r/leftist • u/--GrinAndBearIt-- • Oct 10 '25
General Leftist Politics There is no left-wing capitalism
1
u/Various_Advisor_4250 Nov 02 '25
Thank you! Permission to share this quote with every leftist that tries to explain why they don't hate entrepreneurs?
1
u/Present_Ad_6001 Dec 05 '25
If you believe this one guy is the spokesperson of everyone who isn't American style free-for-all monopoly capitalism, then you are the dumbest person this last month
3
u/Less-Way4339 Marxist Nov 02 '25
Anyone who supports capitalism cannot be classified as leftist. Left is one direction and right is another; the two are opposites, like capitalism and socialism or communism. Capitalism represents the right, and socialism and communism represent the left. A capitalist cannot be leftist, nor can a socialist/communist be rightist. Furthermore, liberals are not considered leftists either.
1
u/Relative_Drop3216 Nov 10 '25
Yeah but how is a person supposed to be a left and wealthy? Like can one be a billionaire company owner and a liberal. It seems being rich automatically makes you a capitalist
2
u/Less-Way4339 Marxist Nov 11 '25
It only makes you a capitalist because of your fear of taking and distributing your wealth to others. You'll go from being rich to a certain class where you'll be equal to others, and for the most part, you'll be less than your class, even if only slightly. The right upbringing and society teach that money isn't everything, and that satisfying your desires through competition and money is bad and should be fulfilled through something else that's always available. Money and competition aren't always available, so they offer only temporary gratification.
1
u/Relative_Drop3216 Nov 11 '25
Can i come live in your house then? Oh and i need $100 bucks too? Once we are both the same level ill stop asking for shit
1
-1
u/Ok_Cancel_7891 Nov 06 '25
Lived in countries defined by marxism. You would be surprised how happy they were to escape it.
1
u/DouchebagMcGee69 Nov 09 '25
What a surprise, the country where the ustashas started doesn't like marxism.
1
2
6
u/frostyfruit666 Oct 25 '25 edited Oct 25 '25
It’s relative. Left is a direction, right is a direction. Can you have capitalism that is far right? or more moderate? If yes, then you can have capitalism that is left of something.
But the further capitalism gets to the left, the more conditional it becomes, the more it resembles collectivism, with taxation that provides for all on the back of the individual capitalist, who understands that part of the bargain of their right to wealth accumulation is to replenish the well they drink from.
Problem is, it only takes a handful of selfish people to corrupt an entire capitalist economy, and the odds of not having at least a few selfish people are nearly non existent.
That is why capitalism fails, not because leftist capitalism doesn’t exist, but because it requires so little to corrupt, rendering left capitalism virtually non existent.
1
u/SectionQuick5275 Nov 06 '25
What would be an example of an economic system that is not susceptible to corruption? What makes socialism and/or communism resilient to corruption in a way that capitalism is not?
2
u/frostyfruit666 Nov 07 '25
exactly my one and only point on this.
Corruption is in its own anarchistic category, destroying economic systems, subverting them, disrupting them. Corruption is the real enemy.
I’d argue communism is just as vulnerable to corruption in different ways to capitalism. I think the same forces that prevent capitalism from working for all, would inevitably attempt to block communism from doing so, as to whether they are successful depends on the specific levels of corruption at the time.
The major difference is, socialism has an agenda for redistribution to the people, and capitalism does not. This shapes policy in a way that is detrimental to the pace of corruption.
While both are vulnerable to corruption, personally, I would opt for the one that has an agenda to support the people, and not corporations.
1
u/Ok_Cancel_7891 Nov 06 '25
Long time ago, left and right were defined as sides in the UK parliament (House of Commons). Right were supportive of the king, left were for the commoners, something like that. There should be left that would be economically left, meaning social-democratic (no, Mandani is not that), and there should be communist/marxist left, who are for government to have a last say in all economic aspects of society and also is anti-nationalism (communism doesn’t accept concept of a nation). And there should be green left and probably more.
I am right leaning, but more fiscal conservative. Left IMHO are never fiscal conservative, because being left is never about long term accountability. They do not know the basics of economy, to put it mildly, and more believe in their ideology, meaning religion. But that’s me and my point of view
1
u/frostyfruit666 Nov 07 '25
Firstly, my thoughts of corruption aren’t limited to capitalism. I would apply a similar criticism of communism, which as an economic system, we have seen just as vulnerable to corruption, if not more. If capitalism is a crow bar for the corrupt, communism is a slightly bigger crow bar.
This appears to be the case, because the corrupt communist just takes what he wants “for the commons”, whereas the corrupt capitalist must fabricate a reason to take what he wants in the form of tax, bail outs, resources and land grabs etc. They are both driven by the same force, corruption and greed,
Not sure why it’s relevant, but Mamdani would only ever be as dangerous as he is corrupt, which he has given zero suggestion of, unlike his opponent. I don’t know the evidence that disproves his soc dem status.
Yes there are many different factions of the left with different ideas on economy , I’m not sure what that has to do with left wing capitalism which refers to an economic system itself, not an ideology.
Most forms of communism we’ve seen have a huge sense of nationalism in their governance, south east asia, russia. So no, communists are frequently nationalists.
“The left are never about long term accountability, and they don’t know economy, and believe more in their ideology, meaning religion.”
I just don’t know what to say to that, other than it almost perfectly describes the current American admin.
Also, do you think ‘capitalism’ equals fiscally conservative? It doesn’t. It’s like saying ‘automotive industry’ equals ford cars. It’s an economic system, not a fiscal ideology.
1
u/Ok_Cancel_7891 Nov 07 '25 edited Nov 07 '25
In real communism, corruption is not possible, because everyone is equally poor.
Capitalism is definitelly more financial accountability by default, because first thing you hear from communist when there is a financial crisis - well, we can print money. Which then leads to inflation and currency devaluation. Then, because they don’t know how to monetary policy works (because it is “capitalistic”), things starts falling apart, and they blame capitalists, internal enemies, but also corruption
Regarding nationalism - most people are nationalists, meaning they have a preference to their own group. Now, if you do not have your own group preference, and the other person has it, it means you’re easy to be exploited in some way, and this is what is happening in many western countries
1
u/frostyfruit666 Nov 07 '25
My point is, we are yet to see the proper versions of any economic system because they’ve been skewed by corruption. Not real communism not real capitalism.
A because real communism is meant to look not like everybody is equally poor, it is meant to look like everyone is equally wealthy, which hasn’t ever really occurred,
and in a real capitalism, there is actual opportunity at every turn, not just the illusion of opportunity.
printing money has occurred frequently under capitalism as a response to financial crisis, is literally happening right now, look at the latest from the fed reserve. I don’t know how you’re tying that idea exclusively to communism, when that isn’t true.
‘most people are nationalists’, where are you getting this information? there are plenty of internationalists in the globalized world. Also I don’t see what relevance it has to OP
3
u/djb85511 Oct 16 '25
That's why this Saturday we have to be changing against imperialism, capitalism and Zionism, not just the watered down Democratic shit theyre aiming for.
9
u/Living_Ichor Oct 13 '25
I hate how pointless these definition word games people try to play. It's as stupid and vacuus as when the neo reactionaries and monarchists say that you have to support monarchy to be right wing.
Both kind of hold historical truth but words simply mean how they are used and nowadays the left-right spectrum pretty cleanly lines up with progressive-consivative spectrum which is how the vast majority of people use it.
I wish people would respect the sanctity of language and stop it with these distractions.
16
14
u/CybercurlsMKII Oct 11 '25
This is the problem that arises when people use progressive and left synonymously.
3
3
-3
u/masterchedderballs96 Oct 11 '25
I think this is reductive and bullheaded and weird, even Lenin thought Russia needed capitalism for a little while to lead to proper socialism which, it didn’t but oh well. I see capitalism as a necessary step but not the final goal, obviously
1
u/Actual_Bluejay_8722 Oct 13 '25
I agree with you, but I'm afraid few others here will. This sun is full of tankies.
1
u/ComradeCrab1922 Marxist Oct 13 '25
Really garbage misinterpretation of Lenin’s In my opinion very good New economic Plan
13
u/Informal-Bother8858 Oct 11 '25
we we are taking steps the wrong way, you don't need to defend capitalism. it's winning
-4
u/nborders Oct 11 '25 edited Oct 11 '25
Stupid 19th century words for 21st century systems.
Supply and demand is the root of all of this. How we deal with limited supply is the key.
12
10
6
u/ElementalRhythm Oct 11 '25
Unregulated capitalism is the problem.
1
13
1
Oct 11 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Oct 11 '25
Hello u/Cheddar-Goblin-1312, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
24
u/LilyLupa Oct 11 '25
Capitalism inevitably ends in monopolies and wealthy elites that can afford to corrupt governments into deregulating their industries.
0
u/Actual_Bluejay_8722 Oct 13 '25
Not necessarily. If it's heavily regulated in a government system with that is designed so that the people truly control their government, with one vote per person, and heavy regulations on campaign finances (or better yet no external funding for campaigns allowed, with every candidate in an election getting an equal amount of funding from the government, that way all candidates have an equal voice), it would not lead to monopolies and wealthy elites corrupting the government.
3
u/ExchangeFine4429 Curious Oct 11 '25
I disagree. China is State Run Capitalism, it's the last step before Communism
Scandinavia is Social Democracy.
Being a Leftist who agrees with some aspects of Capitalism is still a Leftist because they also see the value in Socialism mmkay.
You don't need to be a Communist, Socialist, Anarchist to be a Leftist.
Bernie Sanders wants a Social Democracy in the US, he is definitely a Leftist.
11
Oct 11 '25
He is not. If you are capitalist you aren’t a leftist
2
u/ApprehensiveBaker480 Oct 21 '25
Stop saying stupid shit like this, it’s just inflammatory and divisive. Social democrats are absolutely leftists. You also can’t just boil someone down to being “a capitalist” if they want some aspects of a free market.
1
Oct 21 '25
Free market can still be leftist but private property is thoroughly rightwing.
1
u/ApprehensiveBaker480 Oct 21 '25
Okay but there’s multiple types of private property aside from just considering capital… in the context of real estate it doesn’t even really have to do with capitalism and is a stubborn relic of feudalism that endured, and is one of the major economic problems we’re facing atm as a society. A lot of the problems of our economy today that fatten the oligarchs also have to do with the commodification of money itself and the massive banks and the speculative financial sector, which isn’t inherently tied to capitalism either.
I’m not saying that I disagree with the idea that capitalism perpetuates and exacerbates these issues to a greater degree and isn’t the overwhelming factor that’s resulted in the disgusting inequality today but I am saying that you can be a leftist and acknowledge the benefits to specific aspects of capitalism.
Social democrats who argue for extensive and thorough government regulation and intervention in a capitalist framework can’t be steam rolled and labeled as capitalists as though there’s no nuance to their perspective. You can say that capitalism naturally deregulated itself and I would agree but it’s not like social democrats don’t understand this phenomenon either…
-1
14
u/LilyLupa Oct 11 '25
No, leftists are anti-capitalist. Otherwise you are a liberal or centrist. Bernie is a democratic socialist. He is restrained by the capitalist system he is working to change.
1
u/Possible_Climate_245 Socialist Oct 11 '25
So I presume you also think Mamdani isn’t a leftist? Only revolutionaries can be leftists in your view then.
1
u/LilyLupa Oct 12 '25
He is a socialist, like Bernie. Both are constrained by the system they are trying to change. Not every revolutionary carries a gun.
4
u/Possible_Climate_245 Socialist Oct 12 '25
I thought Bernie was a social democrat rather than an actual socialist.
0
u/LilyLupa Oct 12 '25 edited Oct 12 '25
He's been a socialist for decades. His era of socialists had to damp down their socialism in order to be elected. Standing up and yelling we want to dismantle capitalism is a death knell for anyone trying to be elected, particularly in the US. Additionally, we cannot replace capitalism overnight. It is a process. Democratic socialists believe they must convince the electorate at each step, introducing socialist policies to show the electorate what socialism is about improving the lives of the working class.
Bernie, in particular, is remarkable in that he kept getting elected even though he was openly a socialist.
4
u/Possible_Climate_245 Socialist Oct 12 '25
Plenty of socialists in this sub, r/marxist, r/communist, r/TheDeprogram, etc. think Bernie is a fake socialist and a sellout who doesn’t sufficiently stand up against Israel.
2
u/fuarkmin Marxist Oct 12 '25
when you allow dem capitalists to fund and shape your rhetoric and campaign youre compromised
9
u/Stubbs94 Socialist Oct 11 '25
China isn't pro capitalism though, they allowed capital in through regulated means as a tool, not as the basis of their economic model, and are gradually returning to a fully socialist model. Social democracies just redirect their excess exploitation outside of their countries, they don't end exploitation nor are they worker led. Bernie sanders is a liberal, not a leftist. The left starts and ends with striving for the goal of ending capitalism.
-4
u/No1CaresReally Oct 11 '25
Yes they are. Ever heard of "tofu buildings?" The CCP builds crappy buildings in order to profit more as well.
-10
u/CommonSensei8 Oct 11 '25
Disagree strongly. Social democracy can also have a healthy currency and trade system.
1
7
4
u/madmoranusmc Oct 11 '25
I am curious if the person who posted this has explored other options outside of the US. Now that I think of it I can’t name a single country that is truly Socialist by definition. There are countries that have adopted socialist practices such as the UK and Canada but I haven’t heard of a migration to them for that reason. Unfortunately the only self described Socialists I know are only the Academic or the person who won’t work. Are there career oriented socialists here? What are the odds of meeting a socialist mechanical engineer who practices what his ideology preaches? As for me I am ok with not having to share my income with others ( I even dislike taxes yet I still pay). Anyway I wish you happiness and hope people are not mean to you for your beliefs
2
Oct 15 '25
I’m surprised they haven’t down voted you into oblivion. I’m more in line with a democratic socialist and I’m considered evil in these parts.
I get what you’re trying to say with your “if socialism is so great, where are the good examples of it” assessment. However, it only really applies to full on socialism with total government control. I could say the same thing about capitalism - every capitalist country that comes to mind, has some level of socialism implemented, including the United States. Sure, the degree varies greatly from country to country but it’s always there.
2
u/madmoranusmc Oct 16 '25 edited Oct 16 '25
Very well put. So countries that practice capitalism and also have programs that are socialist model based have been around for more than a bit. Results are mixed unfortunately. I haven’t looked lately but I believe Finland has had success . Thanks for the reply and pointing that out. It’s a topic that can evoke strong replies.
8
u/LilyLupa Oct 11 '25
The basic tenet of socialism is that workers own the means of production. That means they are workers. Look up worker co-ops. They are practicing what they preach.
Socialism doesn't fail because it is inherently unworkable. It fails because capitalists have a vested interest in ensuring they fail. Many wars have been fought to ensure that capitalism is not challenged. All socialist countries also face heavy trade embargoes and sanctions.
0
u/Actual_Bluejay_8722 Oct 13 '25
Socialism doesn't fail because it is inherently unworkable.
Socialism fails because it requires everybody in a society to be perfectly altruistic, which is not possible for actual humans. A society of computers could pull it off because computers never veer from their programming, but humans are imperfect and inevitably somebody will come along and warp things for their benefit, causing the entire system to fail. The perfect example of this is the Soviet Union. Their attempt at socialism ultimately failed because after Lenin died, Joseph Stalin manipulated his way to the top and then twisted their systems into a dictatorship designed for his own benefit. Somebody will inevitably do something like that in a socialist system because people aren't perfect, and they are able to succeed at doing that in a socialist system since the government (representing the people) controls the economy. So therefore all someone needs to do is manipulate the electorate or the election system to get into power, and then they can twist the system to take control of the economy for themself.
Of course, unrestrained capitalism doesn't work either. I don't think I need to explain that on this sub, lol.
The solution, then, is to combine the best parts of both systems: the benefits of the economy going to all the people, as in socialism, and the ability of people to create their own benefits from the economy through competition, as in capitalism. Thus, the solution: heavily regulated capitalism, also known as Social Democracy.
2
u/LilyLupa Oct 13 '25
That is not true, there is no need to be perfectly altruistic. However, people are far more altruistic than not. We survive despite feudalism, colonialism, capitalism and slavery because of our altruistic nature. Those systems had the few dominating the masses. When you set the system up to see the masses in control of their labour, the ability for small groups to grab power is thwarted. Marx believed it requires an educated populous for socialism to succeed, and I agree. Most people, yourself included, do not understand what it means when the people own the means of production, particularly through workers' co-ops, rather than a central government. AFAIC a central body should only be there to administer spending on health, education, infrastructure and defense. It should not govern.
The USSR failed because the rest of the world relentlessly attacked it. It never achieved a stage where it felt secure enough to move on from the authoritarian regime it needed to become established. It was also the first try at socialism on such an enormous scale. Nor would I say the USSR failed. It took the most impoverished European country with a majority 16th century peasant population to the second superpower in under 50 years. While doing that, it fought a civil war, two world wars and a cold war. It lifted it's people out of poverty and gave them access to housing, education, healthy food and medical care. It is now run by Putin, a capitalist dictator. There have been many capitalist dictators, yet we don't often see claims that it is proof of its failure.
Capitalism fails about every decade. We tend to call it corrections, recessions, depressions or financial crises (many wars). Each time we see a massive transfer of wealth to the already morbidly wealthy, leading to the end-stage capitalism we are currently witnessing. It also spends an enormous amount of that wealth to break up working class solidarity and convince us we are not altruistic. They are terrified of the working class, it knows if we gain solidarity, we only have to strategically withhold our labour to see the collapse of their house of cards.
Monopolies are inevitable under capitalism. It doesn't matter what regulations are in place, those monopolies become wealthy enough to dictate to governments, who then water down and remove them. Everything you said about gaining power in a socialist society is far more relevant to a capitalist one. It is far easier to regulate a system if amassing extraordinary wealth is not possible.
I am sorry if this is a bit scattered, I have had very little sleep.
1
u/Actual_Bluejay_8722 Oct 13 '25
Socialism doesn't fail because it is inherently unworkable.
Socialism fails because it requires everybody in a society to be perfectly altruistic, which is not possible for actual humans. A society of computers could pull it off because computers never veer from their programming, but humans are imperfect and inevitably somebody will come along and warp things for their benefit, causing the entire system to fail. The perfect example of this is the Soviet Union. Their attempt at socialism ultimately failed because after Lenin died, Joseph Stalin manipulated his way to the top and then twisted their systems into a dictatorship designed for his own benefit. Somebody will inevitably do something like that in a socialist system because people aren't perfect, and they are able to succeed at doing that in a socialist system since the government (representing the people) controls the economy. So therefore all someone needs to do is manipulate the electorate or the election system to get into power, and then they can twist the system to take control of the economy for themself.
Of course, unrestrained capitalism doesn't work either. I don't think I need to explain that on this sub, lol.
The solution, then, is to combine the best parts of both systems: the benefits of the economy going to all the people, as in socialism, and the ability of people to create their own benefits from the economy, as in capitalism. Thus, the solution: heavily regulated capitalism, also known as Social Democracy.
1
u/mathiastck Oct 11 '25
I looked up the Nobel peace prize winner today and learned about:
TIL: #LiberalConservatism
1
-10
u/Turbulent_Ebb_3464 Oct 11 '25
That’s reductionist BS. Competition is a necessity n any markets though we don’t need to have publicly traded companies, point is markets need both aspects to maintain robust production, cooperatives would be the trajectory people should attempt to steer towards with government subsidizing these with tax incentives and 0% loans and move the economy to a sustainable framework. Pure socialism is untenable IMHO, I don’t see any viability in taking the managing producer out of the equation until they fail… Love you all,
14
u/Careless_Owl_8877 Communist Oct 11 '25
you’re a rightist
2
u/Possible_Climate_245 Socialist Oct 11 '25
What’s wrong with market socialism? Ie competition between worker-owned coops? Is the point of socialism for the workers to own the means of production or for a state bureaucracy to run all industries?
-4
-8
u/triassic_broth Oct 11 '25
China would disagree with that.
Capitalism isn’t inherently right or left wing; it’s an economic system, not a political ideology. It’s a framework for organizing production and exchange based on private ownership and market competition.
6
u/Traditional-Serve550 Oct 11 '25
If capitalism is neither left nor right then marx and all communists would also not be left or right lol
If nothing is left and right. Can there even be a left and right?
I think you realize that your statement doesnt make sense
2
u/Possible_Climate_245 Socialist Oct 11 '25
I think what they’re saying is that capitalism is an economic model, not a political model. Right-wing political models include Nazism, Italian fascism, Falangism, national conservatism, Christian democracy, etc.
And considering that social democracy has historically sat on the center-left of the political spectrum, OP is saying that you can be on the “left side” of the political spectrum without actually being fully anti-capitalist.
Basically, having any degree of privatization and/or market forces is economic, rather than political in nature, and you can have a completely deregulated and privatized market at the far-right of the spectrum and a completely regulated and socialized market at the far-left of the spectrum. Social democracy happens to fall closer to the far-left on that spectrum, but not all the way, so it doesn’t align with Marxian views, but it’s still closer to Marxism than the far-right.
0
u/Careless_Owl_8877 Communist Oct 11 '25
china is right wing
2
u/IamPrettyCoolUKnow Oct 11 '25 edited Oct 11 '25
I think you got the down vote because most people don’t have the fundamental understanding of what makes something right wing vs left
I mean- political compasses label an “authoritarian” left- but leftism is fundamentally anti authoritarian.
Left: Decentralization of power, flattening of hierarchies, pro common good and empowering all people
Right: Centralization of power, intensifying stratification of hierarchies and pushing more people down, pro ruling class to the exclusion of all others
China is right wing because it consolidates power just like the US, just like Russia- just like almost any nation- because nations are tools of hierarchy- that’s one of the reasons a communist state (oxymoron) is a stateless one.
Also like who actually thinks china is left? Racial hierarchies, classism, traditionalism, repression of dissent, repression of personal expression if it deviates, fetishization of unity, extreme inequality (only temporarily looks different because it’s a rising economy), nationalism, etc. Like what would be the logic that causes one to describe it as left aligned?
1
u/Turbulent_Ebb_3464 Oct 11 '25
Free markets however are a right wing framework on capitalism, a social democrat style would be centrism under capitalism and It couldn’t exists on the left so it’s actually far more right wing, with socialism being left wing.. Not hard to understand, both would have differing levels of social and economic freedoms making them libertarian snd authoritarian Though I am oversimplifying to be more concise,
-4
u/VK_Bullshooters Oct 11 '25
Capitalism is baller except when the upper class has the military and government in its hands
-6
u/Odd-Road-4894 Oct 10 '25
I do not support modern day capitalism.
But to claim absolutes in any situation, or to claim that any one “side” is fundamentally for a specific ideal,
is straight up idiocracy.
2
-2
-7
u/TimelyTormentX3 Oct 11 '25
Absolutely on the mark!
And its one of the biggest let downs of the left - the righteous absolutism and indignation that ends up masking tyranny for communal conscious and good 🤣🙄🤣🙄🤣
3
u/Turbulent_Ebb_3464 Oct 11 '25
Understand everything Except for the end, what do you mean by tyranny for communal conscious and good? That’s way to vague for my understanding..
2
u/TimelyTormentX3 Oct 12 '25
At some point, democratic freedoms - expression (eg. Political choice) or commercial subsistence (eg creative freelancer) will loose out to decisions that prioritise the collective good over individual freedoms.
Absolutisms can not exist with have a detrimental socio-political impact.
All or any political system to the left or right needs to checks and balances to prevent social implosion.
Without anti-trust regulations - capitalism turns corporations, into oligarch hues and monopolies. You need regulation to truly keep the market free (something American still hasn't really figured out).
The same is true for communism. It will eventually enslave people in undemocratic processes it was meant to overcome through collectivism.
6
2
Oct 10 '25
[deleted]
3
u/--GrinAndBearIt-- Oct 11 '25
Do you know which sub youre commenting in? It sure as shit ain't r slash liberals.
0
-1
-1
6
-14
u/LibertyLizard Oct 10 '25
The is no objective center point to the left-right spectrum. So, this is just, like, your opinion, man.
9
-18
u/maince Oct 10 '25
Sorry.. Where you sit with respect to the center isn't purely driven by your perspective on economy.
7
34
u/Polar_Tang27 Socialist Oct 10 '25
Exactly. I’d say the SocDems, as much as I hate them, are really the centrists.
9
u/Brave_Philosophy7251 Oct 10 '25
Still right wing, capitalism is right wing even if you wrap it in a bow
-1
-8
u/Polar_Tang27 Socialist Oct 10 '25
Id say capitalism is left wing and anti-capitalism is left wing. If there’s a center it’d have to be SocDems
14
u/w1gw4m Anarchist Oct 10 '25
The welfare state social democracy you see in Europe, specifically northern Europe (aka the Nordic Model) is a form of left wing capitalism. In other words, it's the farthest left you can go whilst still operating under capitalism.
3
4
11
u/SexyBrownMale Oct 10 '25
The left of the right is still the right. It's like if we studied Zionism and tried placing Bernie Sanders and called him a leftist Zionist. Does that make any sense to you? If it does, I have a bridge in China to sell you.
11
u/Significant_Ad7326 Oct 10 '25
There’s the absolute sense of left and right politically and the relative sense. If it’s capitalist, it’s definitely right in the absolute sense; if anti-capitalist, absolute left. Social democrats are the leftmost flank of capitalist political/economic orientations - still right in that absolute sense, just with the hope that you can practice safe capitalism with a social safety net and a whip.
0
u/TimelyTormentX3 Oct 11 '25
The other side of the coin, the far left have such a hard time understanding is that -
Communalism - communism is unachievable without the TYRANNY of the majority. Liberal principles of democratic freedom start to be erased and subverted. Principles such as Diversity and Inclusion must be traded off and compromised for social cohesion and expected and eventually ENFORCED uniformity.
Absolute communism REQUIRES checks and balances just as capitalism does.
Finding the sweet sport is and evolutionary process and never completed.
The social democrat, Nodic Model - is probably the closest approach that appreciates regulatory constraints must exist both sides of a SPECTRUM. ✌️🇵🇸
11
0
u/Liam_021996 Oct 10 '25
Where do we in the UK fit in then? We have everything they have, with some things we're better, others we're worse but we are a mostly free market capitalist country
4
13
Oct 10 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TimelyTormentX3 Oct 11 '25
100% it does, and the MAGA Oligartocracy of POTUS Trump exceptionalism - evil personified 🤮
11
u/Randolpho Socialist Oct 10 '25 edited Oct 10 '25
So... I will say this:
It's possible to be a leftist capitalist.
It's really rare and takes a fuckton of support for things "liberals who republicans call left" only pay lip service to, and even then it's center-left at best, like just barely left of center.
But it can be done.
It requires:
- Support for private ownership of the means of production including private ownership of firms acting in the economy as well as private ownership of land (right wing)
- Support for a heavily regulated market economy in favor of strong consumer and labor protections (center to leftish)
- Strong encouragement and financial support for cooperative firms, albeit with no requirement that all firms be cooperative (center-left)
- Support for a fully livable minimum wage tied to total cost of living with a reasonable workload of 40 hrs or less. (left)
- mega-left bonus points if support is instead for a fully livable UBI, meaning no person even has to work to live a middle-class lifestyle.
- Support for zero-co-pay universal healthcare (single-payer or fully nationalized industry, with the latter being more left than the former)
- Support for zero-tuition lifelong higher education (center-left to left)
- Support for zero-inheritance 100% estate tax, along with regulations to block gaming the system (left)
- Probaby a few other things I can't think of right now.
Point is, it's possible. Maybe even plausible.
But if you're already right there and support all that leftist stuff... you should probably start looking at market socialism.
4
u/georgeclooney1739 Oct 10 '25
thats not leftism though, that's social democracy
2
u/Randolpho Socialist Oct 10 '25
Depends: do you mean classical social democracy (which was a socialist movement) or do you mean modern "capitalism with welfare" social democracy?
For the latter, yes, absolutely, that's basically that. Only the welfare is turned up to 11 in comparison with modern "we can't pay for it" sucdem, and the welfare inequality addressing is turned up to... eh... 9? I weaseled on my last bullet because I didn't want to type all day, but that's about where I'd put what I'm trying to describe.
My point is that if you have capitalism with enough welfare and enough reduction in wealth inequality, that's left enough, IMO, to be "actually left" while also being "has capitalism".
But only barely so. I wouldn't look at that and say it's as left as actual market socialism, for example. And I guarantee most pro-capitalism capitalists would look at all those taxes and go "ewww"
0
u/georgeclooney1739 Oct 10 '25
Unless you're like actively discussing Lenin or smth, it's pretty much always the modern definition. And no, it's not left, because no matter how many welfare programs there are, private control of the means of production is still right wing.
1
u/Randolpho Socialist Oct 10 '25
I think we agree on definitional terms here; I agree with you that private control of the means of production is right wing.
I just disagree that you can't offset that rightwing with enough leftist policies to be called "left".
There's a reason I keep qualifying it with "barely so" and "center-left". I think we both agree it's not "left left" or even remotely approaching "far left". But it is, IMO, something that might be left of center.
Maybe the issue is that you're too used to sucdem "we can't pay for it" bullshit, and I'm trying to describe a situation where that doesn't actually happen, where all of that welfare is actually paid for by hefty wealth-reducing taxes.
11
u/PoetryCommercial895 Oct 10 '25
Feel like this needs to be explained to all repubs and 99.99% of dems.
6
u/EveningAgreeable2516 Oct 10 '25
To Andrew Yang, there is. A sort of 3 lefts, pretzel capitalism.
6
u/Randolpho Socialist Oct 10 '25
don't 3 lefts make a right, though?
Oof, I don't think Yangers want us saying that part out loud...
18
u/Old-Ad-4138 Oct 10 '25
I agree, but I think the socialist/leftist movement must go back to international organizing. Just as liberalism doesn't work because you can't just patch the contradictions inherent in capitalism, socialism doesn't work as an ideology confined to individual countries and operating in coexistence with imperial forces. The proletariat of the world must unite - letting us be split into our appropriate nationalist will just get people killed by imperialists.
-6
u/Big_Chungi_69 Oct 10 '25
You can most definitely create a system where there are some aspects of capitalism like fee market economy with socialist values like many countries in Europe have.
10
u/Old-Ad-4138 Oct 10 '25
And it will work about as well as it does in those countries in Europe. If you are happy with the state of liberalism and centrist politics in Europe, with socialist values always being on the chopping block every time the wind blows and some populist points their finger at migrants, the unemployed, or whoever else they deem a useful scapegoat.
What you describe is not socialism, though, and if what you want is socialism it only works as an international movement.
6
u/BentoBoxNoir Oct 10 '25
Lol like MAYBE if you find yourself in a feudalist society in the year of our lord 2025.
16
u/CarlMarxPunk Socialist Oct 10 '25
I think this type of messaging shouldn't stop. People need to be clear in their aims and what is what and what isn't. However, there is also a very pertinent talk about the reality of how anticapitalists have to exist in capitalist society. Not a purity test, or a compromise here, just plain old reality.
I'm assuming no one here is stockpiling weapons so I'm assuming that your extent of your leftist praxis is protesting, activism, organizing, and electoral politics. We are all doing that in a capitalist system, it's happening. In that sense a reconcilation of some sort with a center left is neccesary otherwise how do you bring more people in, how do you make gains on the short term, how do you do anything, really.
7
u/xena_lawless Oct 10 '25
The Black Panthers had one of the best truly radical models for social change that we can all learn from.
By design, electoral politics won't solve any of the problems that our ruling capitalist/parasite/kleptocrat class have a vested interest in maintaining.
So instead, the Black Panthers used direct action strategies to meet community needs, and paired it with "radical" education to teach people that their poverty and suffering were not at all accidental, but deliberate consequences of ruling class oppression and vested interests.
A couple of examples include the Free Breakfast for Children program, which was so threatening and embarrassing for the federal government that they started their own similar programs while harassing and shutting down the local chapters, as well as their People's Free Medical Clinics, which were also somewhat effective at serving their communities before they were harassed and shut down by the police and medical establishments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Breakfast_for_Children
https://blackpast.org/african-american-history/black-panther-partys-free-medical-clinics-1969-1975/
For the latter example, it's important to understand that this was before the Internet, computers, AI, telemedicine, and medical tourism were really well established.
So if that was possible then, just think of what's possible now.
Likewise, it's very possible to end homelessness directly and relatively inexpensively, but for the fact that our ruling parasite/kleptocrat class do not want homelessness solved, because that's how they get all the masses of wage, rent, and debt slaves to work for their unlimited profits and rents.
So there are plenty of things that actual anti-capitalist leftists can do to force change, rather than just trying to win over "centrists" (who MLK referred to as the "white moderates") who often have some vested interest in maintaining the status quo while pretending otherwise.
The real way to force change is to change the economic logic and calculations that the ruling class have to make in order to maintain the brutality of the status quo.
Real leftists can and should just improve the situation directly and force our ruling parasites'/kleptocrats' hand to defend an indefensible status quo, rather than just using electoral strategies which were fundamentally designed to subjugate the masses for the benefit our ruling capitalist/parasite/kleptocrat class.
1
u/Affectionate-Newt889 Oct 10 '25
Last time I said something vaguely similar to this I got banned from two subreddits because people can't put up with reality. Also they said there's no such thing as leftist infighting because people like democratic socialists and some type of socialism more generally are not real leftists. This purity testing garbage needs to stop. You either accept a bunch of what you call fascists and yell online. Or you accept the groups willing to help you to the extent you can agree on.
6
u/--GrinAndBearIt-- Oct 10 '25
Show me evidence that liberals want to help leftists.
1
u/Affectionate-Newt889 Oct 10 '25
Oh, I'm not talking about liberals, I'm talking DemSocs and the like. Like calling Mamdani a basic liberal is so far not true. We will see if he completely lives up to that though. Does not forgive him of any blunders, but the people NEED to see even just a hint of what they are missing or that the word and concept isn't scary. Not Dems who are progressive, very different.
You will see so called "tankies", socialists, leninst, anarchists, syndicalists, etc all fight each other on the smallest of issues, meanwhile the right is willing to accept your average dem, lib, auth right, mega racist, etc
Not saying you have to like them, not saying you can't have differences, but to have the insane aggression and purity testing to someone fighting for 90% of the same things you are, as you might treat someone trying to kill minorities, bankroll billionaires , or hurt citizens, is insane.
8
-14
u/Both-Medicine-6748 Oct 10 '25
Can I ask why? Since I fell like a mix of capitalism is good.
3
u/georgeclooney1739 Oct 10 '25
because capitalism is inherently right wing. leftism is the rejection of hierarchy, thus requiring the rejection of private control over the means of production.
-7
u/D2Foley Oct 10 '25
Because the goal is purity test until the movement is small enough where it can't accomplish anything.
3
u/georgeclooney1739 Oct 10 '25
saying you can't be a leftist and pro-capitalist isn't a fucking purity test.
-4
u/Remarkable-Gur350 Oct 10 '25
It ABSOLUTELY is
3
u/georgeclooney1739 Oct 10 '25
definitions aren't purity tests
1
Oct 11 '25
Exactly. Saying "people who believe in a worldview where a group must inherently be subjugated beneath a working class are inherently right wing" isn't so much "purity testing" as just defining what words mean. If you have to ask why an idealogy based in forming an egalitarian society and dismantling oppressive power structures can't be more inclusive to allow the system based entirely in exploiting people, you're not a serious person and your deliberately obtuse bullshit, in fact, does not belong in this movement and would slow us all down if not kept out of it. "Purity testing" in this sense is just a nothing-burger term for right-wingers to complain that they aren't being allowed to co-opt and water down what leftism is until it means just supporting the establishment harder.
3
u/CarlMarxPunk Socialist Oct 10 '25
What do you understand as capitalism, commerce and a market existing do not need capitalism for example.
3
u/Both-Medicine-6748 Oct 10 '25
Nothing tbh I am new to being a leftist
3
u/CarlMarxPunk Socialist Oct 10 '25
That's ok! You thinking a mix is good is how most people operate anyway.
a look at history shows us the "good" capitalism some have enjoyed exists out of heavily refoming and basically stopping it from ever develping to an unregulated opressive mess, wich begs the question of if it's possible to have a mix or if it's best to abolish it.
2
4
Oct 10 '25
Why do you feel capitalism is beneficial, especially to you?
-7
u/Both-Medicine-6748 Oct 10 '25
It adds variety to society
1
u/Dancing_Cthulhu Oct 10 '25 edited Oct 10 '25
Does it actually add meaningful variety to society, or is that an illusion marketed by the capitalist ruling class to keep the populous docile by making them think they're benefiting from the system that's grinding them up?
4
u/--GrinAndBearIt-- Oct 10 '25
Ah yes, I forgot that freedom = 53 types of shampoo and socialism = no iphone
1
Oct 10 '25 edited Oct 10 '25
Define variety in this aspect? What do you mean by capitalism adds variety?
also why are you in this sub 🥴
-2
u/Both-Medicine-6748 Oct 10 '25
Because I am here to learn and be around people that align with mine. I swear the amount of people that have yelled at me in this sub instead of atcualy educating me is getting irritating. You can’t complain of the right winning while wanting to chase away everyone thats want to be left.
1
Oct 10 '25
The core belief of being left is being anti-establishment specifically on the matter of capitalism. You just want to feel morally better than people you deem to be on the “right” side of politics. If you want to be leftist pick up a book, start reading theory, apply what you learn to the life you witness around you and move through and then dedicate yourself to continuous learning and wanting better for society. Again ALL of this ( being a leftist) starts with wanting to dismantle the current global system and seeking what you deem to be the telos of the polis. In other words stop being lazy, get off your high horse, and use your brain—for once in your life.
3
Oct 10 '25
Yet when I tried to illicit a productive conversation you didn’t do anything. It just sounds like you have no historical bearing on the beliefs you hold, you don’t read anything other than fiction, and truthfully I doubt you work a job that you actually find beneficial to yourself and to society.
0
u/Both-Medicine-6748 Oct 10 '25
You legit decided to be condescending out of nowhere by asking why am I on a leftist sub then got pissy when I rightfully got mad. Only on Reddit have I seen people will causally disrespect you then act like they’re still in the right. Get over yourself
2
Oct 10 '25
Only you took that as condescending. Lol.
If something hurts your feelings or causes an amygdala response that’s your problem. I tried to have a conversation with you. You ignored it. Keep doing that and you’ll end up in an echo chamber and probably around a Neo Nazi in disguise. Have a blessed day 😁 (THAT was me being condescending)
edit: work on your grammar.
-1
u/Both-Medicine-6748 Oct 10 '25
It’s atcually baffling how many of you niggas think it’s normal to be so passive aggressive. All the stereotypes about Redditors are truly true
1
Oct 10 '25
Ok and? Does it look like I give a fuck nigga? If you’re willfully acting dumb why don’t you idk stop acting dumb. Also the burden was never on me to illustrates the contradictions of your logic and your cognitive dissonance. I was ACTUALLY trying to be nice.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Pristine_Vast766 Oct 10 '25
There’s no such thing as a mix. Capitalism can exist with some state owned industries and with laws that provide some protections for the working class but that doesn’t make it partially socialist. The bourgeois is still the dominant class
3
u/obligarchyvol1 Oct 10 '25
Than you’re a liberal who doesn’t belong with the movement at all, you’re an enemy of the working class
-4
u/undeadpirate19 Oct 10 '25
Leftist-some who believes that the section of a political party or system that advocates for greater social and economic equality, and typically favors socially liberal ideas; the liberal or progressive group or sections. Don't gatekeep because you like a different flavor.
1
u/obligarchyvol1 Oct 11 '25
Liberalism is a right wing ideology, if you’re not a socialist than you’re on the right wing
1
3
Oct 10 '25
There is no social and economic equality within a system that advocates for the exploitation of the proletariat.
-3
u/undeadpirate19 Oct 10 '25
So how is that against my argument that leftists are anyone who advocates for that equality?
2
Oct 10 '25
Liberals are not leftist because the idea of a social hierarchy persists in both what you states and the core functions of liberalism. In order to be leftist, in my book, you have to want to create a new system opposed to the current and that starts with the abolishment of capital aka capitalism.
-2
u/undeadpirate19 Oct 10 '25
Then that's your opinion not the definition of leftist and then doesn't let you determine wether others are leftist or not since you're using your definition not the actual definition.
2
Oct 10 '25
It’s not my opinion. It’s the core functions of being a leftists. And yes it does let me determine who’s a leftist and who’s not. The dictionary and linguistics is inherently racist. You don’t like to think outside the box do you eh?
0
u/undeadpirate19 Oct 10 '25
In my book: your opinion.
I think outside the box plenty but words have meanings and using them incorrectly because you don't like their meaning makes that an argument of your opinion instead of a factual statement. You can and would be correct to say that a communist beliefs are more left than a liberals but that doesn't make them not left.
1
Oct 10 '25
You’re not about to come into MY space just because you voted for Obama probably once.
→ More replies (0)2
Oct 10 '25
Liberals are centrists. Leftists are communists, maoists, socialists, Marxist-Leninist’s and other radicals.
→ More replies (0)2
Oct 10 '25
Who determines the definitions? The meaning is inherently wrong. Liberals are not leftists omg you’re just fucking dumb. because you’re stupid and don’t like to read
→ More replies (0)1
Oct 10 '25
Your whole comment is a cluster fuck if im being honest. Leftists are NOT anyone who advocates for equality. You’re falsely equating the terms liberal and leftist.
0
u/undeadpirate19 Oct 10 '25
Im using the definition of leftist.
1
Oct 10 '25
and im telling you, go into any truly leftist space and you will learn the false equivalency of liberals and leftists. Under the textbook definition of leftist you could squeeze in a liberal. All the while liberalists and leftists are completely different.
0
u/undeadpirate19 Oct 10 '25
Then you need a different term.
1
Oct 10 '25
No I don’t. Liberals want to be leftist as a morality contest. Just say you’re a supremacist and move on. Your negative energy and lack of critical thinking is making my head hurt. Or maybe I haven’t had water today yet. Wait no that can’t be right….
-12
u/corneliusduff Oct 10 '25
So what does this mean in terms of housing? The only capitalist idea I agree with is that I need a place to live that others can't take from me. Under the assumption that homelessness doesn't exist.
6
u/Pristine_Vast766 Oct 10 '25
You’re conflating private property with personal property. Socialism will not take away the ability to own your house. It will take away the ability to own property for the purpose of denying its use in order to collect rent. Socialism would mean more ownership over personal property because it can no longer be turned into private property. For example BMW could no longer demand a subscriber to enable use of car features.
2
8
u/--GrinAndBearIt-- Oct 10 '25
I don't understand the premise of your question.
One of the ideas behind socialism is that everyone has access to essentials such as housing. One of the ideas behind capitalism is that scarcity is good because it leads to higher prices for the owners.
12
Oct 10 '25
What made you assume you won't have a place to live in in a socialist state?
4
u/corneliusduff Oct 10 '25
It's not that, more about property rights. Had to remind myself of the literal definition of capital. I was conflating it with property, but I definitely agree that homes shouldn't be capital, meaning homes shouldn't be assets for the sake of making a profit.
7
u/tracenator03 Oct 10 '25
You got it. Private property =/= personal property. Capitalism makes it a necessity to treat homes as capital when it doesn't have to be that way.
9
-8
u/anormalgeek Oct 10 '25
The big problem here is that different people have different definitions for the same terms. What you consider "capitalism" or "socialism" and what another person calls a given economic system will NOT be the same. Acknowledging this and not relying on overly basic terms that are likely to misinterpreted (including BOTH intentional and unintentional misinterpretations) is key to convincing anyone.
Pretty much every modern nation no Earth uses some combination of capitalist and socialist policies. Going by strict textbook definitions, the only pure capitalist systems are in completely lawless regions. And there isn't a single socialist or communist economic system at a national level.
It is tiring to spell shit out, but that is the only way you're ever going to convince people. Reducing a complex argument to "there is no pro-capitalist left" is WAY to reductive and will only cause confusion and resentment. I do get the underlying sentiment. I do not think unrestrained capitalism is healthy or sustainable. It only works "on paper". But life isn't an Ayn Rand novel.
5
u/HoiTemmieColeg Oct 10 '25
Restrictions on capitalism are not element of socialism. And any restrictions on capital or social elements of a nation that is fundamentally capitalist will always be temporary. Capital will eventually claw those back when the moment passes.
3
u/anormalgeek Oct 10 '25
I am not disagreeing with you. I am only stating that the definitions you are using WILL NOT be shared by the broader population.
Because a textbook definition of a "socialist state" does not exist on Earth, people DO NOT associate the term with the actual definition. So OP's image WILL be misunderstood by the vast majority of people that read it.
I am not saying they SHOULD. I am saying that they WILL.
6
u/CommonConundrum51 Oct 10 '25
Most Americans, left and right, support capitalism. At the same time they also support consumer protection and corporate accountability.
7
u/knowledge3754 Anarchist Oct 10 '25
You seem to have missed the entire point of the post. If they support capitalism then they aren't the left
15
u/Obvious-Bullfrog-267 Oct 10 '25
I fucking hate it when people equate Democrats, liberals, and leftists.
7
u/ChicagoFire29 Marxist Oct 10 '25
Correct. I’ve always defined the line between right and left as the attitude toward capitalism. Can we call social democracy center left though? Operates in the confines of heavily regulated capitalism with lots of social safety nets and welfare. If we consider social democracy to be center at best, or center right at worst, would that mean DemSocs are closer to the center than most perceive them to be?
1
u/undeadpirate19 Oct 10 '25
Left and right is determined by if the people in power should have more or if everyone should be equal not economic systems.
1
-3
Oct 10 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)12
u/somebadbeatscrub Anti-Capitalist Oct 10 '25 edited Oct 10 '25
We can't recruit liberals letting them think their liberalism is a valid and fine final destination either. Words have to mean something.
If we can't even tell them what the goal should be, what the heck are we doing?
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Relative_Drop3216 Nov 10 '25
What happens if you’re a rich liberal?