this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
650 points (92.7% liked)
Memes
46614 readers
1040 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Okedoke, well I just learned that I have no concrete grasp of political labels and need to do a LOT of research.
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.
I hope Marx's prophecy is true. It would be nice to have stages toward communism like some sort of continuum. For the Yankees, they get fascism. Spain, Germany and Italy didn't do a socialism after their fascism. The USSR went "socialism" to fascism. China is a successful capitalist state under Deng Xiaoping. Let's keep betting that we'll progress to communism by proping up the right heirarchies.
The current reality for the USA is the concentration and merger of economic and political power. More public lands are becoming private. Labor has been told it will be made competitive again which can be assumed to mean a reduction in wages. Capital might be on-shored again? The current major lie is other countries will pay a tarrif. Workers will suffer for gains of the state. We can likely agree the state serves the capitalist under capitalism.
Won't someone think of the poor Yankees? Luigi does some propaganda of the deed and terrorises those in power. Propaganda of the deed is ineffective long term, but shakes the heirarchies tree short term. I would argue it is too loud. Instead, we should focus on building horizontal power.
Collectivism requires people coming together to create horizontal power. Building horizontal power is in spite of any existing vertical power. Normal economic requirements like land, labor and capital need to be acquired for the benefit of the collective.
The point is there are no stages to communism. The prophecy will not save us from heirarchical power. Extraordinary claims, like those of Smith, Marx or Lenin, require extraordinary evidence. Instead of relying on a heirarchy, which continues to fail due to centralized power, we must build communism collectively with shared hands.
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.
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.
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.
New band name: Marvin the Marxian (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞
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.
New kids are trying to pretend that liberal means centrist instead of its actual meaning which is simply "not conservative"
That is not and have never been it's meaning. In fact, conservatives are a type of liberal.
No they are not unless if they are conservative Liberals. A conservative Maoist and a conservative libertarian have very different ideologies despite being conservative within their own binaries. This is due to the fact that conservatism is a position in a binary and is not an ideology.
You can be a conservative and be illiberal.
Ok, sure. But the "conservatives" that they were referring to are liberals.
They state "In fact, conservatives are a type of liberal" and that's objectively incorrect.
I have news for you. The most notorious conservatives in the last few decades (Reagan, Thatcher, Trump, to name the most significant) are all neoliberals.
Economic liberalization, according to Wikipedia, is the lessening of government regulations and restrictions in an economy in exchange for greater participation by private entities. Policies in service of this include privatization, deregulation, depoliticisation, consumer choice ("the invisible hand of the free market"), globalization (economic imperialism), free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending. These policies are designed to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.
You might not realize it, but this encompasses the entirety of your US political options. For example, when Democrats say they want to make housing more affordable; they don't mean they want a government-driven effort to build housing, control rent prices, or win any ground back from corporate landlords. They mean they want to supply tax incentives to big business and "cut red tape" by deregulating the housing industry. They talk about it differently, but at the end of the day they want and work towards the same things as Republicans, if not in a slightly less obviously fascist way.
Liberalism overall is a conservative ideology. The way american media uses these terms is completely disconnected from reality. They don't want you to understand that who you're cheering for does not represent you or further your views. They don't want you to understand what leftism is, they just want you to be afraid of it. They want you to pick a flavor of conservative and think you made progress for the social good.
i have news for you the Ayatollah of Iran also a conservative. This is because “conservative” is a position
Also if you are going to wikipedia for”conservative” you should note the three guys listed at the top argue for different governmental systems. If this is news to you then it’s best to stop here.
Not really sure what you're arguing or if you even read my entire comment lmao this is a waste of time
I agree given the extreme euro-centrism of your claims as well as the fact that they are objectively incorrect it is a waste to continue with you as you know nothing.
Your racism/Euro-centrism is worth addressing.
I admit it took me way longer than it should have to realize you are trolling. My bad.
No trolling here. Claiming the center has moved requires you to only be focused on Wyropean thought.
This exact form of racism is incredibly common among the left especially those whose political educations are entirely self driven.
If you deliberately ignore context, sure.
🤣
Liberalism is an ideology. Conservatism is a position on an ideologic binary. Uf you ascribe to Liberalism you are claiming belief in a very specific form of government and economy. If you claim to be a conservative you need to clarify what kind of conservative you are.