this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2025
-1 points (33.3% liked)

Memes

53473 readers
728 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] antifa_ceo@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I understand your desire for change NOW but the unfortunate reality is we do not yet have the conditions for it. There's plenty of room to criticize many of these figures on the left in the US for various things - I have plenty of smoke for them as well.

BUT while class consciousness remains nearly nonexistent in this country we must engage with the masses where they are at. We must be in the governmental structures that the masses are engaged in so we can be part of the conversation. We must run cadre candidates in elections EVEN WHEN THEY MIGHT LOSE (tactically though we only have so much capacity) so we can spread our message to more people. We must go to the trade unions and tenant unions so we are where the people closest to our movement are.

Left coms will call me a reformist for this take but it is simply a necessary evil we must contend with in the interim. Even once we take control of society we will still have to reckon with the capitalist structures we inherit. We will not be able to do away with it in one fell swoop it simply does not work this way. It will be a decidedly incremental path of dismantling them one by one so we can return power back to the working class citizen.

The primary goal MUST be a pragmatic takeover of the state by using and abusing the systems that exist today, doing what we can to expand the permissibility of our messaging until we no longer need these systems anymore. Organizing a true socialist movement that will not become subordinated to liberals (or hell even the rightist or far leftist socialist tendencies) or worse necessitates a more strategic and patient path towards global liberation and emancipation.

[–] korendian@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

No no, you don't understand, you're only a true Marxist if you call for armed revolution. /s

[–] antifa_ceo@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You joke but I think a lot of leftists online unironically believe this.

And I'm not even saying armed revolution is necessarily off the table - but it's certainly not what we try first or even second or third for that matter.

[–] korendian@lemmy.zip -1 points 3 weeks ago

I will admit, we are getting onto our second or third option at this point, but people calling for armed revolution do not truly understand the impact that would have on society in the short term, and also how insanely difficult to impossible that idea actually is in modern American society. Democratic socialist ideas are only just starting to gain support now because liberalism has proven to be so ineffectual for long and it is a potential electoral path to start course correcting.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean, kinda? Revolution is a core part of Marxism. There are rare instances like in Chile where voting worked, but then Allende was couped by the US and Pinochet.

[–] korendian@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There are plenty of marxist rooted ideologies that eschew violence, and opt for a more electoral or direct action/mutual aid type of approach to bringing about communism.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] korendian@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Democratic socialism? Libertarian socialism?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

All socialism is democratic, so I assume you mean reformist socialism. Reformism has extremely specific and limited use-cases, Allende being a short-lived example. Chile was able to successfully elect a Marxist, but he was ousted in a coup. It isn't impossible, but relying on reformism as the main strategy in all or even most cases is a significant departure from Marxist analysis of the state and its class character.

Libertarian socialism is more anarchist than anything, and has no problems with revolution. I don't see why you bring it up.

[–] korendian@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

No not all socialism is democratic. Libertarian socialism is by definition non-violent. You cannot be libertarian while also advocating for violence against others.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago

Incorrect on both counts. Democracy is rule by the majority, socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working class is in control of the state. Libertarianism just refers to a limited state, it cares nothing about how that is achieved. Anarchism and anarchist-adjacent ideologies are almost always revolutionary as well. Pacifism is uncommon.

[–] Achyu@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

What happens when the US and allies forments coups and starts bombing you?

Obviously, peaceful means are preferred by most people.
Like, why would they allow you to take power peacefully?

Imagine you take power and want to redistribute land to the common people who were exploited and forced to be landless or without proper homes in the previous regime? Would not the ultrawealthy landowners try to coup you and get support of US and other countries?

Then you'll have to go there, right?
Or you'll have to stop or allow yourself to be couped.

Like, in Russia, they took power away from a monarchy and came into power with the slogans of 'Land, peace and bread:. They faced an attack by the White army, which was supported by major foreign powers.

In China, they took power away from Japanese colonialism and subsequent mix of Koumingtang rule which violently opposed communists and the public who wanted land reform.

In Vietnam, they fought French colonialism and US invasion.

Similarly, in Korea, US installed a dictatorship to kill people who may have been even slightly sympathetic to socialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre

Even in the case of slavery in US, the North, under the Lincoln govt, had to fight the south, right? Republicans were attacked in the south by Racial supremacist groups on that too.