Okedoke, well I just learned that I have no concrete grasp of political labels and need to do a LOT of research.
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
353 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
1357 readers
80 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Extreme simplification:
Liberalism: supports capitalism. Current system + tweaks
Leftism: supports anticapitalism of some form, the two biggest umbrellas being Marxism/Communism and Anarchism
Marxism/Communism: supports collectivization, public ownership, and central planning (I have an introductory reading list if you want to learn more, or just read Principles of Communism)
Anarchism: supports full horizontalism and networks of communes
Thank you for the reading list! I'll take a gander :)
No problem!
They're conveniently leaving out the entire concept of Socialism for some reason, while making sure to mention Marxism by name.
So I would make sure to add that to the list. Communism is a specific form of socialism, but the two are non synonymous.
I leave out "socialism" because for the vast majority of actual implementations, they have been Marxist in character, and additionally any Socialist system in my opinion would either progress to Communism or regress to Capitalism, making it kind of redundant to split from Communism.
Communism isn't a type of Socialism if we are being nitpicky, but the Mode of Production after Socialism.
Additionally, I did say it was an extreme simplification, and I meant that. I'm not diving into syndicalism, utopianism, Posadism, Maoism, Gonzaloism, Trotskyism, Hoxaism, etc because ultimately they don't need to be delved into for someone with no knowledge.
I know we are engaged in other conversation. I will read the other comment when I have time to kill.
I need to respond to the continuum idea of politics namely: capitalism -> socialism -> communism. The continuum is a creation of Lenin in State and Revolution. A similar anachronism is suggesting there is a continuum to evolution. Continuum's are silly for evolution and politics.
That's actually wrong. Marx came up with it, he just called what Lenin called "Socialism" as "lower-stage Communism." The origin is in Historical Materialism, and the concept of Scientific Socialism (as opposed to the Utopian form that thought you could just think up a good society and create it outright).
Calling it a "continuum" is misleading. Capitalism, as an example, starts with many smaller Capitalists but eventually concentrates and monopolizes. This is a trackable and historical motion, not a "continuum" but nonetheless an observed trend. Socialism, on the other hand, continues that movement but does so in the direction of collectivization, as public ownership and planning not only becomes feasible but far more efficient at higher levels of development, which is also observable and trackable.
Communism is when this process has been done and all private property has been folded into the public sector. This isn't a straight and narrow line, but a process that will happen in many different manners across many different countries, but by tracking trajectories and behaviors this prediction becomes clearer and clearer, and Marx becomes vindicated by the passage of time as we observe them coming to fruition.
It's also a type of socialism, by the modern definition of the term as I understand it
I know how Marxist-Leninists describe it, but I'm not a Marxist-Leninist.
Socialism is an umbrella term that includes communism.
The person we are replying to is someone who wanted the absolute basics. Getting into the nuances of minor Syndicalist movements, the historical Utopian Socialists like Saint-Simon, or other forms really isn't relevant unless you want to dig deeper.
Historically, the 2 largest and most significant strands of Leftist thinking and practice have been Marxist and Anarchist, and there are no non-Communist Marxists. I mean this absolutely, 99.9% of existing leftism has been either Marxist or Anarchist. They don't need to understand the subtle differences in Yugoslavian Marxism or Russian or Chinese or Cuban, because they all are forms of Marxism.
Further still, again, Communism comes after Socialism. It isn't a form of Socialism.
Further still, again, Communism comes after Socialism. It isn’t a form of Socialism.
Only if you define "socialism" only as "the transition period between capitalism and communism."
And I do not. Because, again, I am not a Marxist-Leninist.
And it seems like you have some all-encompassing need to label everything, but I would say many people on the left do not subscribe to an individual label like you seem to think that they do.
Socialism is generally a form of society where public ownership and collectivization is the driving force of the economy. Communism is when that process is complete. There are various different forms and characteristics Socialism takes, but they all exist in motion and thus will either move on to Communism or revert to Capitalism. To call Communism a type of Socialism would be to call Capitalism a type of Feudalism, just because both have property owners, but this of course is not a good form of analysis.
I understand that you aren't a Marxist-Leninist. I am, sure, but again I made the very clear case that the overwhelming majority of Leftism worldwide and historically has fallen under the categories of Marxism, which is without fail Communist, or Anarchist. These aren't necessarily ML specific points of view, if you can point to major non-Marxist, non-Anarchist strains of Leftist practice that have any major relevance, then I can concede.
As for Leftists that don't ascribe to labels, I don't really care about what one individual is thinking, because I am not trying to prepare them for random internet leftist #18948 with their own specific eccentricities. I am talking in extremely broad and relevant distinctions, like what has actually existed and continues to exist.
but they all exist in motion and thus will either move on to Communism or revert to Capitalism.
This is just not true... We have seen that, in practice, this does not need to be true. For example, market socialism exists. Mixed economies exist (and thrive).
I look forward to hearing why none of those pass your purity test.
"Market Socialism," if you mean the PRC's Socialist Market Economy, is founded on Marxism. They maintain that they are working towards Communism and are working with a Marxian understanding of the economy. This isn't about "purity," rather, this is Marxist and is working towards Communism, so it's a Communist ideology.
As for mixed economies, such a naming distinction is rather pointless. All economies are mixed, there exists no economy that does not have characteristics of the previous mode of production or the next. Whether a system is Capitalist or Socialist is determinate on what is primary in an economy, not what is "pure."
Further still, no system is stagnant, competition forces centralization, so Market Socialism eventually works towards either a resurgance of Capitalism or progression to Communism.
Sorry to say I'm a self aware liberal capitalist. I must say I love to consoom (with some moderation)
You can still get goods and services in Socialism and Communism, I don't know what you mean by "consooming."
I guess it depends on which interpretation of communism you believe in.
I'm a Marxist, so Marxian.
Weird flex. Meeting material needs can be accomplished under different economic systems. I would say as a Liberal Capitalist you believe in a private property system where owners can take the work of others for their own benefit. I would respond, "If you don't work, you don't eat", but that applies to the capitalist owners in the same way as their workers.
Liberalism = individual rights, small government/low regulation
The meme sucks because you can be liberal left or right
Isn't that libertarianism?
Liber(al), liber(tarian)
Comes from the French Laissez-faire which as a core belief was that landowners should be taxed not workers. Though literally means let (people) be
The opposite is authoritarian which is what OP thinks leftism is
That's not quite right: there's still big government and heavy regulation under liberalism, it's just focused on enclosing the Earth's Commons and enforcing a rigid system of private property. Liberals tend not realize this, in the same way a fish doesn't realize it's submerged in water.
Near as I can tell, a leftist would do anything to keep a liberal out of power over believing only 75% of the same things as them, and allow the right to take control, but at least they get to keep the moral high ground of not allowing a liberal to do that 25%. Never mind that the right actively opposed everything to leftist wants completely.
Liberals are "the right" and they sure as hell don't believe 75% of the same things as leftists. Leftists in the west also don't really have the power to keep liberals out of power, hence why liberals have consistently been the only ones in power for decades. Liberals on the other hand, absolutely do have the power to keep leftists out, and they will go as far as allying with fascists to murder leftists in their beds.
When discussing liberalism in the context of liberalism vs Leftism, they are faily opposite. Liberalism desires Capitalism, perhaps with some tweaks or larger safety nets, while leftists seek to end Capitalism and pursue Socialism of some form. This isn't "75%" of the same views at all, liberalism is fundamentally entirely incompatible with Leftism just like fascism is incompatible with leftism.
Additionally, in the West, Leftists have not been the deciding factor in elections, liberals have, be they more conservative or more progressive liberals.
Liberals of all political persuasions tend to believe in monopolies created by the state through private property rights. Owners of private property maintain a monopoly on the use of the property. There are progressive liberal arguments proposing the state can keep monopolies in check.
Elections worldwide have been pushing right. I argue monopolies have consolidated power and are better equipped to misinform and buy elections. Liberals see this system of monopoly as justified (right) or controllable (left).
Leftist propose different economic and representation systems. One such system is anarchism. As an anarchist, I favor horizontal power structures with property not directly worked by a person held in common. Elections should give way to consensus building. Heirarchies, though sometimes necessary, should be answerable to the represented people. The tools of violence should be democratized to prevent the formation of unnecessary heirarchies that would create monopolies on violence.
There are alternatives to anarchism that could be considered leftist. The Marxist-Leninist propose other economic and representation systems. I will not represent them. There is definitely infighting amongst leftist.
I'm not sure I'm politically knowledgeable to know what a liberal is
(This is a joke, and I don't need anyone to explain it to me. The thing I struggle with is discerning whether the people I'm talking to at any given point know what a liberal is)
Sometimes it's not worth the fight.
I feel like most self described liberals would be leftists if they actually looked into it anyway
That's my experience, generally. The ones I can get to read a bit of theory tend to be more sympathetic towards Socialism.
Not sure. I know a lot of people who believe in capitalism and maintaining it through socialistic injections, but they aren't wanting to give the means of production over to the government/people, which is l what leftist is to me.
It has troubles to get that to work, and often times higher expenses, but that's what they seem comfortable with
I think "socialistic injections" is a misnomer. Capitalism and Socialism are descriptors for entire economies, not parts of them. Generally, reading theory tends to help people support moving towards Socialism.
I get what you mean, but how would you describe Canada's healthcare system or veteran affairs in the U.S.?
Really the same with public schools, roads, libraries, medical coverage for the elderly, SNAP benefits.. they are all socially shared costs by the people, while existing in a capitalistic country
Those are social programs. Socialism and Capitalism are systems overall, the presence of the post office in the US does not alter that character.
Alright so the term programs is the word you prefer to injections. I wasn't saying such programs make the country not capitalistic, I was just saying many people who vote democrat want capitalism with more social programs.
You may be right that if they read more theory they would be more apt to ditch capitalism, but many of them are programmed to reject any talk of other systems.
I gave up on this conversation years ago.
Fine, for the sake of argument, I’m a liberal, because I don’t want to give you 45 extra minutes of my time in this comment section to try and explain the difference when I know you’ll ignore most of what I say anyhow, and derail us from the point I was actually trying to make. If I’m a liberal in your mind, so be it. My point stands.