There is no pro capitalist left

3 days ago by cm0002 to c/actualsocialism

TheDannysaur 42 points 3 days ago

I mean if you're talking about this version of capitalism, sure. But capitalism is more than one thing. These monolithic ideas that you are either capitalist or socialist or something else really downgrades the debate.

I have no love for what we have today. But there's a version of capitalism I could live with - it's just a far cry from what we have.

These overly simplistic memes don't do any favors, in my opinion. Saying if you believe in capitalism you are right wing is more alienating than galvanizing, and it reduces so many concepts down to such basic ones that there's no real meaning left.

path: 0 24343947, hotness: undefined, score: 42, children: 20
wpb 9 points 3 days ago

Which version of capitalism would you prefer? Does it still involve the private ownership of the means of production?

path: 0 24343947 24349483, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 12
TheDannysaur 4 points 2 days ago

I think concern is placed on the wrong end, at least in terms of criticality.

I am less concerned about "maximums" right now. I know that's going to set off all kinds of alarm bells right now, but bear with me.

The two are intertwined for sure, but I'm mostly concerned with "minimums". If we had a society with Universal Basic Income, housing and Healthcare for everyone, and people had a safety net to pursue their passions, then I'm far less concerned about if someone has a billion dollars.

Again, they are both part of the same problem, but it's the focus. If billionaires were no longer allowed, and the money was re distributed amount people with 9 figure net worth already, it doesn't solve anything.

So yeah if people have the mobility to move from jobs, housing and Healthcare taken care of, and their basic needs met, I think it solves a lot of labor exploitation right away.

From there we can continue the debate, but I'm more concerned about taking care of everyone who is closer to the floor then worrying about the ceiling. I think there are capitalist ways that continue to reward actual breakthroughs and risks rather than the exploitation we have now.

path: 0 24343947 24349483 24352854, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 7
wpb 7 points 2 days ago

I think that capitalism as we have it, but with a solid welfare state as you describe, is pretty close to my ideal society. But when I think about how such a system evolves over time in the presence of privately owned businesses, it seems to me that it is an unstable equilibrium. That is, it has an inherent tendency to break down the welfare state. I'll sketch the argument.

The first ingredient is that the owning class has an outsized influence on politics. This happens through a number of means, including:

  • threat of capital flight ("if you pass this bill I don't like, I will take my gizmo factory abroad")
  • direct bribes / lobbying ("if you pass this bill I like, I'll give you a nice cushy job at my gizmo factory", and also campaign donations)
  • ownership of the media that completely shape the opinions of the electorate

Through these means they can influence politicians to pass laws that benefit the owning class. Note that it is not beneficial to politicians to do something about this. This is their bread and butter.

The next ingredient is that the welfare state as you and I would like to see it (UHC, UBI, and so on) is detrimental to the owning class. A solid welfare state means that workers have a much stronger position to negotiate from. Without UHC, refusing a crappy offer is much riskier since your health is at stake, for example. That is to say, the welfare state drives up operating costs for the owning class. As such, it is in their best interest to fight tooth and nail against the welfare state.

Combine these two ingredients, and you see that in the presence of privately owned businesses, you eventually lose whatever kind of welfare state you had. A similar argument shows that moving towards such a welfare state from our current system is very unlikely.

path: 0 24343947 24349483 24352854 24356597, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 2
Schmoo 2 points a day ago

I would add that this isn't just speculation, it has historical precedent. The US created a powerful welfare state under FDR and it was slowly destroyed in exactly the way that you described. It's also important to note that it was racism that provided the owning class with the narrative they needed to convince the working class to support the erosion of their own welfare. The creation of the welfare state began with the compromise that the benefits would not extend to non-white Americans. When the civil rights movement successfully forced the issue and demanded that the benefits be universalized the owning class was able to ride the wave of the racist backlash all the way to a near-total rollback of the welfare state.

Ensuring that welfare for the people lasts requires that we directly and conclusively address the underlying causes of the inequality it is meant to alleviate. We must recognize that private ownership of the means of production is the direct cause of this inequality and will always reproduce it if it is not eliminated. And finally we must also address the social causes of inequality - racism, bigotry, xenophobia, sexism, etc. - so that they cannot be used as justification for the reconstruction of a system of inequality. Alongside an economic and political revolution we also need a cultural revolution.

path: 0 24343947 24349483 24352854 24356597 24374792, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
tatterdemalion 1 point 2 days ago

If billionaires were no longer allowed, and the money was re distributed amount people with 9 figure net worth already, it doesn’t solve anything.

How exactly does wealth redistribution not solve anything? The disparity is the problem.

if people have the mobility to move from jobs, housing and Healthcare taken care of, and their basic needs met, I think it solves a lot of labor exploitation right away

And how are you going to pay for that without wealth redistribution?

path: 0 24343947 24349483 24352854 24353249, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 3
TheDannysaur 2 points 2 days ago

Yes, the disparity is the problem. But it needs to actually be spread out. Things like universal health care do that inherently if they properly raise taxes on the rich.

Redistributing wealth from the top 0.1% to the top 1% doesn't accomplish anything meaningful.

And yes, paying for it will come from taxing the rich. None of that has to do with capitalism exclusively.

I feel like we're after the same thing but you're more interested in attacking my idea than building something together or proposing something different. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but your questions are quite loaded and you didn't offer anything of substance yourself. The only thing you didn't deflect back to me was saying "the disparity is the problem", and that is precisely the point I was making. I'm specifically pointing out that it's about the full disparity.

path: 0 24343947 24349483 24352854 24353249 24353591, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 2
Einskjaldi 1 point a day ago

Having a small business or store doesn't require capitalism.

path: 0 24343947 24349483 24372954, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Doomsider -3 points 3 days ago

The one without human beings at the helm.

path: 0 24343947 24349483 24350863, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 2
Jax 4 points 3 days ago

Funny, that's what I think about communism.

path: 0 24343947 24349483 24350863 24351006, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1
Doomsider 0 points 3 days ago

It is almost like the people are the problem and not the ideology.

path: 0 24343947 24349483 24350863 24351006 24352410, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
ironycanal 4 points 3 days ago

Yeah. You can have a left based on a version of 'value' where the productive apparatus is made for the benefit not of all, or the benefits of those who do the work, but for those who 'own', who reign, who hold dominion over.

I really don't see how this is so hard for these people to understand.
What are your skull measurements, BTW, fellow leftie?

path: 0 24343947 24344298, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
naeap 3 points 3 days ago

Yeah, money is a great way of communication and valuation of work and goods over vast distances

I'm all for an easy token to valuate something and that's ok

But as you say, what we're doing now, is just not future proof

path: 0 24343947 24349099, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 3
wpb 9 points 3 days ago

You don't need capitalism to have the concept of currency. It predates capitalism, and has existed in systems alongside capitalism.

path: 0 24343947 24349099 24349470, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 1
naeap 1 point 3 days ago

True

path: 0 24343947 24349099 24349470 24349747, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
TheDannysaur 5 points 3 days ago

It doesn't even seem current proof lol

path: 0 24343947 24349099 24349365, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
jimmy90 -5 points 3 days ago

at some point one realises the commies are idiots

it explains everything

path: 0 24343947 24349979, hotness: undefined, score: -5, children: 1
Valmond 0 points 3 days ago

The Kremlin: but Useful idiots!

path: 0 24343947 24349979 24351567, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
essell 28 points 3 days ago

What nonsense.

Politics is not a one dimensional right and left split.

Real people, who have a personality beyond their political opinions, are all over the spectrum on issues.

path: 0 24349885, hotness: undefined, score: 28, children: 4
daychilde 1 point 2 days ago

Wow, you sound like a commie. /s :)

path: 0 24349885 24357164, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
essell 2 points a day ago

Which flavour, like McCarthy Commie, Tankie Commie or CND Commie? 😁

path: 0 24349885 24357164 24371449, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
fodor 0 points a day ago

I think you kind of missed the point. What we're talking about is reality right now where in fact there are two dominant parties and two dominant voter bases in the US. In fact, most politicians at the national level situate themselves in one of those two groups.

All of the nuance that you described exists. It's absolutely real. And so is the above paragraph, so go back and read the original post and maybe you can uncover some meaning.

path: 0 24349885 24372295, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1
essell 2 points 18 hours ago

I don't think they mentioned a specific country in their sweeping statement?

path: 0 24349885 24372295 24379050, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Ice 15 points 3 days ago

This is a decent way to self-exclude yourself from relevancy in the political sphere.

Most of the global left is not strictly anti capitalist but rather advocate more nuanced systems.

path: 0 24347555, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 0
theacharnian 11 points 2 days ago

Left and Right are relative, not absolute terms.

path: 0 24354969, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 2
Goodlucksil -3 points 2 days ago

Left and Right were absolute terms in the Girondine Convention. It just got passed down on to us.

path: 0 24354969 24355290, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 1
theacharnian 4 points 2 days ago

In other words: they are relative.

path: 0 24354969 24355290 24355640, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
njm1314 10 points 3 days ago

Bars.

path: 0 24342415, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 0
garbagehead 7 points 3 days ago

Absolutely true statement. Capitalism may be nuanced and politics may be, but support for capitalism is not pro-left in the least.

path: 0 24350707, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 9
holy_scroller 4 points 3 days ago

How about he Sherman Antitrust Act. It is obviously left wing to oppose monopolies, and yet it fit into and supports a capitalist system. Even communist China has significant capitalist elements. Most notably, in "post capitalist" Star Trek, Jean-Luc Picard owned a fucking vineyard in France. You telling me everyone who wanted a French Vineyard got a French Vineyard?

path: 0 24350707 24352360, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 8
A404 3 points 2 days ago

China is not communist lol

path: 0 24350707 24352360 24354304, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 6
FlyingCircus 1 point a day ago

Correct, China is socialist, the intermediary step between the capitalist mode of production and the communist mode of production.

path: 0 24350707 24352360 24354304 24372162, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Mulligrubs 0 points 2 days ago

If China is not communist, then America is not capitalist

(neither passes the purity test per definition)

path: 0 24350707 24352360 24354304 24357811, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 4
A404 1 point 2 days ago

Communism is per definition a stateless classless society. Capitalism is when the means of production is in private ownership which is the norm everywhere

path: 0 24350707 24352360 24354304 24357811 24359628, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 3
skisnow 1 point 2 days ago

It is obviously left wing to oppose monopolies

Eh, it’s also pretty centrist as well. I think you’re participating in a little bit of category sleight-of-hand there.

path: 0 24350707 24352360 24359426, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
tacosanonymous 7 points 3 days ago

I get it but it’s semantics and the way they use it is relative. We need to fight for the things that matter and avoid petty pitfalls.

path: 0 24343321, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 1
sp3ctr4l 9 points 3 days ago

No, see, its not semantics.

What are these things that matter that we are fighting for?

Preserving capitalism, just you know, we'll fix it this time, we just have to do (thing that is guaranteed to be undone by capitalism)!...

Or... not that, instead, identifying the instinct to do that as the entire main problem that causes or exacerbates all the other problems?

Its only semantics if you're in full-on capitalist realism mode, where the apocalypse is easier to imagine than the absence of capitalism.

That's how you get the Fallout timeline.

I hope we understand that the Fallout timeline is bad.

Smearing around the meaning of words is actually exactly how propoganda works. If you literally can't even know what someone is talking about or means, well, then you basically just make stuff up willy nilly, confusion increases, meaningful discussion becomes more and more impossible, and the status quo wins.

path: 0 24343321 24344160, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0
nanometer1625 4 points a day ago path: 0 24372709, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
Daft_ish 2 points 2 days ago

How?

path: 0 24353697, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 5
chiliedogg 6 points 2 days ago

Don't make me pull out the leftists, liberals, and conservatives Venn diagram.

Edit: Pulling it out.

path: 0 24353697 24357313, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 2
Daft_ish 2 points 2 days ago

The terms left and right are only useful until they are not.

These days you need to dig down into peoples ideology until you ask the question, should all people be cared for by society? I dont know how many levels up from that we skate around on but its almost insane how we are scaffolded over real human principles.

Its as if we have a bunch of people yapping, jumping into every conversation, with no idea about the pillars we are build on.

path: 0 24353697 24357313 24358201, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Bongo_Stryker 1 point 2 days ago

Maybe it's just me but it really bothers me that the far right is on the left of the diagram, and yet, I think it would also bother me somewhat if it were rotated 90 degrees so the the far right was on the right but then liberals would be on top. Also, it doesn't make sense that the part where all three overlap says "hate leftists" which would mean that leftists hate leftists and ah ok I see that checks out.

path: 0 24353697 24357313 24359588, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
ZILtoid1991 2 points 2 days ago

Only relevant to the progressive bent of neoliberalism, which is just rebranded conservatism.

path: 0 24353697 24357178, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
chunes 1 point 2 days ago

Bankrupt ideology because of 3.

path: 0 24353697 24361105, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
agent_nycto 1 point a day ago

Man people can't seem to get their terms together. Some people define left as communist/anti capitalist. Some define it as just anyone who wants equity for minorities. Some people define it as anyone they don't like and them damn hippies.

People use "The Left" contextually. See the Overton window for reference.

path: 0 24372455, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Malyca -3 points 3 days ago

Have we not heard of liberals?

path: 0 24343199, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 8
thinkyfish 27 points 3 days ago

liberals are right wing.

path: 0 24343199 24343380, hotness: undefined, score: 27, children: 7
mojofrododojo 4 points 3 days ago

even democratic socialists? genuinely curious, trying to map your spectrum

path: 0 24343199 24343380 24345762, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 6
FreeAZ 6 points 3 days ago

Democratic socialists are not capitalist, they're socialist. You're thinking of social democrats.

path: 0 24343199 24343380 24345762 24347619, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 5
wpb 2 points 3 days ago

Kind of splitting hairs at this point, but if the defining feature of capitalism is the private ownership of business, then I'd say demsocs would still qualify as capitalists. But maybe we have different notions of capitalism.

path: 0 24343199 24343380 24345762 24347619 24349513, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 4
commiunism -7 points 3 days ago

Most leftists are literally pro-capitalism though, not in the idealized sense of "we want free markets NOW!!" but viewing ideal society as capitalism but with welfare (self-described socialist/DSA/socdem types). No matter how you rename such society, it doesn't change what it's mode of production in reality is.

Lots of leftists can't even define what capitalism is either, which also puts their opposition to capital into question...

path: 0 24343721, hotness: undefined, score: -7, children: 3
alapakala -5 points 3 days ago

viewing ideal society as capitalism but with welfare (self-described socialist/ D SA/soc dem types)

Democrats, mob rule, is not liberatory: leftist.
Americans are illiterate fucks, no need to spread their dissonances.

capitalism

path: 0 24343721 24343790, hotness: undefined, score: -5, children: 2
commiunism 5 points 3 days ago

Imma be real, if you truly think that US are some backwards savages and the rest of the world is any better then maybe you're due for a break from the US-centric news cycles who only report on what's going on in the US. It really warps one's perspective on the current state of the world, xenophobia and bigotry runs everywhere and it's getting worse as profit rates and standard of living drops.

Besides, leftism as a term at first referred to anti-monarchist liberals. It's an insanely large and diverse camp in terms of views, vast majority of whom are pro-capitalist but don't market themselves as such since their focus is reformism and making lives better within capitalism like trans rights or "fair wage". Actual anti-capitalists (i.e. communists aligned with left opposition who are vehemently against commodity form) are insanely rare and often don't even identify themselves as leftists since they have very little in common with left wing of capital.

path: 0 24343721 24343790 24345262, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1
alapakala 1 point 3 days ago

One quick peek at my profile and you’d learn super quick I’m extremely varied, global, and intersecting as most anarchists go.

leftism as a term at first referred to anti-monarchist liberals

By whom exactly🙃

Actual anti-capitalists (i.e. communists aligned with left opposition who are vehemently against commodity form) are insanely rare and often don’t even identify themselves as leftists since they have very little in common with left wing of capital.

I feel like you believe this is /c/liberalism@lemmy.world and not /c/Socialism@lemmy.dbzer0.com.
Could you reframe you scopes a little broader, as actual anarchists engaging in honest conversation? ’Cause anarchism is completely against all forms of capital: the privatization of goods, services, tools, land, etc.. You don't have to be furtherest liberating (Monarch’s “left of privatization”), and fall back into communitizing all means of production (communism).

I am not your typical black anarchist.

path: 0 24343721 24343790 24345262 24345402, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
saltesc -10 points 3 days ago

Libertarians

path: 0 24342857, hotness: undefined, score: -10, children: 4
Archangel1313 14 points 3 days ago

...are literally to the right of Democrats in the US. They're just technically not as far right as most Republicans. They occupy that tiny slice of space between the two kinds of conservatives.

path: 0 24342857 24343197, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 0
teslekova 3 points 3 days ago

Bears.

path: 0 24342857 24343499, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
Killercat103 1 point 3 days ago

Either you're talking of libertarians like me. People just shy anarcho-communist (Or at least far cry of capitalist). Or self proclaimed anti-state lassiez-faire capitalism advocating folks. Which don't even fit the critieria for centre-left or centre even.

path: 0 24342857 24351253, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
saltesc 1 point 3 days ago

Put into your search engine of choice, "libertarians on capitalism"

👍

path: 0 24342857 24351253 24352433, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Batpool42 -12 points 3 days ago

There are plenty of Corporations that lean hard left. Capitalism is far better then socialism. It encourages choice and opportunity in better products. Economic diversity and stronger individual wealth. Problem is the consumer mentality, everyone wants convenience. Taxes are astronomical in many places, and every government agency provides nothing in promoting independence in individuals they "help". Every single tool of the rich is available to all. No body is taught a thing how to be responsible or harness the vast array of tools.

Also both the right and left seem to have forgotten polictians are our common enemy. None of them are trust worthy and they wealth they gain in office, the fraud they commit is swept under the rug.

Why are we grouped up and colored red or blue? Because war is peace for them. 1984 is already here. The left are the fascists with their politically correct and willful segregation practices. While many of the right are no better and fascists in their own right. Independent thought doesn't exist anymore. Not in any meaningful capacity.

path: 0 24351135, hotness: undefined, score: -12, children: 3
cobalt32 3 points 2 days ago

There are plenty of Corporations that lean hard left.

What do you mean by this? I've never seen a corporation run democratically by the workers from the bottom up; it's always the opposite. Or is your idea of a "left" corporation one that puts a rainbow on their logo in June and engages in identity politics?

polictians are our common enemy

Agreed. We need to abolish the state.

The left are the fascists with their politically correct and willful segregation practices.

You seem to be describing liberals here(?) Liberals are not left, they're on the right. Also, you sound like a Republican.

path: 0 24351135 24353809, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
black0ut 3 points 3 days ago

I am left speechless. What a load of bs you just wrote. Do you actually believe it?

The left are the fascists with their politically correct and willful segregation practices.

Made me laugh, ngl

path: 0 24351135 24352053, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
theacharnian 1 point 2 days ago

Hey buddy, you're in the wrong community.

path: 0 24351135 24355658, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
actualsocialism
actualsocialism

@lemmy.dbzer0.com

login for more options
817
94
719

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of "ML" (read: Dengist) influence. This is a place for undogmatic and constructive discussion from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

A certain knowledge of socialism is expected, if you are new to/interested in socialism, please visit c/Socialism101 before participating here. Socialism101 will gladly help you by answering questions, providing resources etc.

Memes go in c/Lefty Memes

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, upvoting good contributions and downvoting those of low-quality!

Rules

1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith discussion is enforced here.

Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism

2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such,

as well as condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavour.

3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.

That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" (read: Dengist) (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).

4. No Bigotry.

The only dangerous minority is the rich.

5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Xenial Xerus" when answering question 2)

6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.

7. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

  • Racism
  • Sexism
  • Queerphobia
  • Ableism
  • Classism
  • Rape or assault
  • Genocide/ethnic cleansing or (mass) deportations
  • Fascism
  • (National) chauvinism
  • Orientalism
  • Colonialism or Imperialism (and their neo- counterparts)
  • Zionism
  • Religious fundamentalism of any kind

(This is not a definitive list, the spirit of the other rules still counts! Eventual duplicates with other rules are for emphasis.)

go to feed...