this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
51 points (94.7% liked)

Pragmatic Leftist Theory

1070 readers
7 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 8 months ago
MODERATORS
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
51
Solidarity is not just with members of your political 'tribe'! Allow a little leftist pluralism - we can support each other! (media.piefed.social)
submitted 3 days ago by PugJesus@piefed.social to c/PLT@sh.itjust.works
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] solidheron@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I feel like I could argue with an anarchist about organizing

My issue is that there's not enough action from leftist. I can't criticize people's plans because it's hard to evaluate both the means and the goals as well as the effectiveness, but I will give advice on how I think it can be improved, how it went down for me when I attempted something similar, or potential flaws.

I could listen to other people's plan

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

I feel like I could argue with an anarchist about organizing

Hey, arguments are fine - just remember that they're comrades and not enemies in the end.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm fine with this, only exception is nazis no solidarity with them only bullets. Anarchy is fine, even if I have my issues with it.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago

Well, Nazis aren't leftists. This is only about people who are working towards a better world, even if you disagree with the exact end goal.

If you can live with their result, however imperfectly, consider them an ally as long as most of the world is... well, under this current fucked system.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

As someone who is fiercely argumentative myself (and stubborn, foul-mouthed, and irritable to boot), I totally get getting into scraps with fellow leftists. I am by no means telling you to asspat anyone! People only change when regularly and vigorously challenged, and often not even then - but certainly an unchallenged view is an unexamined one for most.

But ultimately, please try to remember that we are all capable of being comrades here - or at least most of us. We have broad agreement in what needs to go - we can support each other, both ideologically and practically, in the many ways to go about it, even if they may not be the way we ourselves would prefer.

You don't have to fluff everyone no matter how far-fetched their idea, in a "We couldn't win this fight without you trying to project your consciousness into the Astral Realm to awaken the Primordial Leftist Gestalt! 😭🙏" way, but when someone says to you "I'm an anarchist, I organize to alleviate suffering at the grassroots level", the correct response is "Right on, comrade", even if you think state institutions are the optimal solution. Even in simply engaging in the fight, we raise its visibility; in raising visibility, we weaken the powers that be and widen the embrace for our comrades to join us.

None of us will win this fight alone. The leviathan will drag its carcass onwards as long as we refuse solidarity with each other. Maybe not everyone is an ally - but don't operate from the presupposition that disagreement is automatic cause for division.

There are many futures yet possible which are better than our present (though that may be damnation by faint praise), and the chance of any one of us having our ideology implemented 100% in any of them is very fucking slim. If you operate with the mindset of "Only my way is valid," not only do you offload the burden of achieving success onto people who are willing to engage in solidarity with their comrades, but when the future comes, no matter how hard you fought for it... you will be disappointed.

The world doesn't end with ourselves. We exist, and will continue to exist, with many other ways of thinking and doing things. The important thing is to prioritize disagreements, both in action and in sentiment. As long as a comrade is working towards the goal of a better world in SOME way that is not utterly futile, like begging for scraps at a fascist table, they are infinitely more your comrade than anyone who is... well, not working towards that cause.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

I totally get getting into scraps with fellow leftists. I am by no means telling you to asspat anyone! People only change when regularly and vigorously challenged, and often not even then - but certainly an unchallenged view is an unexamined one for most.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago (3 children)

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.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You may want to look into what most anarchists actually advocate for. It's generally not the colloquial meaning of anarchy as 'no rules'.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] SargonOfACAB@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SargonOfACAB@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 4 hours ago

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.

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago

well this is news to me. Anarchy has been explained to me as local groups that temporarilly group together for purposes at most but otherwise leave things to individuals or small groups. long term structure with laws and where what is allowed is determine democratically but when agreed to is followed by all in an enforced system of law seemed to be anethma. I mean I would like a very flat type of organization but someone can't just make a club and be like we don't have to folow whatever laws we don't want to. Granted I would very much like some things to be regional and local with the federal government concering itslef mostly with social safety nets and maintaning the highest possbile minimum level of quality of life for its citizens along with protecting their rights which would include invasion and diplomacy and such. So anarchy is very different if they are ok with authority levels like that. I mean the us has a pretty good theoretical framework once you get passed some of the initial bs due to humanities general nature and get to the system meant to deal with day to day but recognizing and allow for power to come from and be authorized by the people. Its a system where theoretically power is given up from the bottom up for each level up to server those below but unfortunately it easily falls out of that. I was under the impression the founding fathers expected the constitution to only last 20 years or so hand have to be redone or at least updated and changed. It kinda has as we have had 17 amendments in 250 years which comes out to about a every 12 years but they are very front loaded and we have really failed in the last 30 or so years with no tweaks done at all. This sent me down a rabbit hole because if you line up the times where the constitution has not changed much the longest is pre civil war and the second is the gilded age and the third is now. So its kinda like if we don't do an improvement within a 20 years of the last we are likely stagnating. I mean we all know we need to get rid of the slavery clause. That is glaring.