395
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
395 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26778 readers
1155 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No it’s not.
The closest to support for capitalism would market socialism, but that still involves public ownership of the means of production, which is in difference to the defining feature of capitalism, private ownership of the means of production.
I guess there's this American sense of capitalism as an ideological commitment to letting the forces of the marketplace run wild, and that once you regulate the markets it's not capitalism any more. That's laissez-faire though - there are other forms of capitalism as well. In the broadest sense capitalism basically boils down to having a market economy, which a lot of leftists are in favour of.
No, capitalism basically boils down to private ownership of the means of production.
A market economy is a market economy, hence market socialism. Market economies have existed for thousands of years, capitalism for a few hundred.
State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes business and commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are nationalized as state-owned enterprises.
You should read up on social democracy.
Soc Dem was co-opted by right wingers, just the same as they stole the word Libertarian from us.
Soc Dems today are not leftist, Dem Socs are where the leftist part went.
And the People's Front of Judea needs to fuck right off, what a bunch of traitorous scum
Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.
That sentence is objectively retarded.
not just private ownership, but structures that ensure an increasingly concentrated private ownership by ever fewer people who use that advantage to create a set of rules that further increases the ownership gap
ie a system where the owners of capital get to make the rules
capitalism is antithetical to democracy
In Finland, the social democrats are leftists only in right wing rhetoric. Their actual politics are definitely still inside capitalism and not actually leftist. One could consider them centrists in a way
Scandinavian countries are not leftist.
They're some of the most left leaning of Western countries, but they're not actually on the left side of the spectrum, they're just less right.
Yes historically Soc Dems were part of the left, that leftist element is now referred to as Democratic Socialism.
Soc Dems still sought to do away with capitalism by transitioning to socialism, they just wanted to approach it through gradual change of the system.
It is though. This is what people mean when they say so much of internet leftism is outdated and misinformed.
Treating capitalism as a Boogeyman is outdated. Capital modes of production are a tool which can be wielded by market socialists towards the ultimate goal of post scarcity, classless society, the same as any other other economic structure. Putting dirty words in in a particular historical box is just as dumb as worshipping those words. It's modernist garbage, plain and simple, and all to often this gets manifested as braindead "everything I hate is capitalism."
The goal of socialism is worker control of production. This is often in conflict with capitalism in practice, but is not orthogonal to capitalism in theory. This is a large part of contemporary leftist theory which has developed over the past 50 years, and dismissing it reveals pretty stark amateurism imo
You're playing semantics and the "modes of production" stuff is like the weakest stuff in Marx. Market socialism still means the abolishment of the capitalist class (nowadays "the 0.1%"), therefore, can't be capitalist, the primary distinction after all being class relations, and not mode of production.
There's been a ton of equivocation of capitalism with market economies which is probably where all this is coming from. You can have markets with socialism, you can have markets with capitalism, but you can't have socialism with capitalism.
You’re the first person I’ve ever heard say “internet” leftism is outdated.
I think you’ve just convinced yourself that it is because you don’t agree with it mate.
Yes, it would definitely seem that way if your primary exposure to leftist ideas was leftist internet forums, where leftism is primarily about revolutionary fan service and gatekeeping leftism.
Except it isn’t my primary exposure?
My views largely predate the Internet.
Like I said, keep telling yourself you must be right.