So, I’m not cool with genocide. Not cool with that at all. Even if they are landlords. I’m much more in favor of reeducation centers, personally. I’m against the death penalty on moral grounds. I believe that everyone deserves a second and third chance.

With that said, economically, I consider myself to be anarcho-communist or communalist or “left-communist” or whatever the fuck you want to call it.

But apparently all of that makes me a lib, and not welcome on the left? Is that correct?

*edit: I’ve now been banned from LemmyGrad, so yeah, that kind of confirms it. You guys are morons. Or a PsyOp meant to forever impede any sort of sea-change towards socialism.

  • Soviet Snake@lemmygrad.ml
    10·
    1 year ago

    People probably called you a lib because of the similarities between anarchists and liberals when it comes to supporting any kind of revolutionary movement in real life. Liberals oppose people’s struggles because they support the bourgeoisie, anarchists support it because the same flaws within the anarchist ideology blind them to have a more objective understanding of the material reality of the situation. A lot of times “anarchists” are just literally liberals painted black, there are some who are not like that, from what I’ve heard there are some people like that on HexBear. Still, there’s no mandatory “landlord genocide” along with communism, China has done a lot of reeducation (most famous case is that of the previous emperor, who later in life became a Marxist), but at some points during revolutionary process bloodshed is inevitable, otherwise it wouldn’t be an authoritative change of the status quo.

    • GuyDudemanOP
      2·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I just feel like violent revolutions like that are worthless because:

      1. As a parent, I know that you lose all credibility when you have to resort to violence, especially with an ideology like ours. Violence just goes against everything that Communism is about. It’s a contradiction that invalidates any argument we can make for Communism.

      2. Violent/Abrupt Revolutions inevitably breed reactionary forces that are always larger and more successful in their attempts to return to the previous system. You can even see this on a smaller scale in something as small as the election of Barack Obama. Electing a black president (even as center-right as he was) was beyond the pale for so many on the far right that it sent them over the edge of sanity to the point at which we now have Nazis openly marching in the streets again and gaining public office.

      I feel like those who wish to initiate violent revolutions are just being impatient and short-sighted and selfish. If you want something to last long-term (which, I assume, we all would like Communism to become the forever-state of the world), you have to do things methodically and gradually. All of these people want to see it come to fruition in their lifetime, and that’s just a very childish point of view to take. If you want something to last generations, then you have to make it part of the culture over the course of generations.

      Take, for instance, the acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community. We’ve finally gotten to the point at which Gays and Lesbians are fully accepted in society. That started with Stonewall in the 60’s and it took four generations to get there. We had to make it part of the culture. Now we’re trying to push the envelope to acceptance of Transfolk - with Ru Paul’s Drag Race being a huge driving factor in that acceptance… but that show, while popular, was very niche. It’s happening too fast, and you’re seeing the backlash now because of that. It’s going to be another generation before that is fully accepted, and even then you’d be hard-pressed to find someone from Gen-X that doesn’t still have reservations and prejudice about it.