Bars.

Libertarians

...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.

Have we not heard of liberals?

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.

liberals are right wing.

Bears.

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...

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

It doesn't even seem current proof lol

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

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

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.

True

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.

at some point one realises the commies are idiots

it explains everything

Its not splitting hairs at all. Demsocs are straight up not capitalists. They believe in collective ownership, not private. You're confusing it for social democracy.

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

The one without human beings at the helm.

Funny, that's what I think about communism.

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.

It's really not. Sure the naming might be confusing and basically a repetition of "Judeas Peoples Front". But the difference of ideology is rather noticeably large.

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.

The Kremlin: but Useful idiots!

Ah yeah my bad. I confused it for what we have/had in Europe, like nordic model type stuff. But I guess that's socdems then. You have to admit the naming is confusing.

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

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?

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

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

👍

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.

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?

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.

How?

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.

China is not communist lol

Left and Right are relative, not absolute terms.

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

In other words: they are relative.

Hey buddy, you're in the wrong community.

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.

I think I actually misinterpreted your original comment because of the typo in this sentence:

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.

(I now realize you probably meant to write "among".)

I didn't realize you were saying, "it doesn't help if you redistribute wealth to the wrong people". And that sort of set the tone incorrectly for the rest of your comment. That materially changes how I read your comment, and I do mostly agree with your points.

I'm not sure I agree that this isn't exclusive to capitalism though. If you impose a tax that effectively caps wealth, then you are inherently compromising one of the core tenets of capitalism: private ownership of means of production. And I'm also not sure that this type of tax even goes far enough to prevent worker exploitation, but I guess we'll see if it ever actually happens.