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.

TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY
THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN'T MEANT FOR YOU.

It takes either a complete lack of self-awareness or a simply incredible amount of gall to ask a yes-no question and then tell all the people most likely to answer one way to zip it. You might as well have just written "la-la-la-la I can't heaaaar yoooou"

You misunderstand me. It's simply that it's a GIVEN that those people would advocate violence. There isn't any need for them to respond. Their position is known.
It's like as if I asked if it's okay to charge over 20% interest on a loan. And all the credit card executives and buy here pay here owners and loan sharks started saying YEAH OF COURSE IT IS!
I kind of already knew where they stood. It's the same with you.
- There isn't any need for them to respond. Their position is known.
  This entire thread is evidence to the fact that you do not have a clue what communists actually think, and yet you still have the arrogance to simply ignore everyone trying to talk to you. Just incredible lol.
- The fact that you think communists advocate for violence for its own sake (because you think we're all bloodthirsty or something), tells us you have no idea what communists views are.
  This is an opportunity for you to learn from others, not close your ears because you've been inundated with a lifetime of anti-communist propaganda.
- You're asking leftists, the vast majority of which are Revolutionary. Only listening to a minority of Leftists for their opinion and ignoring the majority only gives you an incomplete and biased view.
- If all those people disagree with you, what kinds of people do you imagine would say yes? Nancy Pelosi? Chelsea Clinton?
- We're not advocating violence. Your premise is wrong.
  But we know our adversaries commonly use violence, so we're aware it exists, and we know we have to prepare for it.
  Are colonialist governments not violent? How do you remove from office a government that commits violence against their people, en masse, to destroy their land with mining operations?
  Concrete example: how would the Congolese vote the French out, when anyone organising peacefully against the French is assassinated?
  The point is not violence. But it would be naive to ignore the violence of our adversaries.

Edit: TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY

THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN'T MEANT FOR YOU.

You're asking why radical leftists reject your reformism. Who other than radical leftists are going to give you an actual answer instead of a pat on the back?

Anyway the answer is liberalism is far more violent, it just exports the violence overseas and commits it at an industrialised level. The infamous "Terror" in France only killed a few thousand people - the Iraq war killed over a million. While millions were killed in the cultural revolution, hundreds of millions were killed by the British Raj. Revolutionary violence is in fact far less violent than regular capitalism, so you're hated for supporting its continuation.

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.

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.
- 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

O COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY

THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN'T MEANT FOR YOU.

lmao so liberals only then.

Yeah lol just validate my clearly very questionable view, you're only allowed in this thread if you agree with me!

…I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

https://housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/teagle/texts/martin-luther-king-jr-letter-from-birmingham-jail-1963/

That's where you are right now. You can hopefully do better if you challenge yourself, but I wouldn't consider you anything different from the most milquetoast liberal hiding behind rhetorical civility while you support the violence of the state. Your progressive politics are at best redistributing the loot of that violence while perpetuating the system causing it, either out of cowardice or malice or apathy. All of them would make you the same judas goat for the imperial slaughterhouse.

Are you actually USING Dr. Martin Luther King Jr as an ADVOCATE FOR VIOLENCE?
You just crossed over into crazy town.
- dr. king is specifically calling you and yours out here, liberal. you'd do well to listen.
- On second thought, this is as good as you get. I'd just give up.
- I think perhaps you should read more of what Dr. King actually advocated for and said. He didn't endorse violence, but he didn't condemn it either. He typically didn't come from it from this moralizing angle either, most of his emphasis was his belief that violence was first and foremost a poor tactic, but at the same time he understood why violence happens. You've probably heard his 1967 statement "a riot is the language of the unheard."
- Check where the users are from, you're going to get much more "atypical" ~~not going to get kind~~ responses from hexbears, "we" are quite literally their enemies. "We" are the "white moderates" seeking to maintain stability instead of shedding blood to overthrow the entire developed world. (It's more than just "amerikkka" out there)
  Excuse us individuals for feeling entirely helpless when it comes to changing the entire capitalist world.

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.

What "change" are we taking about here?
- Slavery, Decolonization, worker rights, women rights, black people rights, "Put any word here" rights,etc..

Our current society is based on violence and requires a great deal of it to establish and sustain itself. Are you bothered by this violence?

I think the first question should be what OP considers "violence". The disagreement start there.
What? Where is this from?
- Completely unbothered.
  One of the historically proven and least abstract forms of capitalist violence comes in the inability of any society to opt-out of capitalism--to legislate in opposition to the class interests of capital (the common interests of capitalists not shared by the general public)--even to minor extents.
  Even within capitalism, decisions must be made, typically by the state, about who is responsible for property damage and personal afflictions. Capitalism means the private ownership of capital, the funding and property that comprises productive enterprise. Because these enterprises are privately owned, their goals are to a greater or lesser extent divorced from the public good; therefore, it is often in the interest of capital to externalize their costs of doing business--to avoid taking responsibility for the costly circumstances they have caused. Contrariwise, it is in the public interest (championed in theory by the state) to force capital to internalize those costs against their will to externalize.
  For example, it was in BP's interest to minimize the appearance of damaged caused by Deepwater Horizon (e.g. spraying dispersants) and thereby minimize their obligations, while it was in the public's interest to assess the damages thoroughly and liberally.
  When a state decides that certain businesses are causing irreparable harm or have acquired their capital illegitimately, by the same right by which externalities are opposed, the state may expropriate or nationalize a formerly private enterprise. However, history furnishes countless examples of democratic nations attempting to take such action, only to have capital directly solicit the state, some subset of the state (such as the military), other states, or peripheral forces to use violence to extinguish such democratic efforts.
  Some famous examples:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_of_1953
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
  Thus, even without reference to the minute-by-minute exploitation of the products of workers' labor that comprises the most ubiquitous violence of the capitalist mode of production, we have incontrovertible historical proof that the apparent voluntarism of people in capitalism is the voluntarism of slaves choosing to comply rather than suffer violent retribution. In a sense, open revolt would be less violent than peaceful acquiescence because the former is not compelled by hopeless domination.
  It is not difficult to add a theoretical basis to the historical evidence. Insofar as it has a single purpose, capital has an unambiguous interest in every state of affairs and every possible outcome. In this way, capital has a subjectivity, an ego, independent of the good of any particular person or group of people. Everything that happens either augments the value of capital, diminishes it, or leaves it unchanged. According to this judgement, capital stands in favor, opposed, or indifferent (respectively) to everything in existence. If the state intends to impose regulation that will cost $X, it is in the interest of any regulated capital to spend up to $X to eliminate that regulation--regardless of the good the regulation might do for society as a whole, including the individuals involved in the operations of the business itself. Such individuals are not free to follow their own judgement, but must always act in the interest of their employer capital or else be replaced by someone who will. If in the extreme case, the state is determined to eliminate a capital, the capital has no choice but to deploy all its resources to oppose that end. In the presence of large businesses (or unions of businesses such as a Chamber of Commerce) with the resources to oppose any existing regulatory agent, this dynamic imposes strict limits on freedom of people to self-govern. The mere presence of capital as capital is enough to guarantee violence if certain norms of political life are violated.
  Because businesses are often dedicated to facilitating cultural practices, rather than strictly utilitarian productivity, capital can be a powerfully conservative force in every domain of life.
  Alternatively - Have a quote
  "There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves." - Marky Twink
- Which part?

You are to the right of communists, who will not consider you “validly left” unless your ideology is anti-capitalist at a bare minimum. We consider capitalism to be the greatest cause of violence in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Alternately, you are to the left of fascists, who would consider you “validly left” as they rounded you up for the camps. Validity is all relative.

On another note, I think you massively misunderstand the difference between calls for revolutionary leftist violence and random people cheering on Trump getting shot, for example.

Do you wish to stop capitalism? Do you think the bourgeoisie will willingly give up their cushy lives and positions of power?

No?
- If that's "no" to the first part, you're simply not a leftist. If that's "no" to the second part, welcome to team violence.
- If someone lives like a king, but directly because their wealth is earned by the suffering and death of thousands, is it not morally just to stop them? At what point is the life of one billionaire worth more than the life of the, say, five hundred children that starved to death because of that billionaire? Is the system of economics that results in that not utterly reprehensible?
  We want capitalism to stop killing people. It cannot stop killing people. So we must dismantle capitalism. But the bourgeoisie will defend, violently, the perpetuation of capitalism. Thus, they are taking on a direct moral responsibility for the deaths capitalism causes.
  Revolution is only violent because capitalists wield violence to brutally suppress even peaceful protests, and we must respond in kind to defend ourselves. The violence of self-defense is not the same as the violence of oppressors. If the capitalists saw peaceful protests and willingly put their fortunes aside and returned their means of production to common ownership, there would be no need for revolution. But in all history of this struggle they've chosen instead to maim and murder protestors.
  As a snapshot, Food Not Bombs are an anarchist group who do nothing but give food to the unhoused. Police will arrest every FNB member to stop them, when what they're doing is literally just feeding the poor. But if FNB members carry firearms, police leave them alone, and the unhoused receive food.

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.

Good sane take, to my understanding
- This is everyone's take here.

TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY
THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN'T MEANT FOR YOU.

Ok boomer.

Question: do you consider yourself a liberal?

Yes?
- Liberals have never been leftists.
  This isn't really a new thing. You can read about leftists a hundred years ago denouncing liberalism.

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.

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.

I should have just stuck with Democrat, and gotten rid of the whole idea of leftist and liberal.
- You can, if you want. If you generally agree with the DNC, labeling yourself a Democrat is a useful label to quickly get your views across. You wouldn't be a Leftist, since the goals and views of the DNC are a maintaining of the Capitalist status quo, but you would be a Liberal, if you want a non-party label to use instead.
  I do think familiarizing yourself with Leftist theory would help you make sense of where Leftists are coming from.

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

Left and right are always relative terms. I like to describe those who feel like they are or could be represented by a political party in the governing coalition of an average western liberal democracy, as the "non plus ultra" left. This comes from the old story of the Pillars of Hercules on either side of the Strait of Gibraltar, which were said to bear the warning "non plus ultra" — "nothing further beyond". For as far as people knew back then, there truly was no land for sailors to find further to the west of that point; but now Europeans are well aware that there is a whole gargantuan continent across the Atlantic, a continent that makes the idea of the Iberian peninsula and the Maghreb as the furthest western extent of land in the world seem downright laughable.

And so those who call themselves left-wing, but who would be comfortably represented in the government of a liberal democracy... Well, they would be left-wing by the standards of the beliefs which can be comfortably represented in the government of such a country. So they're left-wing to that extent. But in the grand scheme of things, they're no further left of the parliamentary center compared to Marxists and anarchists, than Gibraltar is west of the Prime Meridian compared to Alaska. As I'd see it, frankly, all the beliefs which can find success in a liberal democracy, can be said to occupy the same "continent" of politics; and all those beliefs which cannot, can be said to occupy a different "continent", and those on the former continent would certainly stand to benefit from "crossing the sea", so to speak.

How does this relate to violence?
- Put simply, in the trolley problem, my continent would pull the lever, and your continent would give drugs to the people tied to the tracks to ease the pain.

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???

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.

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).

Some leftists aren’t so interested in progress, as in making sure everyone is okay.
- making sure everyone is okay.
  Given the current state of the world, that would be progress.

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.

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?

Which client are you using?
- Well it doesn't necessarily matter anymore because your reply fixed it lol

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

Oof. That's a tough audience.

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).

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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.

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

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.

OTOH, USians have their Overton window so moved to the right, and it continues to move so fast, that it has a visible Doppler effect.
What in the US some people calls "radical ideas", most of the world calls "common decency" or "human rights".
- True. But big ships turn slowly.
  And the US is one hell of a big ship.
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.
If wanting equality for all people is extremist, then I’m an extremist.
- Nothing extremist about wanting equality
Question: do you consider yourself a liberal?
Got this from queermunist earlier. Didn't understand why the question was asked. I answered "Yes" though it seemed like a gotcha, but I don't know what was going on there. I used the words I wanted to use.
- It depends on your definitions, but many on the left, myself included, don't consider liberals to be leftists. Liberals are primarily capitalists, and while they are left within the very pro capitalist mainstream, they are not "leftists", which to me means anticapitalist.
  In my experience most liberals at least have problems with capitalism, they just can't imagine a better system. I think leftists need to be less shitty, and use less gotchas and jargon, especially to people who are allies on social issues. Though this is frustrating when some of you're local queer elders are small business owners who underpay their employees and hoard property.
- So, this is a very complex topic I don't have the time to give the treatment it deserves, but to try to give a very summarized historical viewpoint on it -
  Liberalism was a set of ideas that cohered around the 18th century as a reaction to monarchism that emphasized universal civil rights and free markets (there were a ton of weird things going on with noble privileges and state monopolies issued by royal administrations and mercantile economics this was a response to)
  Socialism was a set of ideas that cohered around the 19th century as a reaction to liberalism (and the whole industrial revolution) that said universal civil rights didn't go far enough and we needed to establish universal economic rights. Some socialists think the only way to achieve these things is by overthrowing or limiting the power of governments and ripping up contracts between private parties, which liberals tend not to like.
  Progressivism was (sort of, I'm being very reductive here) an attempted synthesis of these traditions that cohered around the early 20th century, and (essentially) argued "ok, free markets but restricted by regulations (e.g. you can't sell snake oil, you can't condition the sale of property on the purchaser being a specific race), and open elections for whoever the voters want but with restrictions on the kinda of laws that can be passed" (e.g. no poll taxes).
  Like I said, I'm simplifying a lot here and I'd encourage reading Wikipedia pages and other sources on all of these things (like, I'm eliding a whole very dark history progressives have where their attempts to perfect society had them advocating for eugenics and segregation early on because there was academic support for those ideas at the time, and there's a lot more to be said on how a lot of the first anti-racist voices were socialist ones and why it took progressives and liberals time to get on the right side of that issue, and how fights for colonial independence tended to be led by socialists and against liberals), but the fact that liberals progressives and socialists are all ostensibly "on the left" is a big cause of the infighting we see.
- Here’s a fun exercise: Ask queermunist what they think of some left wing issue that isn’t something that would be a good talking point for an outside adversary of the left to use to destabilize it, or make it lose.
  They’re very vocal about wanting the left to use violence. They’re very vocal about wanting people not to vote for Biden. Foreign policy in Central and South America? Justice for farm workers? Prison reform? Fuck all that shit, let’s talk about some guns.
  Idk, now that I have given the game away they may have a different reaction. 🙂 But that was my experience when I asked about it, and I made from that an inference about them and some other parts of the Lemmy left that may form a good potential answer to the original question you were asking.

When is violence permissable or moral then? Absolutely never? You have to imagine the types of situations people in the world face. I know a person from Gaza who was nearly finished with his university studies, now he lives in a tent with his mother and his little sister is dead. When I'm able to talk with him, he expresses almost nothing but violence and hatred against the Israeli state and the IDF.
Are you saying my friend Ali is in a bubble he should get out of? Or are you simply talking about your own experiences? Because even if so, you should at least feel some inclination of rage towards the people who did this to my friend.
What about self-defense?
Is a person defending themselves from an attacker, morally wrong for using violence? And if you concede that it isn't, then what about workers banding together to defend themselves from the injustices of enforced poverty, starvation, homelessness, and war?
Edit: Pacifism - How to do the enemy's job for them
I'd go find some people who aren't so focused about gatekeeping who is "validly left".
OP seems to be the one doing that to themselves, though. "Validity" isn't really a thing, purity checking is nonsense. Marxists and Anarchists believe Revolution is necessary, sure, but don't generally advocate for random acts of terror or forcing a revolution into happening, ie a coup.
No one is telling you you need to do violence, though. No one in Lemmygrad or Hexbear believes that the time to take to the street and start shooting is right now, obviously it wouldn't achieve anything and would just be a waste of life, that's why fascists are the ones committing mass shootings. What we believe is that when the contradictions mount to the point that the ruling class clashes down on its opposition with violent force, we need to be organized and ready to carry out the revolution come hell or high water, like every single socialist revolution in the past. Whether or not you personally want to participate is irrelevant because the historical process in which capital undermines its own existence is inevitable, some amount of time from now the crisis of capitalism necessarily must reach a point where its contradictions can't be reconciled anymore and either the ruling classes succeed at preserving the system, or the workers succeed in transforming it into something new. Furthermore, regardless of your own participation in the violence necessary to maintain capitalism right now, that violence is happening anyway, and it's orders of magnitude larger than the violence that the left is capable of, even if we were the bloodthirsty maniacs some liberals claim us to be. The black book of communism claims that communism's death toll nears 100 million, but every 10 years far more than 100 million people die because of preventable illnesses, hunger, and conflict, which are all direct effects of the decaying economic system. If you reject to resist that system, then you're complicit too, even when so little is asked of you.

What positions do you hold that make you consider yourself left of center?

Excellent question, but I'll think about it on my own. I've had enough go rounds in this post

There's no room for centrists on the internet. I seem to only find centrists in real life, face-to-face. I guess we aren't loud but we're here.

(Now here come the downvotes....)

Moralists don't really have beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded. Centrism isn't change -- not even incremental change. It is control. Over yourself and the world. Exercise it. Look up at the sky, at the dark shapes of Coalition airships hanging there. Ask yourself: is there something sinister in moralism? And then answer: no. God is in his heaven. Everything is normal on Earth.
Why are you a centrist? If someone tells you waterfalls flow downward, and someone else tells you waterfalls flow upward, do you synthesize them into saying waterfalls remain perfectly still?
Where does centrism come from, and is it just arbitrary?
- Lol!!!! No, no, no!! My centrism is not arbitrary!! I don't try to find a "middle ground" where waterfalls go both ways!!! Love the visual though!
  I align with the political right on some issues, and the left with others. And in American politics I find the rhetoric & tribalism of both political parties ridiculous - so I can't identify with either.
  Generally I lean left of center, but I can't go "full left" because I think the left has some blind spots. And liberals do this annoying thing where they seem to be always be falling all over themselves to prove how self-righteous & progressive they are, & they wind up alienating left-leaning people like me as a result.

Gatekeeping is dumb. You are what you are, the rest is description.

Also, this is a pretty communist instance, so it's no wonder you got "lol liberal" responses. Maybe try .world for a wider perspective on a question like this.

Edit: Or another large, politically generic instance, like sh.itjust.works.

Gatekeeping is dumb, but so is calling a square a circle.
Secondly, Lemmy.world actually blocks Leftist instances, while Lemmy.ml does not. You see a wider net on Lemmy.ml, Lemmy.world leans right-wing.
Edit: sh.itjust.works has a large fascist problem, it generally leans right wing overall.
- Ah shit, you replied before my edit. Yes, communication is important, but only exists in context. Asking if you're "validly" X is pure gatekeeping. The question is if "I'm X" makes what you are more or less confusing to whoever you're talking to. Although, people rarely ask.
lemmy.world (and blahaj.zone) blocks the communist instances, yet they aren't blocked by us. So really you're only going to get a censored and anti-communist perspective from those instances.
- TIL, although OP isn't on one.
  It still seems pretty lefty over there for the most part.

Leftists have a big problem with purity testing. It's why they never seem to be able to accomplish anything. Instead of joining forces with other leftist groups that share 95% of the same views, they shit all over them for not being 100% aligned.

If they'd suck it up and work together they could actually be a political force and get some of what they want, instead of infighting constantly and accomplishing nothing.

It's the biggest thing turning me off of leftist ideology. I agree with a decent amount of what they want, but as soon as I say something like "Maybe market economies solve real problems and are suitable for some situations like consumer products" I'm basically turbo hitler to them.

Why do leftists always have to acquiesce to liberals, but liberals never have to compromise with leftists?
Therein lies your answer.
- Why do slash and burn farmers always have to compromise with ecologists, but ecologists never have to compromise with slash and burn farmers?
turbo Hitler
Don't give Nazi punks band names lol.
You're very much correct. It's weird that this is the case when the right has no issue aligning to see their broader objectives met. At the very least the left should band together, win and then bring out the slap fighting once victory is achieved.
- You have to recognize the historical reasons for not accepting Liberalism among Leftists. Anti-sectarianism is a good thing, yes, but Liberals have historically sided with fascists whenever there has been a significant risk of Leftists gaining support and power. Liberalism is corrupted by the interests of Capitalists.
- Victory for whom? Why should leftists concede their core principle( the dismantling of capitalism) to preserve capitalism?
  Maybe liberals should give up preserving capitalism and join with leftists.
  And yes, the threat of fascism is real, and many leftists, myself included will vote for whichever candidate prevents that. But many, rightfully so, understand the relationship of capitalism and fascism, and can’t bring themselves to “kick the can down the road.”
Well regulated capitalism has produced more human advancement than any other economic system we have tried.
You're not alone. There are dozens of us who believe in humanity and progress and realize that some amount of motivation (within reason) helps humans to achieve beneficial things.

I'm a peaceful person, I try to live by the ethos of causing as little suffering around me as possible. So to me a violent uprising in the name of making a better society is a lot like fighting war in the name of peace: it doesn't make a lot of sense.

When you see a leftist advocating for violence, I think it's usually one of three things: someone who is disenfranchised with their perception of what they can do as a an individual to better society, someone who actively wishes to be violent and will attach themselves to whatever cause justifies that violence, or someone on the internet stirring up trouble.

I'm not aware of a violent leftist uprising which didn't devolve to authoritarianism. Even the French revolution which is often upheld as being a turning point for democracies around the world devolved into a reign of terror and gave us Napoleon.

Socdems are valid if underrepresented. Maybe start a socdem community?

Are SocDems really "left" if they support Capitalism and are against Socialism?
- If you define “left” as “communist” then obviously no. But out here in the actual world it usually means “anyone more progressive than a Christian Democrat”.

If you're talking about Lemmy specifically, remember this is a left-wing echo chamber, so of course you'll be shunned if you're not willing to man the guillotine.

In the real world people understand that change is progressive and requires compromise to avoid the violence of the extremes. I'd suggest touch some grass and put some distance between you and keyboard-leftists that speak like they are playing a video game.

Volunteer in your community, it's a great way to meet people who are more than Internet posers.

In the real world people understand that change is progressive and requires compromise to avoid the violence of the extremes. I'd suggest touch some grass and put some distance between you and keyboard-leftists that speak like they are playing a video game.
Genuinely, when has major change happened without violence, or the threat of violence? Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, various anti-fascist and anti-monarchist revolutions, all have happened with either violence or resulted in concessions to avoid violence.
“In the real world” when applied to the discussion of online vs AFK spaces is a super slippery slope. Legacy Russell discusses this at length in their manifesto Glitch Feminism.
The reasoning here being that language like that is used to discredit and invalidate the usefulness of digital spaces. Tons of minorities rely on digital community to explore senses of self, identity, and political leanings. That is NOT to say Lemmy ISN’T a leftist echo chamber, but it should point out the problem with using its digital nature to discredit anything that is said here. Anonymity is a fantastic tool for world making, particularly black and queer futurism.
Getting more into my own opinion, I agree with the other commenter under your post saying rarely in history have the most pivotal changes come purely from “reform”. Our biggest leaps forward have largely been started my social/political dissidence, which was then responded to with policy changes. Political violence is perpetrated on minorities every day. Using the online nature of this discussion to discredit people that are pointing out that violence and saying pushback is necessary is just pushing many already ostracized individuals out of some of the only spaces they can be safe while discussing such sensitive issues. These spaces allow people to explore futures that offer them even a small sense of upward mobility and stability, even if that means a period of violence before they get there.
I am in fact willing to die for the futures I am capable of imagining. If the futures you imagine are based on slow, inter-generational change via the current political system that is allowed, and incredibly selfless of you. My only pushback would be to look at your own quality of living and ask how many people have access to similar comfort and stability and try to understand why some people might feel the political system has failed, and will continue to fail, them. Personally I’d like to experience at least a small piece of the futures I’ve imagined within my lifetime, and I have little to no faith in this country’s ability to “reform” it’s way into those futures.
- Dying won't do you much good at getting the future you want. There's a long history of violent anarchists and socialists that killed or died for their beliefs, and none of that violence led to progress.
  I think maybe your ego is a little beyond realistic. My life or yours are will make barely more than an infinitesimal difference in the world. But enough slightly above infinitesimal add up. Maybe be the person that made the world very very slightly better rather than the one that died for nothing?
  Reform has made huge differences in our lives, from the magna carta to union activity to the civil rights struggle. Things are immensely better than they were in the 1500s, and it was all incremental.

@Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com This highlights the problem with using relative terms like 'left' and 'center' and 'far'. They're subjective, and in my opinion, shouldn't be used.

I don't know what country or society you're in. "Left" can often mean anything from centrist liberalism (Democrat Party) to nothing less than socialism (socialists often consider liberalism to be in the center). Then you get literal Fascists (as in, Mussolini and Mosley types, unlike Nazi fascists) who throw a stone in the whole thing: their heritage comes from both the traditional left (namely syndicalism) and the right (ultranationalism), and don't neatly fit into progressive or regressive (BUF notably gained many women supporters for their pro-suffrage policies, progressive at the time).

One can avoid arguments like in the OP just by learning the proper terms for political views and ideologies. Are you a progressive liberalist? Are you a social democrat? Are you a democratic socialist? (yes unfortunately those two get confusing)

For more information about the political compass and examples of why it's not a useful tool, I recommend this video.

Thanks, very good reply.

stop hanging out with nazis

It's not about left or right, it's about socialism or liberalism

If calling yourself a leftist makes you feel better, feel free to do so, but don't get angry when people call out your actual position

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:
Red Phoenix - Pacifism - How to do the enemy's job for them. Youtube Audiobook
- Is Dessalines the dude that made Jerboa, the Lemmy Client?

Political spectrum of Left-Center-Right is not only pointless but very much harmful.

You have some goals in common with other people but you disagree on the means of achieving them. That's it. Doesn't make any of the views less valid. It makes them opposed in some circumstances, which is different from "validity"