38
Solidarity is not just with members of your political 'tribe'! Allow a little leftist pluralism - we can support each other!
(media.piefed.social)
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
38 points (95.2% liked)
Pragmatic Leftist Theory
1119 readers
1 users here now
The neolibs are too far right. The tankies are doing whatever that is. Where's the space for the people who want fully-automated-luxury-gay-space-communism, but realize that it's gonna take a while and there are lots of steps between now and then? Here. This is that space.
Here, people should endeavor to discuss and devise practical, actionable leftist action. Vote lesser evil while you build grassroots coalitions. Unionize your workplace. Participate in SRAs. Build cohesion your local community. Educate the proletariat.
This is a place for practical people to develop practical plans to implement stable, incremental improvement.
If you're dead-set on drumming up all 18,453 True Leftists® into spontaneous Revolution, go somewhere else. The grown ups are talking.
Rules:
-1. Don't be a dick. Racism, sexism, other assorted bigotries, you know the drill. At least try to default to mutually respectful discussion. We're all on the same side here, unless you aren't, in which case kindly leave.
-2. Don't be a tankie. Yes I'm sure you have an extensive knowledge of century-old theory. There's been a century of history since then. Things didn't shake out as expected, maybe consider the possibility that a different angle of attack might be more effective in light of new data.
-3. Be practical. No one on the left benefits from counterproductive actions. This is a space informed by, not enslaved to, ideology. Promoting actions that are fundamentally untenable in the system in question, because they fulfill a sense of ideological purity, is a bad look. Don't do that.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't see how I could answer either way. Anarchism is a direct undermine of my own views which is a democracy that has a core structure like a constitution that is agreed upon by consensus and provides an agreed upon frame work for a central government to provide a stable set of rules that collects taxes in a progressive way to limit wealth disparity and utilize for social wealfare and common defense. I prefer a democratic system of law where the society actually obeys its own laws but the laws are not allowed to violate human rights.
You may want to look into what most anarchists actually advocate for. It's generally not the colloquial meaning of anarchy as 'no rules'.
im not saying its the colloquial. im saying many people here say its does not allow for a structured national government system with authority over its members. I never hear anyone saying it just needs to be limited to some issues like miliatry defense or socail wealfare. I do see a lot of explanations on how tempory federations or such would come together. to handle bigger things and everything is opt in or out not across the board laws everyone has to follow except for non agression which is often times really vague. oh its only someones body. well what if they pollutes then some stuff on well clans or temproray bodies that prevent that but you are immediately into property and boarders and such when you get to that which me laws and hierarchy and national government and such. I mean if anarchy is what im talking about then we have it now it just needs to be tweaked.
I believe this framework could fit in with an anarchist society. Like, nothing you said in your example explicitly goes against anarchism. That central govt might have to be looked at :p but really anarchy is against unjust hierarchies. The plan you’ve laid out can deffo fit that definition, at least for the most part.
And as an anarchist I disagree with you, but on most struggles we're actually facing we're probably on the same side.
If you're polite and don't force me to operate within a hierarchical structure we can probably work together in a lot of real-world situations.
Hm. This is my first comment on Lemmy. Woo hoo!
I'm middle-aged and recently had what I consider to be a quasi-psychotic break: I realized that society is built on institutions--whether explicitly like the government, or implicitly like white supremacy--and pretty much to get ahead in any organization, you are judged primarily by how you serve the institution or those inside of the institution.
What really blew my mind is realizing the social work--the field I was in--was actively supporting whtie supremacy even as everyone in the field would deny any such thing. People serve these systems unknowingly, like the coppertops in the Matrix..
As a result, I'm pretty pessimistic both for society and for my future job prospects.
Does anarchy have any intersection with this collection of beliefs?
don't see how I will force you to operate with hierarchical structures but I work within them and support them and you likely find yourself needing to given its how we are setup as a society. I mean im not part of law enforcement. That being said I believe in limited hierarchical structures and limited wealth disparities so having work in one should just be typical wages. Like congressmen should have enough to support a family decently but that should be average and it should be the same as most any other government job like janitor or firefighter but they would in addition have a budget to run two offices and including staff ans such just because that is necessary for the job but they should face consequences if they try and use that to enrich themselves an such. The hierarchy be out of necessity and not be confused with the equal value of human life.
I don't even mean in the hypothetical future in which you (or those you champion) would have power. I was talking about our current-day organizing.
Some Marxist organizations insist that everything they're a part of is organized in their preferred way. For example.
this is more lower level though I think. Its more about if there should be organization or not or at least the extent of it. Honestly one thing that annoys me about marxist and some other philosophies is there tends to be an org outlay like everyone is just going to agree and respect a away of doing things without specificying how this is going to happen being that people just don't agree or respect others often. Law is basically an agreement of the rules and its enforced because people won't respect it without it. You get the everything I think is good for everyone and everything I don't is harm to everyone. I mean trump talks like this all the time. Never sure how much he believes his own bulltrump.