Asklemmy

43896 readers

959 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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

Open-ended question
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.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

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. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

250 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 45 points 4 months ago (1 children)

if you agree with the aims of revolutionaries (a more just society) but disagree with their methods (violent revolution) then you need to prove your method is at least as effective as theirs

thus far, no such evidence exists. all societal progress has come at the expense of bloodshed. perhaps you'll be the one to change that, but i very sincerely doubt it.

so to answer your question, yes.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I make one "sort of" exception for Czechoslovakia. I regard it as the only time a country became socialist by voting on it, but they had to do a coup with the implicit threat of violence to enforce the new government. The communists won a plurality in 1946 and had a coalition government. Fearing that they'd lose power, they began stacking the cops and courts with ideological communists. This fear turned out to be true after the liberal parties kept doing sneaky tactics to undermine the socialists. So in 1948 the communists had a coup to consolidate power and ally with the USSR.

And I know this wasn't "bloodless" or "civil" since this all happened in the shadow of WW2.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago

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