deleted by creator

The fact that you think communists advocate for violence for its own sake (because you think we're all bloodthirsty or something), tells us you have no idea what communists views are.

This is an opportunity for you to learn from others, not close your ears because you've been inundated with a lifetime of anti-communist propaganda.

You're asking leftists, the vast majority of which are Revolutionary. Only listening to a minority of Leftists for their opinion and ignoring the majority only gives you an incomplete and biased view.

If all those people disagree with you, what kinds of people do you imagine would say yes? Nancy Pelosi? Chelsea Clinton?

We're not advocating violence. Your premise is wrong.

But we know our adversaries commonly use violence, so we're aware it exists, and we know we have to prepare for it.

Are colonialist governments not violent? How do you remove from office a government that commits violence against their people, en masse, to destroy their land with mining operations?

Concrete example: how would the Congolese vote the French out, when anyone organising peacefully against the French is assassinated?

The point is not violence. But it would be naive to ignore the violence of our adversaries.

excellent historical context comrade. :3

they had to do a coup with the implicit threat of violence to enforce the new government

OP would do well to pay attention to this bit in particular as (a version of) this basic framework is also how civil rights groups like the suffragettes and the err civil rights movement progressed their struggles. MLK et al were able to be nonviolent because the implicit threat of more radical black nationalist groups existed. without the backing of force nonviolent protest is easy to ignore by those in power, as we've seen with every left-leaning protest movement since the collapse of the USSR

dr. king is specifically calling you and yours out here, liberal. you'd do well to listen.

On second thought, this is as good as you get. I'd just give up.

I think perhaps you should read more of what Dr. King actually advocated for and said. He didn't endorse violence, but he didn't condemn it either. He typically didn't come from it from this moralizing angle either, most of his emphasis was his belief that violence was first and foremost a poor tactic, but at the same time he understood why violence happens. You've probably heard his 1967 statement "a riot is the language of the unheard."

Check where the users are from, you're going to get much more "atypical" not going to get kind responses from hexbears, "we" are quite literally their enemies. "We" are the "white moderates" seeking to maintain stability instead of shedding blood to overthrow the entire developed world. (It's more than just "amerikkka" out there)

Excuse us individuals for feeling entirely helpless when it comes to changing the entire capitalist world.

Completely unbothered.

One of the historically proven and least abstract forms of capitalist violence comes in the inability of any society to opt-out of capitalism--to legislate in opposition to the class interests of capital (the common interests of capitalists not shared by the general public)--even to minor extents.

Even within capitalism, decisions must be made, typically by the state, about who is responsible for property damage and personal afflictions. Capitalism means the private ownership of capital, the funding and property that comprises productive enterprise. Because these enterprises are privately owned, their goals are to a greater or lesser extent divorced from the public good; therefore, it is often in the interest of capital to externalize their costs of doing business--to avoid taking responsibility for the costly circumstances they have caused. Contrariwise, it is in the public interest (championed in theory by the state) to force capital to internalize those costs against their will to externalize.

For example, it was in BP's interest to minimize the appearance of damaged caused by Deepwater Horizon (e.g. spraying dispersants) and thereby minimize their obligations, while it was in the public's interest to assess the damages thoroughly and liberally.

When a state decides that certain businesses are causing irreparable harm or have acquired their capital illegitimately, by the same right by which externalities are opposed, the state may expropriate or nationalize a formerly private enterprise. However, history furnishes countless examples of democratic nations attempting to take such action, only to have capital directly solicit the state, some subset of the state (such as the military), other states, or peripheral forces to use violence to extinguish such democratic efforts.

Some famous examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_of_1953

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

Thus, even without reference to the minute-by-minute exploitation of the products of workers' labor that comprises the most ubiquitous violence of the capitalist mode of production, we have incontrovertible historical proof that the apparent voluntarism of people in capitalism is the voluntarism of slaves choosing to comply rather than suffer violent retribution. In a sense, open revolt would be less violent than peaceful acquiescence because the former is not compelled by hopeless domination.

It is not difficult to add a theoretical basis to the historical evidence. Insofar as it has a single purpose, capital has an unambiguous interest in every state of affairs and every possible outcome. In this way, capital has a subjectivity, an ego, independent of the good of any particular person or group of people. Everything that happens either augments the value of capital, diminishes it, or leaves it unchanged. According to this judgement, capital stands in favor, opposed, or indifferent (respectively) to everything in existence. If the state intends to impose regulation that will cost $X, it is in the interest of any regulated capital to spend up to $X to eliminate that regulation--regardless of the good the regulation might do for society as a whole, including the individuals involved in the operations of the business itself. Such individuals are not free to follow their own judgement, but must always act in the interest of their employer capital or else be replaced by someone who will. If in the extreme case, the state is determined to eliminate a capital, the capital has no choice but to deploy all its resources to oppose that end. In the presence of large businesses (or unions of businesses such as a Chamber of Commerce) with the resources to oppose any existing regulatory agent, this dynamic imposes strict limits on freedom of people to self-govern. The mere presence of capital as capital is enough to guarantee violence if certain norms of political life are violated.

Because businesses are often dedicated to facilitating cultural practices, rather than strictly utilitarian productivity, capital can be a powerfully conservative force in every domain of life.

Alternatively - Have a quote

"There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves." - Marky Twink

Which part?

If that's "no" to the first part, you're simply not a leftist. If that's "no" to the second part, welcome to team violence.

If someone lives like a king, but directly because their wealth is earned by the suffering and death of thousands, is it not morally just to stop them? At what point is the life of one billionaire worth more than the life of the, say, five hundred children that starved to death because of that billionaire? Is the system of economics that results in that not utterly reprehensible?

We want capitalism to stop killing people. It cannot stop killing people. So we must dismantle capitalism. But the bourgeoisie will defend, violently, the perpetuation of capitalism. Thus, they are taking on a direct moral responsibility for the deaths capitalism causes.

Revolution is only violent because capitalists wield violence to brutally suppress even peaceful protests, and we must respond in kind to defend ourselves. The violence of self-defense is not the same as the violence of oppressors. If the capitalists saw peaceful protests and willingly put their fortunes aside and returned their means of production to common ownership, there would be no need for revolution. But in all history of this struggle they've chosen instead to maim and murder protestors.

As a snapshot, Food Not Bombs are an anarchist group who do nothing but give food to the unhoused. Police will arrest every FNB member to stop them, when what they're doing is literally just feeding the poor. But if FNB members carry firearms, police leave them alone, and the unhoused receive food.

Slavery, Decolonization, worker rights, women rights, black people rights, "Put any word here" rights,etc..

Liberals have never been leftists.

This isn't really a new thing. You can read about leftists a hundred years ago denouncing liberalism.

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.

Put simply, in the trolley problem, my continent would pull the lever, and your continent would give drugs to the people tied to the tracks to ease the pain.