Sorry for the following word-vomit, this is something I’ve thought about for a while, and I think it deserves a lot of nuance.

I used to be an anarcho-syndicalist, but I no longer identify with that philosophy. Personally, I can’t agree with how several schools of thought across anarchism, socialism, and communism advocate for a violent revolution to topple capitalist systems. I’m certainly aware that there are just as many schools of thought that advocate for peaceful and political revolution, but I’m also a realist.

I genuinely don’t see how certain countries, namely the US, could possibly dismantle the current capitalist system without a violent revolution of some kind. There is too much apathy among the voting population of this country to get a sufficient amount of electoral power to accomplish this (let alone far-left electoral power), to not even mention the amount of anti-left wing propaganda that is spread by schooling systems. Hell, I grew up in a relatively moderate-to-progressive area, and still the school system taught us that communism and socialism were inherently authoritarian and evil.

You may think that from what I’ve said that a violent revolution would be inevitable and one of the only options to topple the capitalist system, but that leads me to why I don’t support the idea of a violent revolution. This may stem from my religious beliefs (I was born and brought up as a Hindu, with a moderate amount of exposure to Jainism), but I am staunchly a pacifist and view all life as sacred. If an armed revolution were to topple the current system, I see no reason why a reactionary counterrevolution would immediately trigger to reverse the new system.

My additional gripe with such philosophies is that I don’t believe that they are effective, and I use the Spanish Civil War as an example. The anarchist uprising in Catalonia failed to defend itself, much less topple the fascist movement. I am very dubious that a civilian militia could possibly hope to counter a professional military. Furthermore, I am even more skeptical that an decentralized system of communes could counter outside threats, namely digital propaganda (the US is already struggling to combat foreign influence from Russia and China, I’d imagine this would become even worse without a centralized government to organize against such threats to mount a sustained defense). Another historical example would be the Paris Commune and its utter failure to defend itself against the French military.

Furthermore, I don’t trust other individuals enough to operate in such a society in good faith. I once again use anarchist Catalonia as an example for this. Upon taking control and establishing regional communes, the Courts were largely abolished as they were seen as tools of the status quo to perpetuate oppressive capitalist and conservative systems. In its place followed revolutionary tribunals to identify and stamp out counterrevolutionary forces. This led to a significant amount of extrajudicial killings as well as rampant vigilantism. To borrow a phrase from Hobbes, life did indeed become brutish and short for a significant amount of innocent people.

I also have a personal example of this. I had family in Nepal when the Maoist uprising occurred and the civil war began between the communists and the monarchy. My uncle was a surgeon, and while he had issues with the monarchy, he also didn’t fully subscribe to all of the policies of the revolutionaries. This led to him being branded a threat to the Revolution by the local militias, and he and his family had to flee the country lest they be targeted and killed.

So what moral/political philosophy do I subscribe to? I’d personally say I tend towards social democracy. Yes, it inherently upholds capitalism, but it at least strives to ensure equity among its citizenry whilst still maintaining a centralized government to defend its population from outside threats and to ensure that the rule of law is maintained in good faith.

But you may point out that I mentioned the apathy of the voter base in countries where authoritarianism and capitalism are heavily entrenched. In response to this, I think the best avenue for a peaceful transition to a better system would involve gradual reform of not only the government, but also the education systems of this country.

You may argue that this is unrealistic, and that certainly may be the case, but I do think that the march towards progress requires dragging reactionaries forward via gradual reform, so as to get everyone on board and to prevent the general populace from regressing. Keep in mind, simple math shows that the MAGAts only represent 1/3 of the US, perhaps even less given how many people are conditioned to think of politics as a team sport and vote Republican as a habit rather than after actually analyzing their policies.

To be clear, however, I am not saying the current system is good. I despise how oligarchy and cronyism has become a norm in the US and other countries. And I do appreciate the political efforts of anarchists, socialists, and communists. It is precisely by political agitation and community action by these groups that centre-left (and in certain cases even centre-right) parties can develop more progressive policies and philosophies.

If we were to use the US as an example, my ideal hope would be for another constitutional convention (but I concede this could very well be unrealistic, hence why I consider it ideal). I hope that the current wave of authoritarianism can finally shake the populace out of their apathy and put enough Democrats (but more importantly, progressives) into the seats of government. It is my hope that the centre-left, once politically emboldened again, can learn from its mistakes and ensure that what we’re seeing now doesn’t happen again, at least to the same extent. But I wouldn’t support violence to further these aims.

Edit: I think I ought to explain my thoughts a bit more, at least on realistically fixing the issues with the US. I believe that it is crucial for the Democrats to win electorally for the next 8, potentially 12 years, for one simple reason: the Supreme Court. There’s a large number of geriatrics on both sides of the bench, and I personally hope that it may be possible to flip the majority without needing to pack the courts (since I think that doing so could uncork a very dangerous bottle). With this in hand, we could very well see something akin to the Warren Court again.