Wow, you sound like a commie. /s :)

Only relevant to the progressive bent of neoliberalism, which is just rebranded conservatism.

Got it, apologies on the typo and subsequent misunderstanding.

I think we're both after the same thing - I guess I'm just trying to get the safety net before attacking the "top" of what is reasonable.

And I'm kind of OK with a nearly infinite top... As long as the tax rate makes sense. If you're at a 95% tax rate (and loopholes aren't rampant... Lot of ifs here) then go nuts. You'll be supplying a good life for many people, by force, as a result of good taxes and public policy.

Don't make me pull out the leftists, liberals, and conservatives Venn diagram.

Edit: Pulling it out.

If China is not communist, then America is not capitalist

(neither passes the purity test per definition)

The terms left and right are only useful until they are not.

These days you need to dig down into peoples ideology until you ask the question, should all people be cared for by society? I dont know how many levels up from that we skate around on but its almost insane how we are scaffolded over real human principles.

Its as if we have a bunch of people yapping, jumping into every conversation, with no idea about the pillars we are build on.

It is obviously left wing to oppose monopolies

Eh, it’s also pretty centrist as well. I think you’re participating in a little bit of category sleight-of-hand there.

Maybe it's just me but it really bothers me that the far right is on the left of the diagram, and yet, I think it would also bother me somewhat if it were rotated 90 degrees so the the far right was on the right but then liberals would be on top.
Also, it doesn't make sense that the part where all three overlap says "hate leftists" which would mean that leftists hate leftists and ah ok I see that checks out.

Communism is per definition a stateless classless society. Capitalism is when the means of production is in private ownership which is the norm everywhere

Your definition of capitalism is wrong. Private enterprise/owning of production predates capitalism.

You can look to Smith or Marx for much more generous depictions.

Whart is the correct definition of capitalism then?

Bankrupt ideology because of 3.

Smith in coming up with it viewed it as a system that would pay people based on hours worked so that the rich who sat around getting money off the backs of workers would be punished and the workers would be rewarded.

Marx saw it as a system that dispersed power from the nobles to the merchant class. (With socialism as the next step of expansion)

As a contrast to mercantilism we can say it's a non-protectionist system based on globalization/mass imports and exports.

Really the system never changed, the idea of capitalism was just a rebranding for the wealthy.

Which flavour, like McCarthy Commie, Tankie Commie or CND Commie? 😁

It is, but that tends to happen in politics. The Nazi party was nominally a socialist worker's party

Correct, China is socialist, the intermediary step between the capitalist mode of production and the communist mode of production.

Man people can't seem to get their terms together. Some people define left as communist/anti capitalist. Some define it as just anyone who wants equity for minorities. Some people define it as anyone they don't like and them damn hippies.

People use "The Left" contextually. See the Overton window for reference.

See no true scotsman.

Having a small business or store doesn't require capitalism.

I would add that this isn't just speculation, it has historical precedent. The US created a powerful welfare state under FDR and it was slowly destroyed in exactly the way that you described. It's also important to note that it was racism that provided the owning class with the narrative they needed to convince the working class to support the erosion of their own welfare. The creation of the welfare state began with the compromise that the benefits would not extend to non-white Americans. When the civil rights movement successfully forced the issue and demanded that the benefits be universalized the owning class was able to ride the wave of the racist backlash all the way to a near-total rollback of the welfare state.

Ensuring that welfare for the people lasts requires that we directly and conclusively address the underlying causes of the inequality it is meant to alleviate. We must recognize that private ownership of the means of production is the direct cause of this inequality and will always reproduce it if it is not eliminated. And finally we must also address the social causes of inequality - racism, bigotry, xenophobia, sexism, etc. - so that they cannot be used as justification for the reconstruction of a system of inequality. Alongside an economic and political revolution we also need a cultural revolution.

You see similar patterns in western european countries. It's nice when empirical reality lines up with theory.

I don't think they mentioned a specific country in their sweeping statement?

It does if you employ someone

You are just stating what classical liberalism. If this isnt classical liberalism then what is the definition of classical liberalism? You should look up neo liberalism.

Also liberals are hardly leftist since they want free markets and zero regulations. Your picture says so

*Most libertarians. Many, not most, are leftist. Libertarianism was originally a leftist term synonymous with anarchist socialist that got coopted by the right in the 70s.

I'm seeing dave smith coming up a lot and hes a capitalist

You are just stating what classical liberalism

Are you asking a question?

Liberalism is inherently left wing. In this sense im referring to autocracy vs democracy and nothing to do with capital. Big L Liberals still sit to the left in many regards. You might find some classical liberals in the conservative party but that is usually found to be faux virtue signaling, like the libraterians.

I give zero fucks about people who identify leftist as if opposing the right side of a spectrum is some sort of virtue.

"If youre violet then im ultraviolet"

Markets free of regulation is not inherently left wing. Markets must be regulated. Liberals disagree. Lockean theory is not left wing inherently.

Ok just ignore what I said

I am not ignoring the screenshot you posted. Thats your evidence. Your evidence shows liberalism isnt a left wing ideology inherently.

Im showing capitalism isnt inherently right wing. The complete opposite.

No, they aren't. They all believe in free-marker Capitalism. Usually the unregulated, tax-free variety. Just because they also think drugs and abortion should be legal, doesn't make them "leftists".

You've convinced me with all of your evidence, whereas a simple wikipedia search tells you I'm right. Libertarianism was originally a leftist term synonymous with anarchist socialist that got coopted by the right in the 70s.

Source: I am a former libertarian who no longer calls himself one because I'm a socialist and libertarianism, despite having socialist beginnings, is no longer widely known as something compatible with socialism. I'm just educated enough to know the nuance, whereas some people are not as educated and therefore have a take that is more black/white and narrow-minded. If someone says "I'm a left-libertarian" some people would say that's an oxymoron because they're uneducated and know just enough to be confident in their ignorance, and I would actually get what they mean. I would urge them to stop calling themselves a libertarian, but I would get what they mean at least instead of being ignorant.

I disagree. You cannot be a leftist and a capitalist. You can be a centrist, but I will never let you call yourself a leftist while defending private property and the military necessary to defend it. You don't have the ability to argue with me and win because you lack all of the necessary evidence to prove me wrong, because it doesn't exist because it's a falsehood. Liberals are not leftists. They're capitalists and therefore not leftist. Leftism is necessarily an anti-capitalist position.

If you define leftist as communist, sure. But that doesnt mean liberals arent to the left of right authoritarians. Youre really pushing the bounds of a left right spectrum.

You can be an anti capitalist and not be a communist. I wouldn't call myself one but I do sympathize with a lot of marxists (but only the non leninist variety). You can be other things including, but not limited to, a socialist (see: democratic socialists like Zohran Mamdani) or a mutualist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-capitalism Read more into the theory here. Anti capitalism is leftism.

Zohran is a leftist. You will notice he does anti-capitalist things. Graham Platner, while he does have some anti-capitalist bends, is not a leftist and has no anti-capitalist principles. He's an anti-corporate populist which is great stuff for Maine, I have family up there. He's a left-leaning centrist for sure. I would not call him a 'leftist'. Bernie Sanders and AOC etc etc all the same. Zohran is a Democratic Socialist, though, as well as those new house members coming in from NYC that he endorse. Brad Lander is not a leftist. He's another left of center populist. They are very useful for swinging the overton window to the left, though, so I'm thankful for them in times like this.

Gee thanks for educating me. Its obvious that I am the one misunderstand judging solely by the fact that this is in no way sarcasm and if it were you would definitely be able to tell.

Thanks for the selective reporting.

If you actually took the time to explore the results openly, you'd find significant libertarian critique of capitalism. Libertarian socialism, for example, is explicitly anti-capitalism; obviously though, as it encroaches on people's freedoms with wage labour, capital ownership, corporate bailouts, limited liability, etc. All the things that take something from people without their control or consent.

If you're seeing a lot of Dave Smith, that could be your algorithm tuned in favour of that content. While he is libertarian with drugs, foreign policy, privacy, etc. he only represents the utmost right flank of libertarianism that expresses individualistic freedoms from things like state rather than economics. Kind of like your Ron Paul kind of character that is pro-capitalism but fights to keep things like corporate control and market monopolies from encroaching on people's liberties too much, just as with any other undesired authority.

And employment was not invented until the 1800s either?

Much much earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation#History

Middle-ages at the latest at least in writing, but the idea of an employer we know of today probably goes way further back. People have owned and bought people longer than cities have had walls.

The ability for an individual to be able to fire someone is not really compatible with leftism. Employers don't really desire unions, ya know?