this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
744 points (93.8% liked)
Memes
53346 readers
698 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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The left starts at anti-capitalism. Anything other than that is right wing
Don't Sanders, Mamdani, and AOC call for socialist reforms in the US?
Reformism is not anti-capitalism. Reforms are just nicer capitalism. There will still be capitalism and imperialism but people just get a bigger slice of the imperialist pie until the ruling class decides to take the slice away.
In a state where there are neofascists like Trump, Mamdani is the left, face it. If you deny this, you're completely ignoring political pragmatism and confusing the historical left with their actual political left.
"People get a bigger slice of the ... pie until the ruling class decides to take the slice away"
Isn't that just the same with all systems?
The state is the mechanism through which one class exerts its dominance over the others.
Bourgeois states are the enforcement arm of capital. When it offers improved conditions, it is merely a carrot to prevent you from taking actions that may jeopardize its power.
In a similar vein, proletarian controlled states can do the same, but the concessions go towards capital and the day-to-day ruling is on behalf of the workers.
If we want concessions that cannot be revoked, we must overthrow the bourgeois state and replace with a workers state. We cannot reform our way into a society where capital does not have near complete power.
This is as much a utopia as capitalist "trickle down economy". It cannot exist because proletariat, in the vast majority, is dumb as a sack of bricks.
That was George Orwell's view, but it's wrong. Historically, socialist states have been dramatically effective at raising up standards of living, and it's because the working class is quite well aware of its own interests and how to run society. You don't need everyone to specialize in everything, that's why political education and education in general are so valued in socialist countries.
Such as?
USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.
You're calling USSR or PRC "socialist"? WTF is this? A joke? I thought we're having a serious conversation here.
Yes, both the USSR and PRC are typical examples of socialism. Public ownership is the principle aspect of both the former USSR's economy and the PRC's economy, same with Cuba, Vietnam, etc. Not sure what you're getting at.
LOL, excellent jokes all around!
Both USSR and PRC are prime examples of bog-standard totalitarian dictatorships. I have no clue where you're getting the "socialism" bits from. The fact that they said they are? Do you also believe that North Korea is a Democracy, because it's in their name?
There's no public ownership in either. In USSR it was "friends of friends" (the people who we now call the Oligarchs) and in PRC you have a "dictator-approved capitalism" with companies being privately owned.
I'll admit that I don't know enough about Cuba or Vietnam to discuss them.
Democracy in the former USSR and modern PRC is solidly proletarian in character. In the USSR, they practiced soviet democracy, which was a form of council based democracy that laddered all the way up to the Politburo. It was through this method, along with the economy being publicly owned and planned, that led to immense leaps in quality of life. Life expectancy doubled, literacy rates tripled, women took huge steps into government positions, education was free and high quality as well as healthcare, working hours shortened, and inequality fell dramatically. There were privledges being high up in government, but not in any way comparable to those under the Tsarist system or under capitalism today.
As for the PRC, public ownership is the principle aspect of its economy. Socialism is not the absence of private property in total, but one where the working class is in control and the large firms and key industries are dominated by public ownership. China's socialist market economy is permeated with strong democracy as well, with higher ratings than western countries:
The DPRK is democratic, but not because of the name. It's because they have approval based voting, worker councils, and the working class is in charge. They are currently run by a coalition of 3 parties, the socialist WPK, as well as a social democratic party and a religious party. Cuba is about halfway between the soviet model and chinese model, and Vietnam is closer to the Chinese model of economy. Both are socialist and both are democratic.
None of these countries are perfect wonderlands, but they are all socialist and all democratic. I don't know what you think socialism looks like, it sounds like it's just whatever unachievable utopia exists in your head and is free from the sins associated with actually existing in real life.
My God, you seem to actually believe all this stuff... It's incredible to me!
Are you from the US?
The large majority of communists hold similar views, especially considering everything I said was factually true. Communists do exist, that shouldn't be "incredible" to you. I am from the US Empire, yes, I do org work, and have spoken with people from former and existing socialist states.
Not really sure what you're trying to do, mockery doesn't invalidate any of the points I've made or the sources I bring up, it just gives me the opportunity for others to see that anti-communists don't really have any points of their own to bring to the table.
You being from the US makes a lot of sense considering how absolutely clueless you are to what really is going on in the countries you're talking about.
I lived through the tail end of the USSR's "communism", my parents lived IN that.
The reality of it is: USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship. There was nothing communist about it. Saying it was communist is just being extremely naive and ignorant. I mean, they themselves were always talking about how they're "on the road to reaching communism", they themselves didn't think of the USSR as communist.
But even if we assume it was "not yet communist, but socialist" - it's still bullshit, because, again, it was a totalitarian dictatorship.
And China? How can you see all the billionaires and CEOs of privately held companies and say "yeah, that's socialism where the workers own the means of production"?
The large majority of those who lived in the USSR regret its fall. When socialism was ended, poverty skyrocketed and the economy collapsed. The USSR was socialist, I never once said they reached communism (no matter how much you love inventing my words). It was not a "totalitarian dictatorship," no matter how much you keep asserting that it was. I know people that think Donald Trump was sent by God to save the world, anecdotes don't mean anything.
The PRC has a socialist market economy. It isn't devoid of private property, but public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. It's in the developing stage of socialism:
None of your points were based on anything I said, or anything other than your anecdotes. You aren't being serious here. I've spoken to people with the opposite opinion from you who lived in the USSR for longer than you have, and that isn't hard evidence either.
Sorry buddy, but you're wrong, and trying to brush facts you don't like under the rug by saying Russians are too stupid to know that their lives were better under socialism. Wikipedia is extremely biased, I can link sources like Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan that go far more in-depth and illustrate the democratic procedures of the soviet union.
As for all the rest - again, I just don’t have the time to unwrap this because your beliefs seem to stem from years, and years of misinformation. Might as well end this here.
You might as well bring out the calipers already!
It is very funny that you decided to stop arguing because cowbee is "delusional" and their belief stems from years and years of misinformation. They provided their sources while you only used wikipedia throughout this whole thing and personal anecdotes.
Damn, you know you're cooked when this was the best response you could manage.
You mean the reply where I'm asking for some context?
No
Socialism is a mode of production, social programs and welfare exist in capitalism and socialism.
Read Rosa Luxemburg.
Left and right are relative to the actual political spectrum of the subject. There are different approaches to anticapitalism, centrist on the left-wing wants to implement social politics to improve welfare, this doesn't make it socialists.
Your notion is a very post modernist ideology of absolute relativism, which is an idealist unscientific notion. Socialism starts at anti-capitalism. Anything pro-capitalist is not left wing because everything falls under liberalism which is not a left wing ideology.
That's not what I wrote but hey, nice sofism here.
They're not saying that's what you wrote, the saying that what you wrote was incorrect and they're right
Yay, that's seems like the straw man fallacy
Lol no, you're just wrong
Anti-capitalists working on socialist reforms are right-wing, and you oppose them?
You guys are truly destined for irrelevancy. 🤣
"Social democrats" are imperialists, not socialists
And this take is why Trump won. Congrats.
The right wing starts at fascism. Or so it has evolved to.
Vote against fascism next time.
The right wing starts at capitalism. Fascism is capitalism in crisis, forcing austerity domestically when the fruits of imperialism dry up. Trump won because the democrats failed to meaningfully answer the problems of capitalism, alienating their base, and allowing Trump's base an easy win, it wasn't because of leftists sitting out of an election.
Anything but enthusiastic complicity with genocide and capitulation to republicans is "why trump won" according to the wing that would rather have trump win than tell netanyahu no ever.
"Enjoy the camps" ass shitlib appeared again.
Trump won because Hillary&co deliberately elevated his campaign in the misguided belief that he woukd be easier to beat
Trump won with a sliver of majority support in a handful of states because of electoral college fuckery. Every state he lost could have voted against him 10 times harder and he still would have won.
The swing votes he won in those few states were people fundamentally worried about the same things we are. Childcare, healthcare, cost of living, and keeping their jobs. They had two choices, a man who had a plan, and a woman who said "look how not that guy I am!"
Trump won because he's mastered the grift and the Democrats dropped the fucking ball, again.
The right wing might start at fascism but if you look even further to the right, there's neoliberalism.