violent resistence along the way, than to focus on revolutions and overthrowing the ruling class. The end goal is pretty much the same, and the process might inevitably involve the same things, but the former is I think more palatable to most.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              I should clarify what I meant by “no violence”. I meant that, in the ideal scenario, communities build themselves up so that capitalists become less and less relevant, without exacting violence upon them. Of course, in the event that these communities get attacked by those same capitalists, defence is very reasonable.

              This is standard Revolutionary Theory, for the most part.

              The thing is when you tell people that we need a revolution, most picture storming various places, seizing assets and beating up some people in the process, which I think makes a lot of them distance themselves. Presenting a program which focuses on a peaceful development of society is I think much easier to get on board with.

              The thing is, that’s not what Revolutionary Theory entails. Revolution is a consequence, not an action. Building up parallel structures and dual power allows Leftists to help steer the Revolution when it happens.

              There’s a low to zero chance that any transition away from capitalism will be peaceful and without resistance, but I think it would be better to tell people that the we want to work towards creating a normal life, and we will encounter violent resistence along the way, than to focus on revolutions and overthrowing the ruling class. The end goal is pretty much the same, and the process might inevitably involve the same things, but the former is I think more palatable to most.

              The difference here is that you’ve engaged in sectarianism and threw Revolutionary Leftists under the bus, only to espouse much of the same rhetoric. I do believe that you would be better off coalition-building with other Leftists and trying to better explain Revolutionary Theory to those not yet familiar, as the biggest tool of Leftists is organizing.

        • save_the_humans@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          You’ve basically just described the cooperative movement. Food, worker, housing, producer co-ops. We need people to start co-ops and for policy to help nurture its growth.

          How do we make that happen though? I don’t really know. I like to imagine we need one person to run for president with this as their platform on the democratic ticket just to get the message across. Similar to how Andrew Yang brought universal basic income into the conversation.

          Some kind of uniting catalyst for a non violent transition away from capitalism that people can agree with and isn’t just ‘socialism’. Cooperative enterprises though are a stateless form of socialism, so no central planning or big government to tell us what to do. Seems like something that could potentially unite both the left and right if done right.

    • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.