tl;dr - true capitalism results in economic singularities and infinite wealth for everyone. that’s why i like capitalism as a leftist.
to get us started, my definition of capitalism is “unregulated competition”.
i ask because… …i really like capitalism. but i’m a leftist.
i am someone who has been called numerous 6 letter words my entire life by people who think i’m a socialist or communist. but i’m really not.
it’s funny really, those calling me a f##### can’t handle real competition. especially at this point in a planetary species’ development. where nimbleness, flexibility and cooperation among economic partners is more profitable than most government intervention. obviously.
government is meant to ensure security, authenticity and veracity of economic claims. not limit markets with patents or unreasonable prohibitions.
i think authentic capitalism is wonderful and the ideal choice for a free society.
I don’t know where you got your definition of capitalism “results in economic singularities and infinite wealth for everyone”, but it’s wrong. The West is currently in late-stage capitalism, which is always the outcome of a capitalist system: wealth and power gets consolidated into the hands of the few, while the many suffer.
The term “leftist” can best be described politically, as supporting the political left. The problem with that term currently is that it’s used to define non-political ideology as well, like social aspects such as empathy/sympathy. I’m unsure where you stand when you call yourself “leftist” so it’s hard to say if your definition can mix with capitalism.
Fundamentally, in my opinion no, enjoying capitalsim is supporting a system that inherently causes inequality, wealth gaps, and the concept of profits over people, which are the opposite of a standard definition of “leftist” beliefs no matter how you define it.
My question to you is, would you still blindly support capitalism if you were one of the many who didn’t benefit from it?
true capitalism results in economic singularities and infinite wealth for everyone.
No it doesn’t. I have no idea where you came up with that thought, but it’s totally incorrect. And that’s the entire fundamental basis of your concept, so everything else stemming from it is incorrect too
So your opinion isn’t even wrong, because it’s an opinion about a non-reality
Yes, this confused me. Also wouldn’t unregulated capitalism just end with one company in the end?
Yes, the end result of unregulated capitalism is always power getting concentrated into a handful of individuals while the rest of the planet’s billions of people are effectively in poverty and powerless
Your definition of capitalism is wrong.
Capitalism is where an ownership class possesses the means of production, a labor class which operates the means of production is undercompensated, and the amount by which they are undercompensated is passed to the ownership class.
“Unregulated competition” is libertarianism, which is just the shitty cherry on top of capitalism.
Nothing you’ve said is at all “leftist”.
Aside from your odd definition of capitalism and its outcomes, which other people have addressed, the answer to the headline question is: yes.
Karl Marx, for example, believed that you could not have capitalism without exploitation and that it was therefore an unethical system that should be defeated. He also held that capitalism was inherently contradictory and that it therefore not only should be destroyed, but that it must be destroyed.
However: Marx also believed that capitalism was an enormous improvement on the previously existing social system of feudalism, because it produced far greater wealth through the development of new technology. This is a key difference between Marxism and the earlier ‘utopian socialism’ (which his theories largely replaced), which saw technology itself as an evil.
Marx also welcomed the fact that capitalism destroyed (as he saw it) some earlier forms of oppression (albeit while introducing new ones). Marx’s letter to Abraham Lincoln congratulating him on his re-election discusses the American Revolution and Civil War in precisely these terms.
So, you can enjoy the greater (obviously not ‘infinite’!) abundance of goods that capitalism has produced, you can acknowledge its positive impact on technological development and its material improvements of the lives of millions of people and be not only a leftist but a fully orthodox Marxist… just so long as you also acknowledge that capitalism is also an exploitative and self-destructive force that should, can and must be defeated.
Depends what you mean by, “enjoy capitalism”.
Enjoy being able to buy what ever you can afford even if it’s something silly that you don’t really need? Sure. Also wholly possible under many other economic systems, because “capitalism” is not simply using money.
Enjoy it in that you enjoy stealing value from employees and getting unjustly rich off of their labor?
Not so much.
Sounds like Anarcho-Capitalism
Enjoy? sure.
Legitimately and wholeheartedly defend, even to yourself? Less sure.
If this question isn’t fake, it shows how senselessly polarized pictures drawn by both sides have become.
Very much yes!
Leftist doesn’t mean communist or socialist.
And also doesn’t mean a specific economic model, more a set of principles that guide your reasoning and behaviour (hopefully)
To be any kind of leftist at all, you have to believe in equality in society, in providing for all, and opposing hierarchy. There are many interpretations of how to get to such a place, though socialism encompasses the biggest ones.
You can enjoy the things you have access to in the current system, but enjoying the system itself, which forces us to enrich billionaires, destroys the planet, pushes us into poverty, and wastes our time and potential working on what the market wants instead of what we want, is fundamentally anti-leftist.
What would be an example of a non-socialist but leftist school of thought?
Nothing. Liberals don’t know the difference between being a leftist and being on a national left.
Social democracy
A form of capitalism…
From Wikipedia:
Social democracy is a social, economic, and political philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy and a gradualist, reformist, and democratic approach toward achieving social equality.
While it is not an objective definition, I think it is a valid point of view to see social democracy rather as a reformist variant socialism than capitalism.
Read a book. Social democracy is a reformation of capitalism, not socialism. It is literally a process that starts with a capitalist country. No country has ever started with socialism and then reverted to social democracy. It is a stage of capitalism making concessions to the working class.
If you were well-read in socialism, you’d know that there are a lot of disagreeing factions, and those disagreements include semantic ones over what is and isn’t socialism.
So you tell me, what is socialism? Is marxist-leninism socialism? Is Cuba socialist? Current-day China? Mao’s China? Rojava? Would a society organized in worker co-ops be socialist?
Anarchism.
I feel like most anarchists identify as socialists, so I’m not sure about that one.
In terms of societal left, it would be equal opportunity and fairness without discrimination in any kind of economic apparatus. Maybe some sort of meritocracy?
Yes it does.
What’s your definition of capitalism? What exactly is it about capitalism that you enjoy that is specific to capitalism?
no.
If your friends always play Monopoly and you get dragged into it, do you refuse to have fun on principle? Or do you choose to have a blast with your friends, occasionally chuckle at the game’s shortcomings, and indulge in exploiting some of its weaknesses to ensure you come out on top? (That last one is optional and depends on you getting assigned to play the banker)
Great questions. I play Monopoly willingly. I see it as important satire and fun.
Yes, politics isn’t a binary system. It’s a spectrum. There’s multiple dimensions. For each of them you can have your own opinion. I dare say there are no two people with identical political profiles.
Some dimensions are (source chatgpt):
- Left / Right
- Authoritarian / Libertarian
- Progressive / Conservative
- Globalist / Nationalist
- Populist / Elitist
- Revolutionary / Reformist
- Environmental (Ecologist) / Industrial (Productivist)
- Rationalist / Romantic
You can even vary within a dimension depending on the topic, for instance globalist on environmental topics but otherwise nationalist.
chatgpt aside this is a much more realistic way to look at it than left / right.
Where are you from OP? Right-left is a spectrum. There is nuance. Where I live, polarization is a problem, due to some far right fuckers holding our politics hostage. Any nuance is immediately derided as being ‘far left’.
There’s contexts for the left-right sperctrum, like social, economic or cultural. To throw in a few crude generalizations: social leftists are for a more equal society for the rich and poor alike with equal chances in terms of education, affordable housing and medical care. Cultural leftists are more open to foreign influences like migrants and niche cultural stuff and economic leftists lean toward a more honest economic structure with more government regulation on big corporations.
So it is perfectly possible to be culturally / socially left-ish, but economic right-ish.
Absolutely.
