Not all leftism is criminal some is merely threatening

For the purposes of this blogpost the words statism and leftism (left-wing) can be used interchangeably...

How do we know that something or some philosophy is left-wing? We know that all forms of leftism include within them some kind of collectivism but the important aspect which means that something is left-wing is that it involves the state. And further, because it involves the state it will involve physical force in some way, either actual or merely threatened. A great many defenders of the state will point to the fact that very few people are actually ever arrested or incarcerated for non-payment of taxes or similar. So they deduce not all of the state activities are a result of the use of physical force.

But we can say that everything the state does derives from either actual use of force or merely the threat of force. People who recognise that the freedom of speech is absolute will, perhaps with some regret, recognise that if actual force is not used then we only have spoken threats which are not physically aggressive. As distressing as those (threats of violence) are they are not actually physically aggressive and yet they support the state and leftism. So not all leftism is aggressive (physically) and yet it all involves force in some way, even if merely the threat of force. So if force is involved it is leftist (and statist), but not all leftism is aggressive, some is merely threatening.

Because crimes must be more than the spoken word (due to the freedom of speech) then not all leftism and statism is criminal, some is merely threatening, but all statism involves force, even if merely the threat of force.

Some statists, in their defence, do not actually use physical force they merely use threats of force and intimidation and for this reason we can say that not all leftism is aggressive, but all involves force, even if only threatened.