However I find myself being disagreed with quite often, mostly for not advocating or cheering violence, “by any means possible” change, or revolutionary tactics. It would seem that I’m not viewed as authentically holding my view unless I advocate extreme, violent, or radical action to accomplish it.
Those seem like two different things to me.
Edit: TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY
THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.
Hey OP. Please look up the “Stonewall riots”.
Directly fighting against the forces that are making & enforcing laws that can & will do harm is the right thing to do. If the people in power / enforcing unfair practices see they are unopposed, they will become stronger in their positions. Complacency allows imbalance.
Will I break windows for Gaza? No. I will not. Who will that help? Who am I fighting? That kind of thing is nonsense.
Will I fight police that are attacking students for protesting? YES. YES I WILL. Because if you fight back, they will understand that you will not allow yourself to be walked all over by unjust enforcement. They will think twice about attacking students next time, because they know people are willing to fight back. If they do not encounter opposition, they know they are safe to do whatever they want.
In short: once a bully realizes that you will hit back, they are less inclined to bully you. Even more so if you are backed up by more people who also hate the bully.
EDIT: To be fair, I don’t hope for “collapse”. However, I do understand why people do. The corrupt system goes so deep that collapse may be the only way to dismantle it, as it is beyond any kind of reform.
Do I want collapse? No. But, unfortunately, it may be necessary. The system cannot be fixed without being dismantled, and I’m not optimistic that we will experience a miracle.
Good sane take, to my understanding
This is everyone’s take here.
I think it’s all about how it’s said. The simpler, the better. Phrasing is important, too.
Change never comes without a fight. In the shadows, blood is spilled, and it will continue to flow. Today, it’s not yours, but tomorrow it might be. Some saw the suffering of others and chose to sacrifice, so others wouldn’t have to. At least be thankful for their sacrifice.
What “change” are we taking about here?
Slavery, Decolonization, worker rights, women rights, black people rights, “Put any word here” rights,etc…
Many of those have been accomplished by protests, that led to changes in law, that led to changes in society. Some by war, yes.
None by revolution, that I’m aware of. None by anarchy, that I’m aware of. In most cases revolution seems to throw things the other way, back into slavery, back into repression.
This is ahistorical, really. Revolution has historically happened in progressive movements beyond brutal previous conditions, whether it be the Haitian Slave Revolt, the French overthrow of the Monarchy, the Russian overthrow of the brutal Tsarist regime, the Cuban revolt against slavery and fascism, and more.
I think you would do well for yourself by studying history of revolutionary movements.
So you’re telling me none of those lead to more brutal oppression than before?
Some have, yes, but of the ones I listed, absolutely not.
Revolution isn’t an action, it’s a consequence of failing and unsustainable conditions. You don’t do a Revolution, it happens and you can participate in it.
I think you are vastly underestimating the horrors of most pre-revolutionary societies, and probably also overestimating what you describe as oppression in post-revoltionary governments.
On the first point, here’s an excerpt from a JFK speech where he describes pre-revolution Cuba:
The third, and perhaps most disastrous of our failures, was the decision to give stature and support to one of the most bloody and repressive dictatorships in the long history of Latin American repression. Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years - a greater proportion of the Cuban population than the proportion of Americans who died in both World Wars, and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state - destroying every individual liberty.
And JFK was no friend of Castro; he greenlit the Bay of Pigs invasion! Revolutions are born from the most brutal forms of exploitation and violence. Not even the wildest anticommunist propaganda about post-revolution Cuba comes close to the reality of what the revolution replaced.
Ye think slavery, worker rights, and decolonization was done merely by protests and by the mere will of liberalism?
This is historically completely false. I challenge you to find a single historical case where a ruling class has given up their power and wealth without violence or the threat of violence.
Meanwhile I recommend you read the links we’ve given you.
What client is that?
connect for lemmy!
Labels don’t matter. Stop worrying about whether people think you are left or right wing. Your beliefs are yours and will continue to evolve and thats all that matters.
Sincerely, A pro revolutionary tactics man.
You can be validly left without wanting revolution, as long as you’re ok with progress happening over the course of centuries (in a world that has about 25 years left before the majority of us are dead from man-made climate change).
Some leftists aren’t so interested in progress, as in making sure everyone is okay.
making sure everyone is okay.
Given the current state of the world, that would be progress.
I agree. What I should have said is that some leftists aren’t seeking progress per se, but rather to ensure everyone is okay, per se.
One variable can be a leading indicator of another, but it’s still a different thing to be optimizing for one or the other.
deleted by creator
Question: do you consider yourself a liberal?
Yes?
Liberals have never been leftists.
This isn’t really a new thing. You can read about leftists a hundred years ago denouncing liberalism.
I mean, academically speaking you’re totally right, but because Americans discuss politics in extremely simplistic terms a lot of people use the word “liberal” when they mean progressive or socialist or just anything to the left of center, so it would probably be helpful to define these terms a bit
No socialist uses “liberal” when they mean socialist. Isn’t that interesting?
Yeah, say what you will about free market acolytes, they know how to jump on to a successful brand
No, no, you see: the OC got 'em and now we know they’re not a true xxxxxxxxx and therefore their opinion doesn’t matter, in fact, their life may even be forfeit.
That’s a bit of a red herring, since “liberal” is not exactly a term that means the same thing to everyone.
It’s a semantics game, and a very ignorant or disingenuous one at that.
Liberals merely became less racist and less sexist, not much else has changed.
Definitely not less ableist tho…
Not a liberal.
They are being extremely persnickety. I’m hard left, and a vocal opponent of just about anything not left of center. That said, I’m not about to lock a bunch of conservatives in a church and light it on fire.
If I had to pick a box, it’d be socialist, because Communism has been tried, and generally ends up with an oligarchy. I don’t see anything wrong with owning property or earning money, as long as you aren’t curb Stomping people below you to get it.
If I had to pick a box, it’d be socialist, because Communism has been tried, and generally ends up with an oligarchy. I don’t see anything wrong with owning property or earning money, as long as you aren’t curb Stomping people below you to get it.
What Socialist is in favor of maintaining Capitalism in the long term? What do you mean by Oligarchy, and how does that not apply to Capitalists in your “Socialist” system?
Basically the Nordic model is my viewpoint (popular or not on here). High nationalisation of the economy with some room for private enterprise. High taxes, esp. for the rich, High investment in social programs.
Throw in a shit ton of transparency and accountability
Basically the Nordic model is my viewpoint (popular or not on here).
I wouldn’t describe that as Socialist, really, unless it was in the Global South and explicitly Anti-Imperialist, and even then it would still need to have a trajectory to move onto Socialism eventually. The Nordics themselves rely on brutal exploitation of the Global South to function, and are some of the most Imperialistic countries in the world.
High nationalisation of the economy with some room for private enterprise.
The issue in the Nordic Model is that historically, the Capitalist class has maintained dominance, and has slowly turned back previous concessions via state control.
High taxes, esp. for the rich, High investment in social programs.
Social Programs are fantastic, but in the context of an Imperialist country we must recognize the source of these Programs.
Throw in a shit ton of transparency and accountability
Would be nice, but extremely difficult with a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.
The nordic model is not sustainable, and the same thing is currently happening to it (privatization and gutting) as happened to the US after FDR’s new deal.
Not to mention the fact that welfare in these nordic states are mostly funded off the backs of workers in the global south, as taxes on imports from products produced by those poorly paid southern labor. Take a look at where most of the factories for H&M or Ikea are located for example.
As long as we leave capitalists in power, this exploitation will only continue to increase.
What do the words socialist and communist actually mean to you?
I think with the way you’re using the word socialist, what you actually mean is social democrat, which is a newer term people use to mean capitalism but with heavy regulation and strong welfare / social safety nets.
When you ask people who are actually anti-capitalists and consider themselves some flavor of socialist or communist to distinguish between the two you will get as many different answers as people you’ve asked. In Marxist theory socialism is generally understood as a transitional state towards communism. Historical events led to communism being used mostly to refer to the authoritarian ideology championed by the Bolsheviks, so people started using socialism to differentiate themselves from that definition.
The only thing you’ll get most leftists to agree on is that both socialist and communist mean anti-capitalist, and those who disagree are confused liberals.
Historical events led to communism being used mostly to refer to the authoritarian ideology championed by the Bolsheviks, so people started using socialism to differentiate themselves from that definition.
To be clear, the Bolsheviks were definitely Communists and Socialists, and implemented a more democratic and Worker-focused society than Tsarist Russia. Low-bar that may be, the US and Western Powers deliberately attempted to shove a wedge in the Leftist movement by trying to paint the USSR as “not true Communism.”
To be clear, the Bolsheviks were definitely Communists and Socialists, and implemented a more democratic and Worker-focused society than Tsarist Russia
I agree that the USSR was more democratic and worker-focused than Tsarist Russia, but saying they were definitely Communists and Socialists depends on your definition of those words. An originalist Marxist for example would vehemently disagree that they were communist because communism was envisioned as this pure ideal stateless society, the “end goal” to work towards. Statelessness is definitely no longer a requirement of communism for modern Marxists, but it used to be.
US and Western Powers deliberately attempted to shove a wedge in the Leftist movement by trying to paint the USSR as “not true Communism.”
While this is definitely the case, people at the time had legitimate critiques of the USSR that may have led them to see it as “not true Communism,” see above. Wedges are driven into splits that already exist.
Because everyone seems to have their own unique definition of what Communism/Socialism is, saying that something is/isn’t socialist/communist should be taken more as an expression of that person’s values than a semantic argument. If someone says they are socialist and [insert government here] is not, what they are really saying is that there are aspects of [insert government here] that they disagree with to the point that it’s a dealbreaker for them.
In the United States, in the general public (not talking academia here) both ‘liberal’ and ‘leftist’ currently mean ‘not conservative’. There’s really not much more to it than that. Before reading Lemmy comments about it, I wouldn’t have been able to name a distinction between the two terms.
Yes, but OP is deliberately asking Leftists on a platform built and maintained by Communists, not the general American public.
OP may be American and genuinely not know what answering yes to “do you consider yourself a liberal?” implies to said communists. I still don’t have a firm grasp on it myself.
What don’t you understand? Liberalism is a Capitalist ideology, ergo it is right wing. Socialists, Anarchists, Communists, etc. would be left wing.
Yeah, wildly different language. Here pretty much anything short of trying to put women back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, with the minorities out in the cotton fields, is left wing. Left-right is much more about social policy than economic, although the conservatives claim to want smaller government and lower taxes. (While building a giant military, etc.)
So ‘Liberal’ means ‘left wing’ here, and those other terms don’t even have a collective word that comes to mind besides stuff like ‘extremist’. (Also most of us Americans probably conflate socialism and communism anyway)
No way.
Anyone who calls for collapse or revolution is playing out a survivor fantasy where they hope they (and their ideology) will come out on top.
I liked the (long) piece over here: https://slrpnk.net/post/11395506
tldr;
You can’t blow up a social relationship. The total collapse of this society would provide no guarantee about what replaced it. Unless a majority of people had the ideas and organization sufficient for the creation of an alternative society, we would see the old world reassert itself because it is what people would be used to, what they believed in, what existed unchallenged in their own personalities.
Proponents of terrorism and guerrilla-ism are to be opposed because their actions are vanguardist and authoritarian, because their ideas, to the extent that they are substantial, are wrong or unrelated to the results of their actions (especially when they call themselves libertarians or anarchists), because their killing cannot be justified, and finally because their actions produce either repression with nothing in return or an authoritarian regime.
Eventually you’ll realise that voting for the least bad option just makes things worse and never better, and you’ll have to deal with the fact that you can get what you want through the system.
Edit: TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY
THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.
So… Why are you asking questions about what ‘left’ means if you don’t want answers from the left???
Here’s an excellent overview on why pacifism doesn’t work, and has never worked.
Red Phoenix - Pacifism - How to do the enemy’s job for them. Youtube Audiobook
Someone on here told me earlier I wasn’t left enough when I posted a Karl Marx quote lol
Oof. That’s a tough audience.
Does one have to be a revolutionary or iconoclast to be “legitimately” Left? (sorry for the paraphrase)
Not just “no” but fuck no. Anyone suggesting otherwise does not have freedom and liberty for all in mind.
However I find myself being disagreed with quite often, mostly for not advocating or cheering violence, “by any means possible” change, or revolutionary tactics. It would seem that I’m not viewed as authentically holding my view unless I advocate extreme, violent, or radical action to accomplish it.
You’re encountering a mix of naive people, extremists, sock puppets, and the like there. I’m curious as to which contexts you see it in the most. Context is really important. Due example anyone supporting capitalism would be seen adversarily by an M-L communist and a lot of anarchists too.
Those seem like two different things to me.
Pick your battles. If you do not believe in violent revolution to overthrow capitalism but want an M-L to accept you, you’re going to have a bad time. I’d recommend trying to reduce seeking external validation and accept that those with wildly different world views might not see eye-to-eye with you on things, even if you’re both on the same side of center. You’ll be much happier.
Edit: TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY
THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.
I think you may have a few misconceptions there :). I’m an anarchist and believe that the data shows resoundingly that capitalism and the hierarchical structures that it requires are the root cause of much of human suffering as well as pushing the Earth towards becoming uninhabitable to our species.
Do I want to overthrow society? Fuck no. The amount of suffering and death that that would cause is literally beyond human capacity to comprehend. How many would starve or die of preventable disease? The ends do not justify the means.
Do I want capitalism to continue to be the dominant economic system? Absolutely not. It fails to address inequity or the long-term survival of our species. It’s better than feudalism, yes, but, not by enough and out must evolve to meet the species needs, despite the wishes of billionaires.
I treat anarchism as a long project. I know I’ll never see it in my life and that’s ok as long as I put future generations in a place to carry on the baton. Things have been declining, in many ways, due to the Me Generation refusing to relinquish control. I hope that enough of my cohort are willing to put in the effort to fix some of the damage once they’re finally gone (those still holding on to power at this point won’t willingly hand it off to us until they have no choice).
How are you suggesting Anarchism be implemented? By voting for it? Even if you could, you would have had to build up the power required to sieze the state regardless, Capitalists aren’t going to willingly end Capitalism.
I don’t see how Anarchism is possible without revolution.
How are you suggesting Anarchism be implemented? By voting for it?
No. Voting is a tool in the societal “first aid kit”. It’s used to try to limit the harm that the Right would joyously continue to cause and staunch the bleeding. There are many other tools in the toolbox that must be used. Protest, direct action, community building, etc.
Non-corporate cultural, civil, and agricultural infrastructure (monopolization is particularly heavy in US agriculture, thanks to Bork and his defanging of anti-trust enforcement) needs to be developed in order to support the population during transition. This requires cultivating strong, cooperative community renderIt doesn’t feel as great as thinking that we could be there in a day or a week or a year but, a lasting, stable society free of the chains of unjust hierarchy requires a sound foundation.
Even if you could, you would have had to build up the power required to sieze the state regardless, Capitalists aren’t going to willingly end Capitalism.
Absolutely. There’s no way that the power addicts at the top are going to let go willingly. But, without popular support or the ability to provide for societal needs, any revolution is likely to result in installation of a despot and massive amounts of preventable starvation, illness, and death, not to mention societal trauma.
Capitalism has been around for a long time. Moving on to the next thing is going to take time too. Especially, when taking into account the massive efforts sunk into resisting this change by Capital, which have set us back significantly.
I don’t see how Anarchism is possible without revolution.
Revolutionaries NEED practitioners of non-violence, non-revolutionary workers, and other non-combatants as much as the opposite is true. Without the “heart” of the latter, “revolution” is nothing but a self-serving exercise in forcing one’s ideology on the populace, nearly always resulting in atrocities and despotism. When the revolution is over, what then? Without accounting for societal needs, there’s danger of power vacuums drawing worse actors. For successful positive societal change, you need builders.
And non-violence alone is not likely sufficient as it is too easily ignored and suppressed, unless it is clear and plausible that violence is the alternative. Just look at Dr. King and Malcom X.
So, to answer your primary question of “how do I suggest achieving Anarchism”, through multiple avenues. For some, revolution might be their contribution, for others, like myself, it’s education and cultivating community of shared values such as kindness, inclusion, respect, and mutual aid. Getting to a fair and just society will take all kinds.
So essentially, you’re a Revolutionary Leftist just like the rest of us, but with more finger-wagging, rather than understanding that Revolutionary theory doesn’t mean “pick up a rock and go sicko mode.”
I absolutely do understand that. However, I frequently encounter those who are less cognizant of it (or are just wreckers) that chomp at the bit for violence and make room for no other ways. I’m absolutely a Revolutionary Leftist with allegiance to humanity, not economic or political system, but, context matters and OP was not speaking with the same nomenclature.
One idea I really like is slowly circumventing the need for big corporations by having services provided locally. People in a given community developing skills and aiding each other to make themselves as self-sufficient as possible. Then groups of these communities can interact and potentially provide things the other one lacks.
Or something like medieval guilds where people from each profession act together to practice their craft where needed, modified unions or something like that.
Essentially people willingly cooperating to be able to stand up to the capitalists. They have power because we depend on them, both their services and on money which they hoard. Through cooperation and mutual aid, their power can be significantly reduced, without a high risk of violence erupting.
Is this too optimistic and naive? Maybe, but I’m of the opinion that we’d in any case benefit if we started moving in that direction.
You’ve basically just described the cooperative movement. Food, worker, housing, producer co-ops. We need people to start co-ops and for policy to help nurture its growth.
How do we make that happen though? I don’t really know. I like to imagine we need one person to run for president with this as their platform on the democratic ticket just to get the message across. Similar to how Andrew Yang brought universal basic income into the conversation.
Some kind of uniting catalyst for a non violent transition away from capitalism that people can agree with and isn’t just ‘socialism’. Cooperative enterprises though are a stateless form of socialism, so no central planning or big government to tell us what to do. Seems like something that could potentially unite both the left and right if done right.
One idea I really like is slowly circumventing the need for big corporations by having services provided locally. People in a given community developing skills and aiding each other to make themselves as self-sufficient as possible. Then groups of these communities can interact and potentially provide things the other one lacks.
On board with this being consistent so far, building up parallel structures and dual-power is a core aspect of Revolutionary Leftist Theory. I do expect Capitalists to crack down on this though, to protect their interests. This happened to Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party.
Or something like medieval guilds where people from each profession act together to practice their craft where needed, modified unions or something like that.
Not really in line with this, seems like an odd direction, unless you’re describing Worker Councils. I still expect Capitalists to stomp this out unless Leftists fight back.
Essentially people willingly cooperating to be able to stand up to the capitalists. They have power because we depend on them, both their services and on money which they hoard. Through cooperation and mutual aid, their power can be significantly reduced, without a high risk of violence erupting.
So this is just Revolutionary theory, but with the added “no violence though” bit. The problem is that this situation would result in violence, and historically has, for all comparable events.
Is this too optimistic and naive? Maybe, but I’m of the opinion that we’d in any case benefit if we started moving in that direction.
We would benefit, you’re describing some form of Revolutionary Theory with the hope that Capitalists lay down and accept their crumbling influence.
I should clarify what I meant by “no violence”. I meant that, in the ideal scenario, communities build themselves up so that capitalists become less and less relevant, without exacting violence upon them. Of course, in the event that these communities get attacked by those same capitalists, defence is very reasonable.
The thing is when you tell people that we need a revolution, most picture storming various places, seizing assets and beating up some people in the process, which I think makes a lot of them distance themselves. Presenting a program which focuses on a peaceful development of society is I think much easier to get on board with.
There’s a low to zero chance that any transition away from capitalism will be peaceful and without resistance, but I think it would be better to tell people that the we want to work towards creating a normal life, and we will encounter violent resistence along the way, than to focus on revolutions and overthrowing the ruling class. The end goal is pretty much the same, and the process might inevitably involve the same things, but the former is I think more palatable to most.
I should clarify what I meant by “no violence”. I meant that, in the ideal scenario, communities build themselves up so that capitalists become less and less relevant, without exacting violence upon them. Of course, in the event that these communities get attacked by those same capitalists, defence is very reasonable.
This is standard Revolutionary Theory, for the most part.
The thing is when you tell people that we need a revolution, most picture storming various places, seizing assets and beating up some people in the process, which I think makes a lot of them distance themselves. Presenting a program which focuses on a peaceful development of society is I think much easier to get on board with.
The thing is, that’s not what Revolutionary Theory entails. Revolution is a consequence, not an action. Building up parallel structures and dual power allows Leftists to help steer the Revolution when it happens.
There’s a low to zero chance that any transition away from capitalism will be peaceful and without resistance, but I think it would be better to tell people that the we want to work towards creating a normal life, and we will encounter violent resistence along the way, than to focus on revolutions and overthrowing the ruling class. The end goal is pretty much the same, and the process might inevitably involve the same things, but the former is I think more palatable to most.
The difference here is that you’ve engaged in sectarianism and threw Revolutionary Leftists under the bus, only to espouse much of the same rhetoric. I do believe that you would be better off coalition-building with other Leftists and trying to better explain Revolutionary Theory to those not yet familiar, as the biggest tool of Leftists is organizing.
Amazing answer from an Anarchist! Thank you for being able to talk without hyperbole. I feel like I would learn a lot from you and I would certainly break bread with you.
Sorry about my immature outburst in the edit, but I felt like I was fighting a hydra. So much noise I wasn’t getting hearing anything.
Yes and no. The answer isn’t straightforward, so let’s unpack it. Primarily, the qualifier “validly” needs investigation.
What is “validity” when it comes to political positions? Is validity a measure of correctness? Is validity a measure of intention?
If validity is a measure of correctness, then yes, you must be revolutionary if you are a Marxist or Anarchist, the two dominant trains of Leftist thought. Fringe positions like Social Reformists exist, though they have never been successful in achieving anything that can be considered long term leftward progress.
If validity is a measure of intention, then no. Not every progressive-minded person has done thorough research into leftist history, theory, and practice. Progressives can have an idea of what end result they want, without yet putting in the work to understand how to get there.
In the body of your text, there are loaded statements. To be Revolutionary isn’t to “celebrate violence,” or believe “by any means necessary.” Revolutionaries do not oppose Reformism, but believe it a lost cause. For a US-centric example, Reformism would be possible if PSL, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, could win elections consistently, but they cannot because of the two-party duopoly, created by Capitalist investment.
By and large, whether someone is a Revolutionary or Reformist doesn’t come down to purity, but knowledge and positions.
I should have just stuck with Democrat, and gotten rid of the whole idea of leftist and liberal.
You can, if you want. If you generally agree with the DNC, labeling yourself a Democrat is a useful label to quickly get your views across. You wouldn’t be a Leftist, since the goals and views of the DNC are a maintaining of the Capitalist status quo, but you would be a Liberal, if you want a non-party label to use instead.
I do think familiarizing yourself with Leftist theory would help you make sense of where Leftists are coming from.
Becoming familiar with other ideas is beneficial. There is nothing wrong with being a Democrat, Social Democrat or Libertarian. Real people hold these political ideas. My transition over years was Democrat since I opposed hawkish Republican imperialism, but I rejected corporate power, so Social Democrat, but I rejected hierarchical power, so Anarchist. Through reading I know Pacifism meshes with any of these ideas. I have never been a Pacifist, but I applaud anyone that takes the time to explore politics even if we do not agree.
Being able to have conversations with people around you is important. Reading theory from other politics helps. Most people around me consider themselves conservative. They say talking points like “I’m for small government”. Having read Libertarian texts like Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia”, I can discuss the minimal state as a Libertarian idea. I can then transition to “Nozick’s minimal state is not small enough”. In my area this approach opens conversation more than banging a drum about being a Democrat, Leftist, Communist or Anarchist.
Unsurprisingly, people define words in many different ways. What’s your definition? We can’t tell you how you should be categorized until you tell us what you think the words mean.
And I don’t mean that in a snarky way. For example, some people use the words liberal and leftist synonymously. Many other people don’t. And there are many other similar examples involving any kind of political terminology. It really does come down to a question of definitions, which is why it’s so easy to have miscommunication on political issues, on top of the fact that people have varying opinions on the issues themselves.
I already dropped one wall of text on this post, but something you might find interesting - there was a history podcast called Revolutions that looked at revolutionary periods in history, when it wrapped up the host did a whole series of appendix episodes on different recurring themes he saw in the different periods he looked at, and in one of those he talked about how the word “radical” can be hard to define because throughout history there were people who had radical goals they wanted to achieve through moderate means and people who had moderate goals they wanted to achieve through radical means and the inverse of both of those
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=0nukt_9HmLE&t=2m21s
So yeah, I think it’s helpful to separate out how big a transformation in society you want to see from how far you’re willing to go to get them
