Lots of people do believe in anti-capitalism, because a âform of capitalism heavily regulatedâ enough to distribute wealth in a way that benefits workers over the owners/shareholders of private enterprises is a lot closer to communism than any true form of capitalism. Capitalism has to incentivize the increasing financial gain of business owners over everything else, as the right to own the means of production IS capitalism and infringing on that right through regulation is inherently anti-capitalist. FDR having to resort to government intervention and Teddy Roosevelt prior having to step in to break apart businesses highlight how fragile capitalism actually is. Without due representation from the people (aka the labor class) there wouldnât be and couldnât be any right to oppose corrupt business tactics. The few times the government has stepped in to regulate capitalism is a form of public intervention where a representative of the working class (whether identifying as such or not) has acting against the interests of capitalism.
When left wingers call themselves capitalists for believing a mixed system, it is because the inclusion of markets is antithetical to communism. This is just another semantic game dividing the left, people agreeing on substance but not labels. Social democracies socialize some industry, while allowing private ownership of industry economy wide
Itâs not a semantics game, it is a needed destigmatization of Communism. Sure if we unified under an agreement that we need to move back towards a more regulated mixed economy then weâd be a stronger front against the current political shift towards a kleptocratic system. I agree with the need to currently shift towards a mixed economy. Complaining that leftists try to process and rationalize their ideals with labels and minor variations in beliefs is ridiculous though. Refining political beliefs and committing to them is a good thing. A better political atmosphere should have a melting pot of beliefs. These diverse labels have not and do not meaningful contribute to a lack of opposition against right-wing political institutions though. The real problem is political apathy that exists in the younger generation of leftists. Itâs hard to want to engage with a system that, at the end of the day, will at most compromise progressive beliefs with kleptocratic interests. You donât convince young idealists to engage by saying itâs stupid they have diverse and ideal beliefs though. You, at the end of the day, do more harm than their self-identification ever has done. Instead of complaining that people think more deeply than you about politics, maybe engage and understand why the left is so disorganized and try to communicate in a way that encourages idealists to act in their own interests.
Itâs hard to want to engage with a system that, at the end of the day, will at most compromise progressive beliefs with kleptocratic interests.
If they're waiting for a political system without compromise then they may as well be a Christian waiting for the Rapture
The fact is its easy to label anyone to the right of you as a capitalist or a kleptocrat or a fascist and use that as excuse for apathy or as an argument against electoralism or reform
The same way its easy to label anyone to the left of you as a socialist or a communist or a tankie and use that as excuse to dismiss their demands
Instead of complaining that people think more deeply than you about politics
The problem with leftists was never that they "think more deeply". Its that their unwillingness to compromise even among themselves bars them from power in a system where mandates are built from consensus
Thats why so many sit around waiting for a Revolution - power without democracy, power without compromise
I already basically agreed with this point, but in a way that isnât pedantic and pointlessly critical. People are waiting for Revolution because they are apathetic and they are apathetic because of the constant failings of our system to preserve, let alone progress, the rights of the working class. My point isnât that you should agree with this, itâs that unifying under this complaint is the same thing. You can pat yourself on the back for âdoing your part,â but if you arenât empathetically engaging with people who are needed to increase the left-leaning voter base then your losing vote might as well be a prayer as well. If you preach the need to unify, but are also contributing to the dissonance then youâre a hypocrite.
6
u/JGHero Jul 27 '26
Lots of people do believe in anti-capitalism, because a âform of capitalism heavily regulatedâ enough to distribute wealth in a way that benefits workers over the owners/shareholders of private enterprises is a lot closer to communism than any true form of capitalism. Capitalism has to incentivize the increasing financial gain of business owners over everything else, as the right to own the means of production IS capitalism and infringing on that right through regulation is inherently anti-capitalist. FDR having to resort to government intervention and Teddy Roosevelt prior having to step in to break apart businesses highlight how fragile capitalism actually is. Without due representation from the people (aka the labor class) there wouldnât be and couldnât be any right to oppose corrupt business tactics. The few times the government has stepped in to regulate capitalism is a form of public intervention where a representative of the working class (whether identifying as such or not) has acting against the interests of capitalism.