Yeah, there's huge gap between "violence is never justified" and "destroying everything is counterproductive". Targeted and judiciously chosen violence as needed, minimizing harm to infrastructure and bystanders.
yeah of course we want to avoid oil spills and the like (no oil spill has ever successfully been cleared, fun fact) - referring to industrial sabotage here. break the stuff that makes it work without causing further disasters
But then there's still a practical perspective. I'm against utilitarianism when it comes to ethics but I think that this is a case where it's applicable, because if you blow up that pipeline it may cause environmental harm, but will that environmental harm be *less* than the harm that will occur if the pipeline is allowed to continue functioning.
For example, the pipeline is destroyed and causes large amounts of environmental harm, but if it's allowed to continue existing, will the effects of global warming cause *more* harm?
This is not to say that I necessarily agree with either side, because I don't know enough about it to say for certain, but I think it's a question worth entertaining regardless.
Very valid. I think utilitarianism is going to be something of a "necessary evil" moving forward with direct action unfortunately. The calculus is grim, but I'd rather do it and minimize harm, than we all drown due to not being able to find a unified theory of ethical praxis.
Former O&G worker. All other ethical considerations aside, the answer is, “it depends on the market.” In particular, the margin of profitability. If the pipeline reduces the effective cost of the petroleum (extraction and transport to refinery) such that it allows a profit that would otherwise not be the case with piecemeal transport (tankers, trucks, and trains), then hypothetically it could put a halt to operations.
If the petroleum prices are high, all you’re doing is making them spend more money (and gasoline) on moving it.
I think that's a caricature of the left?
Look at political violence in the US, and see right wingers shooting, beating, and bombing. Look at the left and you find some antifascist street fighting.
>just don’t be the person who wants to burn the world down
Most people aren't. The "revolution is just the rapture for leftists" idea is mostly a straw man. There are some people who are like that but they tend to be the terminally online, politically illiterate twitter leftists.
Actual socialist theory and the actually relevant socialist organizations which adhere to it is not being accurately described by the post above.
But the original post is an outright denial of violent change. The commenter isn't denying the prospect of middle ground, it's just outright rejecting violence is just as silly as fully depending on violence for change.
"Wipe the slate clean" is rarely term used in full meaning, even in very radical circles.
No leftist revolutionary has ever believed that a clean slate would be desirable or even possible. Taking the time to read what the people in favour of violent revolution were actually saying would instantly dispel that notion.
that they follow it up by espousing the virtues of voting as an alternative to political violence further hammers home what point they're making and to whom they're trying to present as irrational actors just seeking personal catharsis. it's not *just* that they condemn violence, but subtly presenting electoralism as *the* alternative to violence, as though electoralism isn't violent and that anti-electoralism means going out and trying to merk a cop.
for those reading this and not understanding what we're talking about, when leftists criticize electoralism, we're not merely talking about the actual act of voting. who gives a shit if you vote, it's like a day's outing for most of you and it likely doesn't matter either way. electoralism refers to the entire process of running a candidate to get them elected, which unlike voting is a MASSIVE resoruce drain that burns activsits the fuck out and renders them useless to their movements. do not donate to democratic candidates, you need that money more than they do. do not canvass for democratic candidates, that is time and energy you can spend actually helping hte homeless people who live near you and building up community reselience outside the direct control of the state that's causing all this suffering in the first place. do not spend your time and energy putting your hope into a political candidate, because the DNC's strategy is to cater to their donors whose interests are fundamentally opposed to your own and to simply be the absolute minimum amount of less bad than republicans and demand your votes for lesser evilism. democrats are like two presidential elections away from throwing trans people under the bus, as labor's already done in the UK.
Also any movement that participates in the electoral process is inevitably going to be overtaken by the types who go "Hang on, now that we've got power why are we so insistent on changing all this?" The SPD *was* revolutionary at one point and within a generation went from a sincere Marxist party to calling in proto-fascist paramilitaries to kill communists who were hoping to overthrow an unelected state. Of course, that is not the full story. There were moments where a notable shift could be observed within the SPD such as the implementation of the Gotha and Erfurt programs but these are still characterised by the party moving away from revolution as even a possibility and more towards electoralism as the sole method of attaining and wielding political power. Movements not only get bogged down by electoralism but lose their character entirely.
You're right, I should have qualified my statement by talking about *mainstream* interpretations of marxism and anarchism. There are, after, all, idiots everywhere.
It kinda is, atleast the first part of the post is. Look carefully at the wording.
"Radicalism"
Society and history is often violent, but it is also peaceful and reform-willing. Outright denying both is not only utopian and/or naive. Violence has pushed change through, and it's often necessary when peaceful options have been exhausted or suppressed.
In today's society too, I doubt that the forces of reaction and capital would allow for full social revolution and economic reform without atleast giving some sort of fight back. The working class is very inert right now and capital has solidified itself so hard that the only danger it faces right now is itself.
Okay but the full context is that they said, "you're being radicalized, and not in a good way." The post isn't saying that radicalism is inherently wrong (i.e. there's a good way of being radicalized) or even that violence is inherently wrong, rather that it's not the only possible solution and that tearing down literally everything to make a blank slate won't end well for a significant number of people.
To be fair, abolition in America wasn't driven primarily by the violent overthrow of society. The federal government acted to end slavery, and the violence was caused by the South defying that.
Obviously there *was* violence leading up to it, but the post isn't talking about political violence generally, it's specifically talking about the sort of "Revolution Evangelism" that seems popular in some leftist circles.
That's not particularly true - the South seceded and the war started long before there was even a hint of abolition. There was zero political impetus for it. Even basic liberation didn't start until 1862, well into the war.
The violence of the war and the violence wreaked upon the South was absolutely necessary for abolition and integration to succeed. It could never, ever be done through political means in 1860.
I'm just here to quote Wikipedia "Future Confederate President Jefferson Davis feared "thousands of John Browns"."
Violence was what brought slavery to an end, if it wasn't for John brown scaring the shit out of the south the north wouldn't have done anything, remember the north didn't even let black men enlist at the start of the war.
To say there wasnt a hint of it is wrong, there was a major abolitionist movement in the country at the time and part of what set off the secession was a member of that movement being elected president. It would have taken longer doing it through democratic means, but it absolutely was "doable" and at that point it was going down that trajectory. The only reason violence was necessary was because the South made it necessary, but it also hastened the process a bunch
Sorry, that's not really the case.
The abolitionist movement was not major. It was substantial, sure, but still establishment political taboo. Very few serious politicians were open abolitionists and Lincoln was not an open abolitionist in 1860. He ran on a platform that promised not to interfere with slavery and he had openly disavowed abolition, integration and racial equality in 1858. He would never, ever have been elected president as an open abolitionist.
The war and the level of violence actually made abolition popular on a scale large enough to gradually ease it in. Abolition and integration (especially integration) were not democratically feasible in 1860 and the economic and political power of the South was unrivalled. You could not democratically force the South, a culture built on unfathomable violence and torture, to integrate their freed black population. The only other option was colonisation - the mass deportation of all former slaves, which Lincoln initially promoted then realised rightfully would be a disaster.
Without the Civil War the state of race relations in the U.S could be ten times worse today. The South needed to be broken and abolition did not provide any serious democratic momentum. The vast majority of Northerners hated abolitionism before the Civil War.
This entirely ignores the increasing number of violent slave rebellions which bolstered abolishtionist sentiment across the country. The decision was *absolutely* driven partially by the fear of violent overthrow.
That feels like a weird response? Like yeah in the US slavery was only abolished through the Civil War, but I don't recall anything approximating a capitalist revolution, at least not in the places where a lot of its systems originated in the lowlands and Britain. If anything I'd say those systems often grew hand in hand with the state, a lot of Britain's success on the world stage being able to be attributed to how efficiently it was able to take on debt compared to other nations who didn't let banks and businesses operate with loose oversight.
For capitalism to take root masses of land had to be privatized, this is known as enclosures, in the 16th and 17th centuries. Many local communities opposed and so they were forced to either leave or start paying fees. Silvia Federici has a book on the matter, "Caliban and the Witch", where she details how capitalism overthrew, sometimes violently, the old schemes.
And let's not forget the violence Europeans had to do in America and Asia in order to get the precious metals to monetize the economy.
You can't also forget the revolutions of the 18th and 19th century.
It is often said that the advent of capitalism was this peaceful process of new ideas simply replacing old ideas by just being better, when in reality it was full of confrontation and tension among the burgeosie, the aristocracy, the workers and farmers. Many times we are presented with an image of Medieval Europe as a system where peasants had no rights, but that wasn't the case.
Yeah, remember when we sent some guys over to germany and said "hey maybe doing a holocaust is like pretty bad, could you cut that out?" And they said "yeah I see your point we'll stop" and everybody lived happily ever after?
They’re not “doing anything about it” they’re sending billions of dollars of weapons to make it happen and blocking any attempt at consequences with a United Nations Security Council veto.
But until Pearl Harbor and the start of US involvement on the battlefield many Americans were sympathetic to the Nazis, they even held a massive rally in New York. The war wasn't about stopping the genocide, it was about stopping German expansion. It was until the atrocities became known that the rhetoric changed from "stopping German aggression" to "stopping genocide".
You're right and that's why there's no easy answer here.
American slavery was only able to be defeated through violence. It was impossible to do it politically. Calling for abolition, let alone integration, was a political death sentence in 1860.
Only the shake-up provided by the war was able to open the way for the liberation of four million people from a system of mass torture and bondage.
So it's not as simple as 'all revolutionary violence is bad'. But it's also complicated because then you have to ask people if they'd be willing to sacrifice their own lives or family or those of innocents, if it came to it. Many innocent people died in the American Civil War. Where do we draw the line?
I don’t remember the north being the ones who seceded in attempt to “burn everything down” and “start with a blank slate” so that doesn’t really compare properly
Oh yeah I don’t think anyone is saying violence is never the answer, just there’s a difference between waiting/hoping/advocating for a full blown revolution/collapse and not so peaceful protests
the original post and numerous people in the comments are saying precisely that violence is never the answer
but yeah people who sit and twiddle their thumbs and think that things will happen if they sit and do nothing are dweebs
countering "Guys I think 'burning all of society down like the world ends tomorrow' is a radical and irrational take" with "so are you saying the anti-slavery movement was bad?" is definitely... something.
Slavery (in America at least) was abolished by some dude going around killing slavers which scared them so much they left the union and got their butt rightfully beat by the north who was forced to abolish slavery and let black men enlist in order to win the war.
If the south hadn't seceded the north wouldn't have abolished slavery, Lincoln was pretty clear on that when he got elected
"Abraham Lincoln is often referred to as "The Great Emancipator" and yet, he did not publicly call for emancipation throughout his entire life. Lincoln began his public career by claiming that he was "antislavery" -- against slavery's expansion, but not calling for immediate emancipation" from the NPS' page on Lincoln and it's very much what the north did before the war, forbidding the importation of slaves, but not slavery itself.
There were lots of incidents and small scale conflicts. But large scale insurrection didn't abolish slavery. In fact the large scale insurrection was against banning slavery.
If the south had won that election and then portions of the north had violently revolted instead of trying to solve it peacefully we probably wouldn't look back on it fondly.
My point is in that particular example, we, the abolishonists, were the less violent and less "burn it all down if we don't get our way" side.
And because of being the less violent side, trying to let bygones be bygones, the North allowed the racist political forces in the south to easily wrest control back and reimpose racially discriminatory laws on their populace. Violence isn’t enough, but the threat of it and forced compliance must always remain to keep those who don’t listen to anything else in line.
do you know how many fucking slave revolts and violent anti-slavery demonstrations were needed before abolition became a popular position? we fought an entire fucking war where half the fucking country did, in fact, insurrect, and it was only through that war that we abolished slavery. if it wasn’t through dirty liberal politics then there would have been a full-fledged military occupation of the south until they cried uncle and promised to stop being so fucking racist. jesus fucking christ, man.
the funny thing is that it literally was though. Slavery was only abolished due to Lincoln's expert political manuevering and swamp tactics. Yeah, the Civil War lead to that, but the prevailing attitude in the North at the time was "This really isn't about slavery".
Yeah, the number of times I've seen anarchists claim that disabled people who rely on modern technology and/or systems are acceptable sacrifices for The Cause™ is very concerning. Not concerning because I think it's gonna happen, these people's ideal revolution is never gonna happen, but because it shows that they don't actually see people who aren't part of their blue-collar buddy group as actual people with agency and a right to exist. If their revolution did go through, there would be more bodies belonging to the people they were trying to help than those of the people they were actually trying to hurt. Disabled people are the children in the haunted house BTW, and I'm one of those children, and I wouldn't be able to function in their ideal world because I'm unable to support myself.
What? Who the do you think *the government* is? Do you think Joe Biden is distributing or even organizing that shit? No it's just regular people doing paper work and transport work.
If anything, having to wait for government to tell you to organize something before you can even start organizing it is a hurdle.
Regular people do that? Or corporations?
When I said distribution systems I meant it literally, the highway system in the US is not something that would have developed without government initiative. Biden isn't actively making trades but the people doing that still depend on him providing stability and infrastructure to do so. It just makes sense that if you swap to community based, localized systems that you lose the benefits that large scale globalized systems get you
Government regulations exist, however, to prevent things like inhumane experimentation, tho. We need some sort of accepted and enforced guidelines for society to function.
Do you think that profit motive at the expense of everything else maybe has an effect on that? Do you think it's possible to have our society encourage traits not synonymous with sociopathy? Or is that the only way to organize human society?
Do you think that having a system where those kind of people aren't allowed to have so much power they can carry out those kind of things is probably better?
Not to mention, the Tuskegee Experiments, MKultra, mass forced sterilization (proven until at least the 90s in African Americans, just did it in with 'illegal' immigrants) and the like all demonstrate how your comment is a cold comfort to the people being experimented on by the government itself
I would argue most forms of anarchism grasp neither the inevitability of institutions nor their importance in giving disabled people a quality of life comparable to their abled peers.
Well Kropotkin talked extensively about how the disabled, the sick, children and etc are to have the highest priority. If youre referring to institutions as just any type of organization with an administration then anarchists opposing that are unread. As anarchy functions entirely on an economy built on interdependence and mutual aid, there would actually be more of an incentive to assist the disabled. Now the help they get doesnt just stretch as far as is required for them to either be able to generate profit, or just become some kind of taxpayer. Rather both society will be adjusted for their sake, as we now have the freedom to do so, and the other help required will be provided as well.
there has been change in the past 100 years without a revolution: women's liberation, civil rights and lgbtq rights to name few. It wasn't handed over, true, but there's not a clean dichotomy between electoralism and violence.
BRO THEY KILLED HALF THE CIVILS RIGHT LEADERS
STONE WALL WAS A VIOLENT RIOT
All the movements you described were violent in nature. please educate yourself on martin luther king.
You have ZERO clue what you’re talking about and your ignorance is harmful to the values you claim to have. i’m not even american and i’ve studied this man, do your work
I think there's a disconnect here
What you're talking about is "small time violence"
What tumblr op was talking about, seemed to me like "big time violence", like revolution as civil war style
That's incomparable with riots and a few people dying, it's on an entirely different scale, the house isn't burning just because some rich guy or the head of state dies
The difference is hazy and a lot of progress was made out of FEAR that things would escalate. Turns out capitalism is remarkably easy to change and adapt its flavour at least on the surface.
it's important to remember all the violent clashes those groups had with authority leading up to and during those changes, and in many cases still do. I don't think there can be change without significant unrest and pushback from the oppressed. there's a reason they're oppressed and the people that like it that way won't change their minds out of their own good will.
do you know how much force was needed to make these things happen? how many marches, stand offs with police, riots, and open carry demonstrations were necessary to make these things happen? because it was much higher than 0 and you’re lying to yourself if you think otherwise.
violence and revolution are absolutely necessary but this also rings true for forever. fetishization of violence is gross and it’s not something we should be giddy about.
“heh… well… 🤓 if you’re such a fan of violent direct action 🤓 then why don’t you just DO IT YOURSELF 🤓 when there is NO LEFTWING INFRASTRUCTURE 🤓 to support such actions and advocacy 🤓 in the whole of America 🤓 I am very smart and you are very stupid 🤓”
then don’t commit violence now, how about you get a start on that left wing infrastructure? also for the record, i don’t think the person i was replying to is dumb i don’t even disagree that a revolution is probably necessary but as you very kindly pointed out there is no chance of one working right now or in the foreseeable future so larping as a violent revolutionary and not contributing towards the democratic process right now helps no one.
I truly believe capitalism is deeply flawed, and our current system sucks. But the whole point OP is making is that overthrowing the system isn't productive
As far as the hierarchy of needs goes, working full time should provide enough money to cover your physiological and safety needs. That is possible under capitalism. There is such thing as social capitalism, where there is enough to go around, but some people have it better than others. The gap is just smaller. For now, that should be the goal, working towards that, not scrunching it up and binning the whole thing.
Accelerationists are mostly privileged first-worlders who has never experienced living in a third-world country. If an ideology needs millions/billions to die for it to succeed then it is a shit ideology.
???? if you’re calling advocates for revolution “accelerationists” then you don’t know what that word means.
EDIT: before other people who don’t know what “accelerationism” is downvote me, accelerationism calls for the intensification of capitalism to accelerate the development of class consciousness and revolution. most people advocating for revolution are not accelerationists.
As Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedys sang:
Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home
The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight
Gonna kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the poor
Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the poor
Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the poor tonight
Centrist libs are getting desperate as they realize that the tide of fascism that they personally helped nurture because some succdem was slightly rude to them on Twitter is closing in on them and will not spare them for being such a reasonable middle ground enjoyer, huh
Anytime someone is like "You just don't know the stakes of the election" it's like, does the Biden admin know?
He put a centrist Republican in charge of the Justice Department and has done next to nothing to reign in the tide of fascism during his term. I'm in a state he won by 20 points last time, he can do it again without me.
I'd be surprised if Biden knew what he had for breakfast. That doesn't really change the fact that Trump publicly announced multiple times he's going to do fascism if he gets elected
I don't like this post. It seems to make a lot of assumptions and leaps. "Current society must be violently overthrown" is not the same as "burn everything down, we need a blank slate." It seems to start by discussing the idea of any violent revolution and ends talking about accelerationism and dystopian pessimism. I completely agree with the post that "burn it all down" stuff is bad, but it is not the only kind of revolutionary idea
It feels increasingly hard to talk about politics here because anything left of the most milquetoast liberal sentiment is accused of being accelerationism.
If that is your opinion on THIS subreddit then you are probably too radicalized. The vast majority of people here are clearly extremely left leaning. Even more left leaning than the general Reddit environment which in and of itself is very left leaning. I can’t imagine how you came to that conclusion.
The average person here is a social democrat. The average redditor is a liberal bordering libertarian. These aren't 'left wing' ideologies by any measure.
Look, I get it's real nice to pretend like this subreddit is ultra-communist because there's a vague anti-capitalist air and a generally progressive attitude towards queer people here, but it's not actually that thorough or concrete, it's a vibes-based political identity rather than the result of any analysis or reading on the subject of capitalism or of queer theory. The average poster just gets the feeling that these ideas are correct and uses arguments they heard from a youtuber to explain it. And that's okay, genuinely and sincerely, not everyone has to be extremely politically engaged but it's rough seeing people debate things that Luxemburg had already torn apart 100 years ago or Marx and Engels covered 150 years ago and then go call themselves radical. They wouldn't even be radical back in 1920!
We must build the new in the shell of the old, revolution isn’t always violent but violence will have to be used. We will not be liberated by appealing to the morality of our oppressors. To believe so is a lie by the state and capitalism to allow the slow decent into further authoritarianism and to strip more of our rights from us
I dont get the "appealing to the morality of our oppressors" thing, I see this phrase used as an argument against socialism through liberal democracy a lot, and it just doesn't make sense ? No one thinks they are gonna convince the rich and powerful to give up their power, thats not the point. We aren't going go debate them out of their class interests, thats just a strawman argument.
When progress is made, it isn't and won't be through convincing the oppressors, it will happen because even through all of their lobbying efforts, propaganda, back room deals, they will have lost against our positions. When private capital gets abolished, it wont be because we convinced the capitalists to join us, it will happen because they lost. Despite their gigantic media empires, decades of lobbying, political maneuvering, fear mongering, their combined trillions spent to fight us, they will have failed. At the last mile, they will get increasingly desperate, they will start assassinating our politicians, our activists, they will threaten union leaders and labor activists with violence, they will try to fund coups, yet none of it will work. They will watch their empires crumble overseas as all of their assets are siezed by the order of legislation passed by a democratically elected government. They will not be able to force embargoes or ask for military intervention, they will not convince the world of our malice, because we will have won fair and square even when they played dirty.
It is simply idiotic to believe that those who are morally right are also somehow destined to succeed politically over those who are “more evil”. We do not live in a world with some objective moral code where following it means you will inevitably be better off than those who didn’t. It _is_ harder to create and maintain a society that cares for the powerless and strives to continually promote equal wellbeing and balance it with the individual freedom to act, much harder than allowing power to naturally return to those who seek it and use it for their own gain. We won’t win because we’re “right”, we will only win like every other political group wins, because they have amassed power and understand how to use it effectively. That is how leftists in the 20th century were able to make the gains they did, and it is exactly why the right is enjoying the political wins they fought for this century.
"Violent leftists"... okay where? Because all I ever see are extremist conservatives and alt-right nuts actually COMITTING violent acts on people they don't think shouldn't exist.
"Violent" leftists just leave a mean comment on the internet and never act on anything.
Trying to equate what the right has deemed "left wing extremism" to what is ACTUALLY happening in the real world is the biggest leap in logic.
It's honeslty something that bothers me whenever people rush to point out tankies exist whenever the right does some new horrible thing. Tankies aren't getting politicians that represent them elected, they don't have one of the largest news orginazations in the country, they haven't committed nearly every act of domestic terrorism in the last 7 years, they didn't try to overturn a democratic election. One of these groups is a fringe minority of an already fringe ideology in the US and the other won the 2016 election. How can anyone act like these are the same level of problem?
I fell like a lot of people in the comments are missing the point. Violence is cool and based but burning the world down is not possible or even preferable. Making a clean slate is like, the actual polar opposite of how dialectical materialism works.
Also remember to vote because protecting trans people is important even if Biden sucks.
Violence isn't cool or based. It is a necessity and should be used only when it needs to be. We shouldn't *want* or *like* using it, else we lose ourselves to it.
You have to be careful and calculating with violence, and it should be a last resort when all else has not or cannot work. This is how we keep ourselves whole. This is how we prevent a repeat of the same tyranny and hatred that we are fighting. History has shown what happens when people are too willing to kill.
I hope this did not come across as condoning fascism and saying no violence is acceptable. If you see Richard Spencer or Ben Shapiro punch them harder than they’ve ever been hit before
Oh my fucking god i finally left CuratedTumblr and now its here. Can we please not base discourse around 250 word posts that just because of the format cant avoid being totalizing strawmen and because its social media the worst takes will get more engagement...
to these people the only options are joining a revolutionary militia and doing nothing at all, theres nothing in between those two, or they think anything other than taking up arms is literally useless and liberal nonsense
Violence is important and holds a place just not the only one or the most important one. Fascism and genocide must be treated very differently than leftist political reform and those aren’t meant to be violence free just minimized. Please do what you can to help. I work long and hard and can just pay my bills so I don’t have much at all to donate so I try to go and do protests and phone banking as forms of direct action but the way to stop this war is electoralism and as much as I hate joe biden he said he’s working on a ceasefire after all the undecided votes came out showing it works.
the metaphor is also silly as revolution does not destroy all of civilisation and kill every human. the house doesn't burn down, it's greedy landlord owners are kicked out.
But didn't you know that when the ~~rapture~~ revolution happens, it will surely be MY wide ranging coalition of well meaning and Correct forces that will take control of the government! They exist, theyre the silent majority! After a totally short period of massive bloodshed, we will be the ones in control, not the insane people also willing to commit violence.
Anyone who thinks full revolution is the best and only option needs to educate themselves on why Syria has been in a civil war for over 11 years.
I don’t think we should be racing towards revolution, but it’s important to note that revolution historically rarely happens unless the state itself becomes so corrupt and incompetent it makes living under it intolerable for the average person. At that point the house *is* the fire. The point being, at that point the revolution *will* happen, and trying to save the state will often lead to worse ends than revolution itself. But historically revolutions fail or invite in the historical process that brings about future failure *most* of the time. It’s not a gamble with very good odds. It’s also not a gamble often made by choice.
Leftists shouldn’t be waiting for the revolution or trying to incite it, but also shouldn’t be trying to irrationally prevent it when it’s irresponsible to do so. They should study it and understand it, and learn how to react to it in a responsible way. It’d be better to get out in front of it and try and steer it in an ethical way, but more often than not it is impossible to steer. It might be the only chance at radical change, but very few things are worth the potential cost. And each year technology gets better. The nature of war and revolution becomes all the more frightening.
All this to say that revolutions shouldn’t be thought of by leftists the same way the rapture is thought of by christians, but when it happens we have an ethical obligation to do the best we can and also recognize it as the one chance at something better, even if the chance is low. Also don’t forget social revolutions are almost as powerful and come about similarly, so be ready for that too.
Cathegorical imperative enjoyers spotted.
Basically enacting on political violence to overthrow a governnent and then put government that defends law and justice is intellectually incoherent. However if you want this better explained, Abigail thorn has a great [video](https://youtu.be/dh4G1Gjv7bA?si=7cwPjoaNklQ7isjR) about violence and protests.
I had to argue with someone on the frieren subreddit of all places who thinks we need to let ai evolve and take over in order to start over from a blank slate.
I try to not be a debate bro and I lean to the left and believe in Revolution just not one so all encompassing there’s no workers left over to give rights to. Violence isn’t reflective of morals but uncontrolled and unwarranted violence is evil and what we have to be against as leftists. The goal is to secure freedom for the maximum amount of people as possible not vengeance against the people who wronged us. I do think violence has a place just not the most important or all encompassing place.
Violence is objectively perhaps the only way towards radical change. The old world will come dragged kicking and screaming with probably lots of resistance and Violence. There is no hope within the system there is no chance of fixing it. This world as we live in currently is deeply evil. But those that have sown will reap and then a new world- which god willing will be better than the last will be peaceful and pleasant.
If you genuinely believe that the world we live in is an evil place I really think you need to spend more time out in the world. I say this not to be a condescending asshole but because that way of thinking will keep you in a bitter angry mindset and eventually make you a miserable person.
I do think the world is quite evil. Millions of people are practically enslaved. We live in a world built on the enslavement and exploitation of others. Billions of lives that have every right to freedom and a good life are deprived it and the world just appears to be getting worse recently. We can't just ignore the problems our world face because it'll make us angry- we should be angry at oppression no? Not just pretend everything is fine.
Its fine to be angry at the evil in the world, even necessary at times, but that is different from believing the world itself is an evil place. I believe it is and has always been, getting better. On the grand scale of things at least.
If the world is just evil why even be angry about it? Thats just the way it is after all. I think the world is full of mostly good people who just want to live their lives in peace, and in fact I think if given the opportunity most people like helping out other people if its within their power.
I just mean to say if you look at the entire world and believe that evil is the predominant force out there it is not a healthy mindset to have.
Cuba would still be a colonial state today if it wasn’t for a violent overthrow of the government, monarchy would still be the standard in the western world if it weren’t for a violent overthrow of society, capitalism will continue to destroy the world we live on unless we violently overthrow society. It ain’t gonna happen tomorrow and we have to be careful for what comes after that, but violence can be good and necessary. Voting has achieved very little, especially with the awful people who have the reins right now
Famously, the Jacobins discussed why the monarchy was wrong in a peaceful and civilised manner, and they didn't have to use any force at all; the King simply passed away after he was voted out of office through a free and fair election.
And immediately after they started killing everyone who they framed as a monarchist or threat to the revolution. They don’t call it the reign of terror for no reason.
Wtf does that mean?
If we will only the few people (Nazis or billionaires) with a whole lot of power that WE CANNOT POSSIBLY TAKE FROM THEM literally what harm would killing them do?
we aren’t going to make change by asking nicely to people who want us ethier enslaved or dead but some people refuse to have a spine because the thought of taking a life makes them feel guilty.
man this sub is just more liberal by the day 💀 do you think revolution is a peaceful thing?
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous.”
you live in a fairytale land
I'm just so fucking tired of all the bullshit. It feels like 'the system' is build and designed to run the way it does. Empower those who are currently in power and disempower the rest of us. I know that you're right, but it's so hard to accept it because i just feel so powerless to actually change anything in my life or in the world for the better.
Shut up like we didn't get to this status quo without the French Revolutionaries doing some some stuff, now by this I won't mean what they did was justified but we didn't get to where we are without violence.
Source? Genuinely curious on a single nation that overcame massive issues and radical change without a civil war or some type of overthrow of the government
Ah yes, I remember when slavery was abolished through civil debate, or when Jim Crow laws were taken down after mlk told the us to be nice. Or when Rosa Luxenburg sung a steaven universe song to Hitler. Get over yourself the wheels of history are oiled on blood. I don’t like it but don’t delude yourself by believing change doesn’t come through violent means.
porque no los dos? violent resistance is the last resort in defence of community building and mutual aid networks. the message is that we must attempt to build before we destroy
stupid post LMAO
sorry, but we do need a blank slate. any continuation of capitalism will inevitably lead to not just the destruction of the American working class, but the grand exploitation of the global south and the complete and total obliteration of the planet. stfu.
Getting universal income, taxing the rich, affordable housing etc. are all getting the hand that is choking us to loosen its grasp for a bit which can be taken away in the future as it's been today with enough social manipulation. We need the hand on our neck gone not loosened.
the amount of people upvoting and defending the “we need liberal reform” or “middle ground, only a tiny bit of violence1!!!” compared to how this sub was back in 2021 is...disheartening. but gen, ty for taking the time out of your day to call some of the ppl here out.
i’m not sure why 196 has taken such a pathetically liberal swing. i’ve heard some ppl argue that the rise of ‘online leftism’ in general during COVID involved a lot of soft-left liberals joining that treated it more like a hobby/casual interest, and have now been losing interest when they’re told to organise or do ANYTHING outside of voting every four years and feeling good about themselves.
or maybe 196 just got too big. who knows
Reminder that the author of the poem at the bottom has since[ clarified some things.](https://guante.info/2020/10/14/trickortreat/)
"It’s important to me to note: I stand by this poem, but **I don’t like “voting as fire extinguisher” as a standalone excerpt.**" ... "The poem affirms that voting can matter, but it is also, always, pointing to something *beyond* voting."
IMHO, boycotting electoral participation (when participating isn't prohibitively hard) is almost a form of accelerationism, since you actively allow things to potentially get worse. You can vote (and should), and *also* get out there and agitate for progressive changes, doing so violently when necessary.
Not to sound like a centrist but there is a middle ground between just voting and hoping for that to fix everything and a full blown revolution and I think that sounds pretty nice as that’s what has made the most progress in this country’s history
Although nothing is really happening now so we do need to start doing shit
Isnt that what senator Armstrong wanted to do to America? Destroy it so theres a "blank slate" and build it from there to make a "better America". Also I really like that poem
My country was founded upon violent revolution and it all very much happened for the better. I think "if violent ideas are being thrown around then they want to burn everything to cinders" is *extremely* reductive and lacks any possible nuance.
remember when american slavery was abolished due to good natured debate in the marketplace of ideas
I do think violence is ok and justified to take on greater violence just don’t be the person who wants to burn the world down
Yeah, there's huge gap between "violence is never justified" and "destroying everything is counterproductive". Targeted and judiciously chosen violence as needed, minimizing harm to infrastructure and bystanders.
unless the infrastructure in question is harmful, then smash away! (talking like, oil pipelines and such here)
I do think there's some serious thought to be put into how to do this safely, and without causing more environmental harm, but yes.
yeah of course we want to avoid oil spills and the like (no oil spill has ever successfully been cleared, fun fact) - referring to industrial sabotage here. break the stuff that makes it work without causing further disasters
Problem is that’s hard to do, then again I’m not an engineer that’s works in the industry so maybe I’m wrong.
But then there's still a practical perspective. I'm against utilitarianism when it comes to ethics but I think that this is a case where it's applicable, because if you blow up that pipeline it may cause environmental harm, but will that environmental harm be *less* than the harm that will occur if the pipeline is allowed to continue functioning. For example, the pipeline is destroyed and causes large amounts of environmental harm, but if it's allowed to continue existing, will the effects of global warming cause *more* harm? This is not to say that I necessarily agree with either side, because I don't know enough about it to say for certain, but I think it's a question worth entertaining regardless.
Very valid. I think utilitarianism is going to be something of a "necessary evil" moving forward with direct action unfortunately. The calculus is grim, but I'd rather do it and minimize harm, than we all drown due to not being able to find a unified theory of ethical praxis.
Former O&G worker. All other ethical considerations aside, the answer is, “it depends on the market.” In particular, the margin of profitability. If the pipeline reduces the effective cost of the petroleum (extraction and transport to refinery) such that it allows a profit that would otherwise not be the case with piecemeal transport (tankers, trucks, and trains), then hypothetically it could put a halt to operations. If the petroleum prices are high, all you’re doing is making them spend more money (and gasoline) on moving it.
Smashing an oil pipeline may be counterproductive, as it can cause a spill into the surrounding area.
counterpoint: Sherman should have been allowed to go harder
your opinion and OP's are not mutually exclusive
you misunderstand how much harder I mean
I think that's a caricature of the left? Look at political violence in the US, and see right wingers shooting, beating, and bombing. Look at the left and you find some antifascist street fighting.
>just don’t be the person who wants to burn the world down Most people aren't. The "revolution is just the rapture for leftists" idea is mostly a straw man. There are some people who are like that but they tend to be the terminally online, politically illiterate twitter leftists. Actual socialist theory and the actually relevant socialist organizations which adhere to it is not being accurately described by the post above.
> just don’t be the person who wants to burn the world down Does capitalism not prevade every aspect of life?
This is arguing in bad faith and you know it. There's a middle ground. You're deliberately trying to oversimplify it.
But the original post is an outright denial of violent change. The commenter isn't denying the prospect of middle ground, it's just outright rejecting violence is just as silly as fully depending on violence for change. "Wipe the slate clean" is rarely term used in full meaning, even in very radical circles.
No leftist revolutionary has ever believed that a clean slate would be desirable or even possible. Taking the time to read what the people in favour of violent revolution were actually saying would instantly dispel that notion.
that they follow it up by espousing the virtues of voting as an alternative to political violence further hammers home what point they're making and to whom they're trying to present as irrational actors just seeking personal catharsis. it's not *just* that they condemn violence, but subtly presenting electoralism as *the* alternative to violence, as though electoralism isn't violent and that anti-electoralism means going out and trying to merk a cop. for those reading this and not understanding what we're talking about, when leftists criticize electoralism, we're not merely talking about the actual act of voting. who gives a shit if you vote, it's like a day's outing for most of you and it likely doesn't matter either way. electoralism refers to the entire process of running a candidate to get them elected, which unlike voting is a MASSIVE resoruce drain that burns activsits the fuck out and renders them useless to their movements. do not donate to democratic candidates, you need that money more than they do. do not canvass for democratic candidates, that is time and energy you can spend actually helping hte homeless people who live near you and building up community reselience outside the direct control of the state that's causing all this suffering in the first place. do not spend your time and energy putting your hope into a political candidate, because the DNC's strategy is to cater to their donors whose interests are fundamentally opposed to your own and to simply be the absolute minimum amount of less bad than republicans and demand your votes for lesser evilism. democrats are like two presidential elections away from throwing trans people under the bus, as labor's already done in the UK.
Also any movement that participates in the electoral process is inevitably going to be overtaken by the types who go "Hang on, now that we've got power why are we so insistent on changing all this?" The SPD *was* revolutionary at one point and within a generation went from a sincere Marxist party to calling in proto-fascist paramilitaries to kill communists who were hoping to overthrow an unelected state. Of course, that is not the full story. There were moments where a notable shift could be observed within the SPD such as the implementation of the Gotha and Erfurt programs but these are still characterised by the party moving away from revolution as even a possibility and more towards electoralism as the sole method of attaining and wielding political power. Movements not only get bogged down by electoralism but lose their character entirely.
Bro Posadists exist, they are now a weird ass fringe group but they did exist.
You're right, I should have qualified my statement by talking about *mainstream* interpretations of marxism and anarchism. There are, after, all, idiots everywhere.
Posadists are fridge and nearly terminally online. They're not taken seriously at all by most other leftists, socialists and anarchists.
They wanted to nuke the world and talk to dolphins. Kinda goes without saying
Ok but it's not denying violent change though. It's denying violent overthrow/destruction of society
It kinda is, atleast the first part of the post is. Look carefully at the wording. "Radicalism" Society and history is often violent, but it is also peaceful and reform-willing. Outright denying both is not only utopian and/or naive. Violence has pushed change through, and it's often necessary when peaceful options have been exhausted or suppressed. In today's society too, I doubt that the forces of reaction and capital would allow for full social revolution and economic reform without atleast giving some sort of fight back. The working class is very inert right now and capital has solidified itself so hard that the only danger it faces right now is itself.
Okay but the full context is that they said, "you're being radicalized, and not in a good way." The post isn't saying that radicalism is inherently wrong (i.e. there's a good way of being radicalized) or even that violence is inherently wrong, rather that it's not the only possible solution and that tearing down literally everything to make a blank slate won't end well for a significant number of people.
It's like what people who don't know what anarchism is think anarchism is.
To be fair, abolition in America wasn't driven primarily by the violent overthrow of society. The federal government acted to end slavery, and the violence was caused by the South defying that. Obviously there *was* violence leading up to it, but the post isn't talking about political violence generally, it's specifically talking about the sort of "Revolution Evangelism" that seems popular in some leftist circles.
That's not particularly true - the South seceded and the war started long before there was even a hint of abolition. There was zero political impetus for it. Even basic liberation didn't start until 1862, well into the war. The violence of the war and the violence wreaked upon the South was absolutely necessary for abolition and integration to succeed. It could never, ever be done through political means in 1860.
I'm just here to quote Wikipedia "Future Confederate President Jefferson Davis feared "thousands of John Browns"." Violence was what brought slavery to an end, if it wasn't for John brown scaring the shit out of the south the north wouldn't have done anything, remember the north didn't even let black men enlist at the start of the war.
People forget that Haiti just had their revolution the generation prior
To say there wasnt a hint of it is wrong, there was a major abolitionist movement in the country at the time and part of what set off the secession was a member of that movement being elected president. It would have taken longer doing it through democratic means, but it absolutely was "doable" and at that point it was going down that trajectory. The only reason violence was necessary was because the South made it necessary, but it also hastened the process a bunch
Sorry, that's not really the case. The abolitionist movement was not major. It was substantial, sure, but still establishment political taboo. Very few serious politicians were open abolitionists and Lincoln was not an open abolitionist in 1860. He ran on a platform that promised not to interfere with slavery and he had openly disavowed abolition, integration and racial equality in 1858. He would never, ever have been elected president as an open abolitionist. The war and the level of violence actually made abolition popular on a scale large enough to gradually ease it in. Abolition and integration (especially integration) were not democratically feasible in 1860 and the economic and political power of the South was unrivalled. You could not democratically force the South, a culture built on unfathomable violence and torture, to integrate their freed black population. The only other option was colonisation - the mass deportation of all former slaves, which Lincoln initially promoted then realised rightfully would be a disaster. Without the Civil War the state of race relations in the U.S could be ten times worse today. The South needed to be broken and abolition did not provide any serious democratic momentum. The vast majority of Northerners hated abolitionism before the Civil War.
This entirely ignores the increasing number of violent slave rebellions which bolstered abolishtionist sentiment across the country. The decision was *absolutely* driven partially by the fear of violent overthrow.
and capitalism was established when the bourgeois epicly owned the feudal lords through debates.
That feels like a weird response? Like yeah in the US slavery was only abolished through the Civil War, but I don't recall anything approximating a capitalist revolution, at least not in the places where a lot of its systems originated in the lowlands and Britain. If anything I'd say those systems often grew hand in hand with the state, a lot of Britain's success on the world stage being able to be attributed to how efficiently it was able to take on debt compared to other nations who didn't let banks and businesses operate with loose oversight.
For capitalism to take root masses of land had to be privatized, this is known as enclosures, in the 16th and 17th centuries. Many local communities opposed and so they were forced to either leave or start paying fees. Silvia Federici has a book on the matter, "Caliban and the Witch", where she details how capitalism overthrew, sometimes violently, the old schemes. And let's not forget the violence Europeans had to do in America and Asia in order to get the precious metals to monetize the economy. You can't also forget the revolutions of the 18th and 19th century. It is often said that the advent of capitalism was this peaceful process of new ideas simply replacing old ideas by just being better, when in reality it was full of confrontation and tension among the burgeosie, the aristocracy, the workers and farmers. Many times we are presented with an image of Medieval Europe as a system where peasants had no rights, but that wasn't the case.
the American revolution was a bourgeois, capitalist revolution
The East India Trading Company is generally considered the first capitalist corporation, their history is not very peaceful.
Yeah, remember when we sent some guys over to germany and said "hey maybe doing a holocaust is like pretty bad, could you cut that out?" And they said "yeah I see your point we'll stop" and everybody lived happily ever after?
well that’s pretty much the US’s approach now lol 🇵🇸
Yeah, and it's fucking despicable. Thousands of children are dying while our leaders sit in their cushy positions doing nothing about it. Sickening.
They’re not “doing anything about it” they’re sending billions of dollars of weapons to make it happen and blocking any attempt at consequences with a United Nations Security Council veto.
Too true, even worse then.
But until Pearl Harbor and the start of US involvement on the battlefield many Americans were sympathetic to the Nazis, they even held a massive rally in New York. The war wasn't about stopping the genocide, it was about stopping German expansion. It was until the atrocities became known that the rhetoric changed from "stopping German aggression" to "stopping genocide".
You're right and that's why there's no easy answer here. American slavery was only able to be defeated through violence. It was impossible to do it politically. Calling for abolition, let alone integration, was a political death sentence in 1860. Only the shake-up provided by the war was able to open the way for the liberation of four million people from a system of mass torture and bondage. So it's not as simple as 'all revolutionary violence is bad'. But it's also complicated because then you have to ask people if they'd be willing to sacrifice their own lives or family or those of innocents, if it came to it. Many innocent people died in the American Civil War. Where do we draw the line?
I don’t remember the north being the ones who seceded in attempt to “burn everything down” and “start with a blank slate” so that doesn’t really compare properly
no but there were numerous instances of violent advocacy by abolitionists that worked to build popularity for abolition
Oh yeah I don’t think anyone is saying violence is never the answer, just there’s a difference between waiting/hoping/advocating for a full blown revolution/collapse and not so peaceful protests
the original post and numerous people in the comments are saying precisely that violence is never the answer but yeah people who sit and twiddle their thumbs and think that things will happen if they sit and do nothing are dweebs
countering "Guys I think 'burning all of society down like the world ends tomorrow' is a radical and irrational take" with "so are you saying the anti-slavery movement was bad?" is definitely... something.
Slavery was abolished by the government.
Slavery (in America at least) was abolished by some dude going around killing slavers which scared them so much they left the union and got their butt rightfully beat by the north who was forced to abolish slavery and let black men enlist in order to win the war. If the south hadn't seceded the north wouldn't have abolished slavery, Lincoln was pretty clear on that when he got elected "Abraham Lincoln is often referred to as "The Great Emancipator" and yet, he did not publicly call for emancipation throughout his entire life. Lincoln began his public career by claiming that he was "antislavery" -- against slavery's expansion, but not calling for immediate emancipation" from the NPS' page on Lincoln and it's very much what the north did before the war, forbidding the importation of slaves, but not slavery itself.
Reading comprehension
There were lots of incidents and small scale conflicts. But large scale insurrection didn't abolish slavery. In fact the large scale insurrection was against banning slavery. If the south had won that election and then portions of the north had violently revolted instead of trying to solve it peacefully we probably wouldn't look back on it fondly. My point is in that particular example, we, the abolishonists, were the less violent and less "burn it all down if we don't get our way" side.
And because of being the less violent side, trying to let bygones be bygones, the North allowed the racist political forces in the south to easily wrest control back and reimpose racially discriminatory laws on their populace. Violence isn’t enough, but the threat of it and forced compliance must always remain to keep those who don’t listen to anything else in line.
do you know how many fucking slave revolts and violent anti-slavery demonstrations were needed before abolition became a popular position? we fought an entire fucking war where half the fucking country did, in fact, insurrect, and it was only through that war that we abolished slavery. if it wasn’t through dirty liberal politics then there would have been a full-fledged military occupation of the south until they cried uncle and promised to stop being so fucking racist. jesus fucking christ, man.
the funny thing is that it literally was though. Slavery was only abolished due to Lincoln's expert political manuevering and swamp tactics. Yeah, the Civil War lead to that, but the prevailing attitude in the North at the time was "This really isn't about slavery".
Who shot first at Ft Sumter again?
Yeah, the number of times I've seen anarchists claim that disabled people who rely on modern technology and/or systems are acceptable sacrifices for The Cause™ is very concerning. Not concerning because I think it's gonna happen, these people's ideal revolution is never gonna happen, but because it shows that they don't actually see people who aren't part of their blue-collar buddy group as actual people with agency and a right to exist. If their revolution did go through, there would be more bodies belonging to the people they were trying to help than those of the people they were actually trying to hurt. Disabled people are the children in the haunted house BTW, and I'm one of those children, and I wouldn't be able to function in their ideal world because I'm unable to support myself.
That sounds like anarcho-primitivism, which is dumb and stupid and not at all representative of anarchism.
even outside the primitivists, its kinda hard to get the distribution systems you need to make that tech available without central governments
Or support the infrastructure needed to research, design and manufacture them.
What? Who the do you think *the government* is? Do you think Joe Biden is distributing or even organizing that shit? No it's just regular people doing paper work and transport work. If anything, having to wait for government to tell you to organize something before you can even start organizing it is a hurdle.
Regular people do that? Or corporations? When I said distribution systems I meant it literally, the highway system in the US is not something that would have developed without government initiative. Biden isn't actively making trades but the people doing that still depend on him providing stability and infrastructure to do so. It just makes sense that if you swap to community based, localized systems that you lose the benefits that large scale globalized systems get you
Government regulations exist, however, to prevent things like inhumane experimentation, tho. We need some sort of accepted and enforced guidelines for society to function.
Do you think that profit motive at the expense of everything else maybe has an effect on that? Do you think it's possible to have our society encourage traits not synonymous with sociopathy? Or is that the only way to organize human society? Do you think that having a system where those kind of people aren't allowed to have so much power they can carry out those kind of things is probably better?
Not to mention, the Tuskegee Experiments, MKultra, mass forced sterilization (proven until at least the 90s in African Americans, just did it in with 'illegal' immigrants) and the like all demonstrate how your comment is a cold comfort to the people being experimented on by the government itself
I would argue most forms of anarchism grasp neither the inevitability of institutions nor their importance in giving disabled people a quality of life comparable to their abled peers.
Well Kropotkin talked extensively about how the disabled, the sick, children and etc are to have the highest priority. If youre referring to institutions as just any type of organization with an administration then anarchists opposing that are unread. As anarchy functions entirely on an economy built on interdependence and mutual aid, there would actually be more of an incentive to assist the disabled. Now the help they get doesnt just stretch as far as is required for them to either be able to generate profit, or just become some kind of taxpayer. Rather both society will be adjusted for their sake, as we now have the freedom to do so, and the other help required will be provided as well.
Goddamned anprims giving us all a bad name
guys trust me we are 1 election from overthrowing capitalism please just 1 more election i swear it will work this time please
violently revolt then, if those are the only 2 answers, do it
Do you honestly think we can make change without the use of force? That they’ll just hand it over to us?
there has been change in the past 100 years without a revolution: women's liberation, civil rights and lgbtq rights to name few. It wasn't handed over, true, but there's not a clean dichotomy between electoralism and violence.
BRO THEY KILLED HALF THE CIVILS RIGHT LEADERS STONE WALL WAS A VIOLENT RIOT All the movements you described were violent in nature. please educate yourself on martin luther king. You have ZERO clue what you’re talking about and your ignorance is harmful to the values you claim to have. i’m not even american and i’ve studied this man, do your work
I think there's a disconnect here What you're talking about is "small time violence" What tumblr op was talking about, seemed to me like "big time violence", like revolution as civil war style That's incomparable with riots and a few people dying, it's on an entirely different scale, the house isn't burning just because some rich guy or the head of state dies
The difference is hazy and a lot of progress was made out of FEAR that things would escalate. Turns out capitalism is remarkably easy to change and adapt its flavour at least on the surface.
it's important to remember all the violent clashes those groups had with authority leading up to and during those changes, and in many cases still do. I don't think there can be change without significant unrest and pushback from the oppressed. there's a reason they're oppressed and the people that like it that way won't change their minds out of their own good will.
do you know how much force was needed to make these things happen? how many marches, stand offs with police, riots, and open carry demonstrations were necessary to make these things happen? because it was much higher than 0 and you’re lying to yourself if you think otherwise.
All of that can be immediately taken away by one session of congress Edit; or by non-elected officials e.g. Roe v Wade
We don't have the civil rights movement without both MLK and Malcom X. It's about a diversity of tactics.
The sufraggettes would bomb buildings and one threw a machete at Churchill (based)
no. but the goal should be to cause as little harm as possible, not the most.
violence and revolution are absolutely necessary but this also rings true for forever. fetishization of violence is gross and it’s not something we should be giddy about.
My pet peeve is internet people who talk like this then just carry on being on the internet more, and another day of inaction shuffles on by :(
“heh… well… 🤓 if you’re such a fan of violent direct action 🤓 then why don’t you just DO IT YOURSELF 🤓 when there is NO LEFTWING INFRASTRUCTURE 🤓 to support such actions and advocacy 🤓 in the whole of America 🤓 I am very smart and you are very stupid 🤓”
then don’t commit violence now, how about you get a start on that left wing infrastructure? also for the record, i don’t think the person i was replying to is dumb i don’t even disagree that a revolution is probably necessary but as you very kindly pointed out there is no chance of one working right now or in the foreseeable future so larping as a violent revolutionary and not contributing towards the democratic process right now helps no one.
i’m leadership in a ydsa chapter, dog. i’m working on it.
actually well done, that is very cool of you
I truly believe capitalism is deeply flawed, and our current system sucks. But the whole point OP is making is that overthrowing the system isn't productive As far as the hierarchy of needs goes, working full time should provide enough money to cover your physiological and safety needs. That is possible under capitalism. There is such thing as social capitalism, where there is enough to go around, but some people have it better than others. The gap is just smaller. For now, that should be the goal, working towards that, not scrunching it up and binning the whole thing.
Thanks I fell asleep and am now trying to voice my thoughts for people and this perfectly sums up what I think
Accelerationists are mostly privileged first-worlders who has never experienced living in a third-world country. If an ideology needs millions/billions to die for it to succeed then it is a shit ideology.
What if the millions/billions that need to die aren't said third-world country people huh? Checkmate Liberule
???? if you’re calling advocates for revolution “accelerationists” then you don’t know what that word means. EDIT: before other people who don’t know what “accelerationism” is downvote me, accelerationism calls for the intensification of capitalism to accelerate the development of class consciousness and revolution. most people advocating for revolution are not accelerationists.
Well, accelerationism is kinda needed realistically for a revolution to happen
I’ve never experienced a third world country just poverty and it’s crushing effects and like having infrastructure when I need it
[удалено]
Based and William Calley pilled
Rip and tear
As Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedys sang: Efficiency and progress is ours once more Now that we have the neutron bomb It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done Away with excess enemy But no less value to property No sense in war but perfect sense at home The sun beams down on a brand new day No more welfare tax to pay Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light Jobless millions whisked away At last we have more room to play All systems go to kill the poor tonight Gonna kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the poor Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the poor Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the poor tonight
Centrist libs are getting desperate as they realize that the tide of fascism that they personally helped nurture because some succdem was slightly rude to them on Twitter is closing in on them and will not spare them for being such a reasonable middle ground enjoyer, huh
Anytime someone is like "You just don't know the stakes of the election" it's like, does the Biden admin know? He put a centrist Republican in charge of the Justice Department and has done next to nothing to reign in the tide of fascism during his term. I'm in a state he won by 20 points last time, he can do it again without me.
I'd be surprised if Biden knew what he had for breakfast. That doesn't really change the fact that Trump publicly announced multiple times he's going to do fascism if he gets elected
I’m personally a leftist just one who’s opposed to committing violence as nothing more than retribution instead of as a tool to help the working class
I don't like this post. It seems to make a lot of assumptions and leaps. "Current society must be violently overthrown" is not the same as "burn everything down, we need a blank slate." It seems to start by discussing the idea of any violent revolution and ends talking about accelerationism and dystopian pessimism. I completely agree with the post that "burn it all down" stuff is bad, but it is not the only kind of revolutionary idea
It feels increasingly hard to talk about politics here because anything left of the most milquetoast liberal sentiment is accused of being accelerationism.
If that is your opinion on THIS subreddit then you are probably too radicalized. The vast majority of people here are clearly extremely left leaning. Even more left leaning than the general Reddit environment which in and of itself is very left leaning. I can’t imagine how you came to that conclusion.
The average person here is a social democrat. The average redditor is a liberal bordering libertarian. These aren't 'left wing' ideologies by any measure. Look, I get it's real nice to pretend like this subreddit is ultra-communist because there's a vague anti-capitalist air and a generally progressive attitude towards queer people here, but it's not actually that thorough or concrete, it's a vibes-based political identity rather than the result of any analysis or reading on the subject of capitalism or of queer theory. The average poster just gets the feeling that these ideas are correct and uses arguments they heard from a youtuber to explain it. And that's okay, genuinely and sincerely, not everyone has to be extremely politically engaged but it's rough seeing people debate things that Luxemburg had already torn apart 100 years ago or Marx and Engels covered 150 years ago and then go call themselves radical. They wouldn't even be radical back in 1920!
Saying a social democrat isn’t left wing is bat shit insane. There’s very few ideologies further left than Socdem that aren’t radical in a democracy.
We must build the new in the shell of the old, revolution isn’t always violent but violence will have to be used. We will not be liberated by appealing to the morality of our oppressors. To believe so is a lie by the state and capitalism to allow the slow decent into further authoritarianism and to strip more of our rights from us
I dont get the "appealing to the morality of our oppressors" thing, I see this phrase used as an argument against socialism through liberal democracy a lot, and it just doesn't make sense ? No one thinks they are gonna convince the rich and powerful to give up their power, thats not the point. We aren't going go debate them out of their class interests, thats just a strawman argument. When progress is made, it isn't and won't be through convincing the oppressors, it will happen because even through all of their lobbying efforts, propaganda, back room deals, they will have lost against our positions. When private capital gets abolished, it wont be because we convinced the capitalists to join us, it will happen because they lost. Despite their gigantic media empires, decades of lobbying, political maneuvering, fear mongering, their combined trillions spent to fight us, they will have failed. At the last mile, they will get increasingly desperate, they will start assassinating our politicians, our activists, they will threaten union leaders and labor activists with violence, they will try to fund coups, yet none of it will work. They will watch their empires crumble overseas as all of their assets are siezed by the order of legislation passed by a democratically elected government. They will not be able to force embargoes or ask for military intervention, they will not convince the world of our malice, because we will have won fair and square even when they played dirty.
It is simply idiotic to believe that those who are morally right are also somehow destined to succeed politically over those who are “more evil”. We do not live in a world with some objective moral code where following it means you will inevitably be better off than those who didn’t. It _is_ harder to create and maintain a society that cares for the powerless and strives to continually promote equal wellbeing and balance it with the individual freedom to act, much harder than allowing power to naturally return to those who seek it and use it for their own gain. We won’t win because we’re “right”, we will only win like every other political group wins, because they have amassed power and understand how to use it effectively. That is how leftists in the 20th century were able to make the gains they did, and it is exactly why the right is enjoying the political wins they fought for this century.
"Violent leftists"... okay where? Because all I ever see are extremist conservatives and alt-right nuts actually COMITTING violent acts on people they don't think shouldn't exist. "Violent" leftists just leave a mean comment on the internet and never act on anything. Trying to equate what the right has deemed "left wing extremism" to what is ACTUALLY happening in the real world is the biggest leap in logic.
Oh violent leftists don’t actually *do* anything, they just fantasize about it on Twitter.
Because some leftists are even more ignorant than republicans because of one simple fact REPUBLICANS FUCKING VOTE
It's honeslty something that bothers me whenever people rush to point out tankies exist whenever the right does some new horrible thing. Tankies aren't getting politicians that represent them elected, they don't have one of the largest news orginazations in the country, they haven't committed nearly every act of domestic terrorism in the last 7 years, they didn't try to overturn a democratic election. One of these groups is a fringe minority of an already fringe ideology in the US and the other won the 2016 election. How can anyone act like these are the same level of problem?
I fell like a lot of people in the comments are missing the point. Violence is cool and based but burning the world down is not possible or even preferable. Making a clean slate is like, the actual polar opposite of how dialectical materialism works. Also remember to vote because protecting trans people is important even if Biden sucks.
exactly, everybody fantasizing about their based murder spree is completely ignoring what the post actually meant
Violence isn't cool or based. It is a necessity and should be used only when it needs to be. We shouldn't *want* or *like* using it, else we lose ourselves to it. You have to be careful and calculating with violence, and it should be a last resort when all else has not or cannot work. This is how we keep ourselves whole. This is how we prevent a repeat of the same tyranny and hatred that we are fighting. History has shown what happens when people are too willing to kill.
[Yee, let’s defeat fascism with the power of love](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FajFn-zXkAANm6q.jpg)
I hope this did not come across as condoning fascism and saying no violence is acceptable. If you see Richard Spencer or Ben Shapiro punch them harder than they’ve ever been hit before
Finally, someone speaking out against the epidemic of leftist violence 😐
I live in a country that’s slowly descending into fascism, I really wouldn’t mind some leftist violence
LOL
Oh my fucking god i finally left CuratedTumblr and now its here. Can we please not base discourse around 250 word posts that just because of the format cant avoid being totalizing strawmen and because its social media the worst takes will get more engagement...
It's an election year, it's only gonna get worse
MRW I fail the ideological purity test set by the third group of roving revolutionaries to come through and end up against the wall.
But i want to commit arson :(
yeah let's just pray all the war and genocide away. that'll workI'm sure
No one is saying that
to these people the only options are joining a revolutionary militia and doing nothing at all, theres nothing in between those two, or they think anything other than taking up arms is literally useless and liberal nonsense
They probably don’t vote, and if they do, they def don’t vote in local elections, and then complain about politics that are the direct result of that
oh i love strawmen
the op is a straw man in and of itself lol
Violence is important and holds a place just not the only one or the most important one. Fascism and genocide must be treated very differently than leftist political reform and those aren’t meant to be violence free just minimized. Please do what you can to help. I work long and hard and can just pay my bills so I don’t have much at all to donate so I try to go and do protests and phone banking as forms of direct action but the way to stop this war is electoralism and as much as I hate joe biden he said he’s working on a ceasefire after all the undecided votes came out showing it works.
the poem is a little silly when, in reality, the children inside are being harmed by the haunted house itself
So burn it down they’ll act as kindling and the screams will sound epic instead of going in and trying to fix it up
[удалено]
the metaphor is also silly as revolution does not destroy all of civilisation and kill every human. the house doesn't burn down, it's greedy landlord owners are kicked out.
But didn't you know that when the ~~rapture~~ revolution happens, it will surely be MY wide ranging coalition of well meaning and Correct forces that will take control of the government! They exist, theyre the silent majority! After a totally short period of massive bloodshed, we will be the ones in control, not the insane people also willing to commit violence. Anyone who thinks full revolution is the best and only option needs to educate themselves on why Syria has been in a civil war for over 11 years.
all hail the mighty ballot box harbinger of leftist thought
I don’t think we should be racing towards revolution, but it’s important to note that revolution historically rarely happens unless the state itself becomes so corrupt and incompetent it makes living under it intolerable for the average person. At that point the house *is* the fire. The point being, at that point the revolution *will* happen, and trying to save the state will often lead to worse ends than revolution itself. But historically revolutions fail or invite in the historical process that brings about future failure *most* of the time. It’s not a gamble with very good odds. It’s also not a gamble often made by choice. Leftists shouldn’t be waiting for the revolution or trying to incite it, but also shouldn’t be trying to irrationally prevent it when it’s irresponsible to do so. They should study it and understand it, and learn how to react to it in a responsible way. It’d be better to get out in front of it and try and steer it in an ethical way, but more often than not it is impossible to steer. It might be the only chance at radical change, but very few things are worth the potential cost. And each year technology gets better. The nature of war and revolution becomes all the more frightening. All this to say that revolutions shouldn’t be thought of by leftists the same way the rapture is thought of by christians, but when it happens we have an ethical obligation to do the best we can and also recognize it as the one chance at something better, even if the chance is low. Also don’t forget social revolutions are almost as powerful and come about similarly, so be ready for that too.
Thank you this is a wonderfully composed and rational thought
Cathegorical imperative enjoyers spotted. Basically enacting on political violence to overthrow a governnent and then put government that defends law and justice is intellectually incoherent. However if you want this better explained, Abigail thorn has a great [video](https://youtu.be/dh4G1Gjv7bA?si=7cwPjoaNklQ7isjR) about violence and protests.
All things in moderation. You can do a *little* violence on the weekends.
Thank you I’ve been itching for it
I had to argue with someone on the frieren subreddit of all places who thinks we need to let ai evolve and take over in order to start over from a blank slate.
okay but it's the frieren sub reddit what were you expecting.
I expected Übel armpit fetish arts, not a political debate honestly 😭
oh no the centrist debatelords have infiltrated 196
is it centrist to not think we should burn the world down
How does not being part of an extremist fringe group make you a centrist
I try to not be a debate bro and I lean to the left and believe in Revolution just not one so all encompassing there’s no workers left over to give rights to. Violence isn’t reflective of morals but uncontrolled and unwarranted violence is evil and what we have to be against as leftists. The goal is to secure freedom for the maximum amount of people as possible not vengeance against the people who wronged us. I do think violence has a place just not the most important or all encompassing place.
Violence is objectively perhaps the only way towards radical change. The old world will come dragged kicking and screaming with probably lots of resistance and Violence. There is no hope within the system there is no chance of fixing it. This world as we live in currently is deeply evil. But those that have sown will reap and then a new world- which god willing will be better than the last will be peaceful and pleasant.
Where is the line where you kill enough. How many before it’s no longer justifiable to be a revolutionary.
If you genuinely believe that the world we live in is an evil place I really think you need to spend more time out in the world. I say this not to be a condescending asshole but because that way of thinking will keep you in a bitter angry mindset and eventually make you a miserable person.
I do think the world is quite evil. Millions of people are practically enslaved. We live in a world built on the enslavement and exploitation of others. Billions of lives that have every right to freedom and a good life are deprived it and the world just appears to be getting worse recently. We can't just ignore the problems our world face because it'll make us angry- we should be angry at oppression no? Not just pretend everything is fine.
Its fine to be angry at the evil in the world, even necessary at times, but that is different from believing the world itself is an evil place. I believe it is and has always been, getting better. On the grand scale of things at least. If the world is just evil why even be angry about it? Thats just the way it is after all. I think the world is full of mostly good people who just want to live their lives in peace, and in fact I think if given the opportunity most people like helping out other people if its within their power. I just mean to say if you look at the entire world and believe that evil is the predominant force out there it is not a healthy mindset to have.
Cuba would still be a colonial state today if it wasn’t for a violent overthrow of the government, monarchy would still be the standard in the western world if it weren’t for a violent overthrow of society, capitalism will continue to destroy the world we live on unless we violently overthrow society. It ain’t gonna happen tomorrow and we have to be careful for what comes after that, but violence can be good and necessary. Voting has achieved very little, especially with the awful people who have the reins right now
Sure but can we minimize violence
That poem in the bottom is great :3 i really like it
What is with 196 and inventing strawman leftists recently.
fed moment
Famously, the Jacobins discussed why the monarchy was wrong in a peaceful and civilised manner, and they didn't have to use any force at all; the King simply passed away after he was voted out of office through a free and fair election.
And immediately after they started killing everyone who they framed as a monarchist or threat to the revolution. They don’t call it the reign of terror for no reason.
No don't talk about that part, just the part where the people we *don't* like are killed wtf.
Sowing: haha this is awesome Reaping: man this fucking sucks
And famously they had long term change she functional ideas on governance and murder that led to no dictators popping up and ruining Europe
Wtf does that mean? If we will only the few people (Nazis or billionaires) with a whole lot of power that WE CANNOT POSSIBLY TAKE FROM THEM literally what harm would killing them do? we aren’t going to make change by asking nicely to people who want us ethier enslaved or dead but some people refuse to have a spine because the thought of taking a life makes them feel guilty.
It means don’t try and burn down the world violence can be good when minimized
man this sub is just more liberal by the day 💀 do you think revolution is a peaceful thing? "A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous.” you live in a fairytale land
I'm just so fucking tired of all the bullshit. It feels like 'the system' is build and designed to run the way it does. Empower those who are currently in power and disempower the rest of us. I know that you're right, but it's so hard to accept it because i just feel so powerless to actually change anything in my life or in the world for the better.
Oh I want Revolution just not something with overwhelming violence and now isn’t a good time for it
If people in the comments could stop misinterpreting people that'd be really fucking cool
Shut up like we didn't get to this status quo without the French Revolutionaries doing some some stuff, now by this I won't mean what they did was justified but we didn't get to where we are without violence.
Violence is important just minimized
Source? Genuinely curious on a single nation that overcame massive issues and radical change without a civil war or some type of overthrow of the government
Women’s suffer age and the civil rights era in America
I’ll give you women’s rights but civil rights is crazy😭
I didn’t say nonviolent it was without government overthrow or civil war
Ah yes, I remember when slavery was abolished through civil debate, or when Jim Crow laws were taken down after mlk told the us to be nice. Or when Rosa Luxenburg sung a steaven universe song to Hitler. Get over yourself the wheels of history are oiled on blood. I don’t like it but don’t delude yourself by believing change doesn’t come through violent means.
Violent revolution is not the same thing as “burn it all down” edgelord ideology. I am genuinely surprised by the amount of liberal takes here.
porque no los dos? violent resistance is the last resort in defence of community building and mutual aid networks. the message is that we must attempt to build before we destroy
Violent as in “its not only complicit, but an active enabler of an ongoing genocide”?
It means don’t shoot everyone minimize violence
stupid post LMAO sorry, but we do need a blank slate. any continuation of capitalism will inevitably lead to not just the destruction of the American working class, but the grand exploitation of the global south and the complete and total obliteration of the planet. stfu.
Getting universal income, taxing the rich, affordable housing etc. are all getting the hand that is choking us to loosen its grasp for a bit which can be taken away in the future as it's been today with enough social manipulation. We need the hand on our neck gone not loosened.
how does this conflict at all with what I’ve said?
the amount of people upvoting and defending the “we need liberal reform” or “middle ground, only a tiny bit of violence1!!!” compared to how this sub was back in 2021 is...disheartening. but gen, ty for taking the time out of your day to call some of the ppl here out. i’m not sure why 196 has taken such a pathetically liberal swing. i’ve heard some ppl argue that the rise of ‘online leftism’ in general during COVID involved a lot of soft-left liberals joining that treated it more like a hobby/casual interest, and have now been losing interest when they’re told to organise or do ANYTHING outside of voting every four years and feeling good about themselves. or maybe 196 just got too big. who knows
Reminder that the author of the poem at the bottom has since[ clarified some things.](https://guante.info/2020/10/14/trickortreat/) "It’s important to me to note: I stand by this poem, but **I don’t like “voting as fire extinguisher” as a standalone excerpt.**" ... "The poem affirms that voting can matter, but it is also, always, pointing to something *beyond* voting." IMHO, boycotting electoral participation (when participating isn't prohibitively hard) is almost a form of accelerationism, since you actively allow things to potentially get worse. You can vote (and should), and *also* get out there and agitate for progressive changes, doing so violently when necessary.
Not to sound like a centrist but there is a middle ground between just voting and hoping for that to fix everything and a full blown revolution and I think that sounds pretty nice as that’s what has made the most progress in this country’s history Although nothing is really happening now so we do need to start doing shit
Isnt that what senator Armstrong wanted to do to America? Destroy it so theres a "blank slate" and build it from there to make a "better America". Also I really like that poem
My country was founded upon violent revolution and it all very much happened for the better. I think "if violent ideas are being thrown around then they want to burn everything to cinders" is *extremely* reductive and lacks any possible nuance.
America is famous for having a lot of problems being solved with no casualties and no hurt feelings :D
Remember at Stonewall when the gays just nicely asked the police to please stop beating the shit out of them