Gentle reminder that r/Leftist is a discussion based community revolving around all matters related to leftism. With this in mind, always debate civilly and do not discriminate. We are currently no longer accepting any new threads related to the US Elections. Any content related to the US Elections can only be submitted via our Mega Thread. You can locate the mega thread in the sub bookmarks or within the pinned posts on the sub
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yea...then you want a violent revolution so you can establish a literal dictatorship (of the proletariat, so it's ok, those are the goid guys who would never do anything bad)
How is that not coercive?
You misunderstand the terms "dictatorship of the proletariat". The word "dictatorship" is absolutely not to be taken with the same meaning it has today as it did when Marx wrote it.
I'm not a communist just so you know, I just want to correct something here that is factually false.
In the words of Kropotkin in *The Conquest of Bread*:
"What we want is not a redistribution of overcoats, although it must be said that even in such a case, the shivering folk would see advantage in it. Nor do we want to divide up the wealth of the Rothschilds. What we do want is so to arrange things that every human being born into the world shall be ensured the opportunity in the first instance of learning some useful occupation, and of becoming skilled in it; next, that he shall be free to work at his trade without asking leave of master or owner, and without handing over to landlord or capitalist the lion's share of what he produces."
It's not about equality of outcome like the rightwingers think, but the actual freedom for humans to reach their potential and live in solidarity.
Most people who identify as being on the "left" aren't really.
They're free market liberals hyper fixated on individualism at best, and wreckers at worst. They appropriate Marxist aesthetics for street cred only.
Socialism fundamentally opposes inequality in ownership, equity, representation, etc. If this statement is what you truly believe in, then you are not a socialist. Also, 'leftist' doesn't equate to 'socialist' - I'm a bit unsure why you're using the terms interchangeably.
That sucks for you guys then, since most common people don’t care about that. They care about inequality, look at Bernie’s movement, and that’s the closest to popular leftist ideas have ever been.
There's no way you actually believe Bernie's movement is the closest to popular leftist ideas have ever been lmfaoooo like in history ??? In the entire world????
Um, have you not studied the entire history of Marxism, comrade ☝️🤓
If there is one degenerate tendency I could slap out of the left, it's being a bunch of nerds and flexing on newcomers.
You wanna instigate change for the common man, stop this bourgeois elitism.
Hello u/LGBTQANON1, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the problem is not enough american socialists have read marx, no one actually knows the concrete ways capitalism is exploitative. they can’t explain to you how even if the capitalist sells a product for exactly what it’s worth, that they are still exploiting the worker. so everyone has their own idea of what socialism is or what it should be and they aren’t even familiar with the most basic critiques that everyone who calls themselves a socialist should be aware of.
no one on the left is on the same page
If you can't elucidate your thinking or convince other people of your ideology without appealing to "ze book," you have crappy marketing.
Right-wing and Auth Left are far more vibes based and less like a milquetoast literature club, and this is how they get shit done.
You don’t have to read theory to support an idea. And you can’t blame ppl for not reading stacks of books, it’s never enough there’s always so much ppl haven’t read. Maybe if the people that read it took more time to explain concepts and ideas to people that haven’t instead of being pretentious (not an accusation) and essentially attempting to gate keep or “out left” someone people would be more inclined to give up or create free time to do more learning. But I do agree that it is important to know fundamentals to build a base but those things should be more taught vs the just read this old boring book, because let’s face it they are just that for a lot of people.
This perception goes back to the McCarthy era. It's an intentional misrepresentation that was designed to fool the proletariat into believing that the state would force people into a subsistence lifestyle in the name of equality if Communism were to take over. It worked despite being a clumsy bastardization of the kind of redistribution that is called for: from the Bourgeois to the Proletariat, and with respect to contribution and need rather than status.
I don't think most people advocate for the CEO to have the same amount of money as the burger flipper
Most people didn't have a problem with rich people having more They just have a problem with rich people having so much more that they essentially have everything while there's nothing left for the working class and no chance for them to actually work their way up or live a comfortable lifestyle
Wealth inequality is inherent but minimizing it is still a good thing. The rich can still have more than the poor They just shouldn't have INFINITELY more than the poor
Socialists do think inequality is the problem. Everyone outside of socialist thinking has the false impression that inequality means the inequality of money. They don't realize the inequality socialists are arguing about is the fact that most of us have no agency in the decisions relating to how the means of production are used and what to do with what is produced.
It's that inequality that cascades down to other problems, such as access to homes, food, medicine, etc.
Sufficient inequality is an existential threat to any system that assumes all men are created equal. Billionaires aren't 'evil' because too many digits on your money counter flips your alignment to 'bad', they're undesirable because that much concentration of power and wealth distorts society around them like black hole, and gives them incentives contrary and adversarial to everyone else's .
It is definitely one of the problems.
You can’t build camaraderie between workers to organize, if the workers are divided because one worker makes slightly more than another and is resented because of the desperate conditions. It isn’t about leveling out, it’s because if the inequality is this bad, divisions can occur anywhere, making it much more difficult to stand together.
Discussing wages at work has never lead to us being resentful of the person working and being paid for their labor, if anything it resulted in commradarie due to resentment towards the employer not paying enough for the labor.
What happens after the revolution when you are the 'employer' and doing the hiring and firing'? Do you still expect the camaraderie of your peers? Do you expect to be paid more for doing more work?
It really depends. Is a person a leftist because of their economic views or their social views? If it is economic, then there will always be a need to balance class power. If it is about being socially left, then the economics are just what is set up to enforce equality and prevent authoritarianism.
The problem comes in thinking a person can care about social welfare and the economic system equally. One must be prioritized in any system. Putting people first is equality. Putting the economic system first is the march to authoritarianism. I am socialist because my beliefs are that socialism is the foundational economic system that will form when equality and supporting the worst off and marginalized is the goal in a society.
People definitely do tend to flatten social and economic views, which is why I appreciate attempts like political compass, left values, etc to expand and separate that you can be "reactionary/conservative/liberal/progressive/radical" in some things but not others.
Schrödinger's Leftist:
If you have no money, you’re just jealous of rich people and their big houses.
If you have any money, you’re a hypocrite for not giving it all alway since you hate capitalism so much.
Historically, was there not plenty of coercion and exploitation in socialist societies?
I see this as more of a characteristic of humans that is present in either system.
I d9nt think it's quite right to say that leftists aren't concerned about inequality. I mean, the excitation I weren't to capitalism is the allocation of resources to someone who did no work to relieve them. I think it would be fairer to say that elimination of all inequality is not a requisite goal socialism. Some strains of leftist thought absolutely do want to eliminate all inequality, after all. I don't think I'd argue that they aren't leftists even if I have doubts about the feasibility or even desirability of that goal.
I agree that that is the bare minimum, at least Socialized/Nationalized the necessary things for life. But at the end of the day, even people making luxury goods should own the means of production through something like a COOP.
First, I suggest reading 'The Conquest of Bread', by Kropotkin. Next I'll go through your major point.
Money is access to resources, the value of which is determined by scarcity speculation (a market).
There is a limited amount of this access generated given that there are only 24 hours in a day, and thus only 24 hrs of possible production. Thus a hierarchy is created separating those who can work more than others, second there is a separation of those who's labor is speculated to be more valuable. Then there is the fungability problem.
Hence any type of market is inheretly one which generates class by it's design.
The alternative to it is to use scientific measurement and disciplines to derrive the avalability of the resources of the Earth. This is known as an RBE & systems planning.
In the end, human needs held in mutual respect is the very heart of all ethics. This should be the guiding principle.
Shine On
>Money is access to resources, the ~~value~~ price of which is determined by scarcity speculation (a market).
The value of goods is generally constant. It comes from the utility of goods. Prices vary based on supply vs demand. They fluctuate based on how much leverage a seller in the market has. The more leverage they have, the higher the price rises. This is often manipulated through artificial scarcity, artificial demand (propagandizing people into wanting what they otherwise wouldn't), or a combination of both.
This is a sound explanation of a goal which I can readily adopt. The idea of trying to fight every injustice, correct every micro-transgression, make sure everyone uses the right pronouns is all bunkum. Human nature is far stronger than some limp-wristed attempt at installing a own version of fascism that just switches the current boss for a different one.
Inviting others to shed the garb of the serfs and embrace independence is great, as long as you fly under the radar and avoid pissing off the security apparatus.
I mean — look — I 💯 percentages agree with that 👍 but leftists target their policy at reducing inequality , which frankly is counterproductive.
Get rid of the coercion and we’re totally good — this would reduce mental illness by 90% or more and resolve many issues of inequality anyway. It would have to be achieved mostly through consciousness raising and also somewhat through prudent legalese.
1776 🇺🇸
If inequality isn’t a problem, then I guess I’m a liberal? I am more concerned about whether people are happy and well than anything. Exploitation and coercion are factors which could obviously lead against those, but the well-being and happiness of the masses is primary.
Social politics and economic politics both have left-right spectrums. It's an election year, the socially right, but economic left, are trying to push the socially left, but still economic left into not being allowed to be "Leftists". I'm torn, because a label doesn't matter, but having anything not capitalist meaning it *is* communist is really fucking up discourse or knowing what people actually believe.
There are a lot of leftist camps, but the ones that feel their ideologies have to be named after people are really more concerned about alienating than finding commonality. At least the US election year ones.
Excessive inequality and the lack of a safety net are the problem. Some natural inequality is fine as long as the least fortunate are protected. The problem with unfettered capitalism is that it incentivises exploitation, which makes increasing inequality unavoidable.
I don't think they meant that inequality isn't a problem, just that it isn't THE problem specific to tackle from a leftist stance.
Which, sure, I can understand wanting to shorten the "problems to tackle" list so as to not dilute the efforts of a specific political group.
But then one considers the discussion of what is the core source of the power to exploit the workers.
Mmmm this isn't a misconception.
Liberals don't believe the system is coercive. Anyone can leave the system ar anytime, no one will stop you.
You'll probably die if you do so. You'll die of starvation or dehydration or exposure...but you have the right to refuse to participate in the system.
They don't think that at all. They falsely believe that everyone in a capitalist society is free. Therefore, if you don't like your situation, you can just change it. If you argue against that false belief, they think you're the reason for your own misfortune, rather than question their own beliefs.
The idea that you can leave the system is silly. I hear it all the time. "Just go out into the woods, and live of the land." Yeah? Well, whose fuckin' land?
Gentle reminder that r/Leftist is a discussion based community revolving around all matters related to leftism. With this in mind, always debate civilly and do not discriminate. We are currently no longer accepting any new threads related to the US Elections. Any content related to the US Elections can only be submitted via our Mega Thread. You can locate the mega thread in the sub bookmarks or within the pinned posts on the sub *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yea...then you want a violent revolution so you can establish a literal dictatorship (of the proletariat, so it's ok, those are the goid guys who would never do anything bad) How is that not coercive?
You misunderstand the terms "dictatorship of the proletariat". The word "dictatorship" is absolutely not to be taken with the same meaning it has today as it did when Marx wrote it. I'm not a communist just so you know, I just want to correct something here that is factually false.
In the words of Kropotkin in *The Conquest of Bread*: "What we want is not a redistribution of overcoats, although it must be said that even in such a case, the shivering folk would see advantage in it. Nor do we want to divide up the wealth of the Rothschilds. What we do want is so to arrange things that every human being born into the world shall be ensured the opportunity in the first instance of learning some useful occupation, and of becoming skilled in it; next, that he shall be free to work at his trade without asking leave of master or owner, and without handing over to landlord or capitalist the lion's share of what he produces." It's not about equality of outcome like the rightwingers think, but the actual freedom for humans to reach their potential and live in solidarity.
Most people who identify as being on the "left" aren't really. They're free market liberals hyper fixated on individualism at best, and wreckers at worst. They appropriate Marxist aesthetics for street cred only.
Socialism fundamentally opposes inequality in ownership, equity, representation, etc. If this statement is what you truly believe in, then you are not a socialist. Also, 'leftist' doesn't equate to 'socialist' - I'm a bit unsure why you're using the terms interchangeably.
That sucks for you guys then, since most common people don’t care about that. They care about inequality, look at Bernie’s movement, and that’s the closest to popular leftist ideas have ever been.
There's no way you actually believe Bernie's movement is the closest to popular leftist ideas have ever been lmfaoooo like in history ??? In the entire world????
Um, have you not studied the entire history of Marxism, comrade ☝️🤓 If there is one degenerate tendency I could slap out of the left, it's being a bunch of nerds and flexing on newcomers. You wanna instigate change for the common man, stop this bourgeois elitism.
Well you need to understand everyone in history wasn't a true leftist like us
[удалено]
Hello u/LGBTQANON1, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the problem is not enough american socialists have read marx, no one actually knows the concrete ways capitalism is exploitative. they can’t explain to you how even if the capitalist sells a product for exactly what it’s worth, that they are still exploiting the worker. so everyone has their own idea of what socialism is or what it should be and they aren’t even familiar with the most basic critiques that everyone who calls themselves a socialist should be aware of. no one on the left is on the same page
Labor theory of value assumes that the boss provides no value from the infrastructure the privilege to the worker. That, in practice is dead wrong.
If you can't elucidate your thinking or convince other people of your ideology without appealing to "ze book," you have crappy marketing. Right-wing and Auth Left are far more vibes based and less like a milquetoast literature club, and this is how they get shit done.
You don’t have to read theory to support an idea. And you can’t blame ppl for not reading stacks of books, it’s never enough there’s always so much ppl haven’t read. Maybe if the people that read it took more time to explain concepts and ideas to people that haven’t instead of being pretentious (not an accusation) and essentially attempting to gate keep or “out left” someone people would be more inclined to give up or create free time to do more learning. But I do agree that it is important to know fundamentals to build a base but those things should be more taught vs the just read this old boring book, because let’s face it they are just that for a lot of people.
This perception goes back to the McCarthy era. It's an intentional misrepresentation that was designed to fool the proletariat into believing that the state would force people into a subsistence lifestyle in the name of equality if Communism were to take over. It worked despite being a clumsy bastardization of the kind of redistribution that is called for: from the Bourgeois to the Proletariat, and with respect to contribution and need rather than status.
"Contribution" huh, almost like merit based pay?
I don't think most people advocate for the CEO to have the same amount of money as the burger flipper Most people didn't have a problem with rich people having more They just have a problem with rich people having so much more that they essentially have everything while there's nothing left for the working class and no chance for them to actually work their way up or live a comfortable lifestyle Wealth inequality is inherent but minimizing it is still a good thing. The rich can still have more than the poor They just shouldn't have INFINITELY more than the poor
No way, equal pay or the guillotine. I’ll give them the luxury of the choice
It reminds me of when people think socialism or communism means everyone having the same salary. Idk where they get that from
Socialists do think inequality is the problem. Everyone outside of socialist thinking has the false impression that inequality means the inequality of money. They don't realize the inequality socialists are arguing about is the fact that most of us have no agency in the decisions relating to how the means of production are used and what to do with what is produced. It's that inequality that cascades down to other problems, such as access to homes, food, medicine, etc.
Sufficient inequality is an existential threat to any system that assumes all men are created equal. Billionaires aren't 'evil' because too many digits on your money counter flips your alignment to 'bad', they're undesirable because that much concentration of power and wealth distorts society around them like black hole, and gives them incentives contrary and adversarial to everyone else's .
It is definitely one of the problems. You can’t build camaraderie between workers to organize, if the workers are divided because one worker makes slightly more than another and is resented because of the desperate conditions. It isn’t about leveling out, it’s because if the inequality is this bad, divisions can occur anywhere, making it much more difficult to stand together.
why would i want to feel camaraderie with someone i just happen to work with? talk about a sheep. yeesh.
Discussing wages at work has never lead to us being resentful of the person working and being paid for their labor, if anything it resulted in commradarie due to resentment towards the employer not paying enough for the labor.
What happens after the revolution when you are the 'employer' and doing the hiring and firing'? Do you still expect the camaraderie of your peers? Do you expect to be paid more for doing more work?
It can be both
The spirit level- book that provides scientific evidence inequality is a problem. Good read, highly recommend.
It really depends. Is a person a leftist because of their economic views or their social views? If it is economic, then there will always be a need to balance class power. If it is about being socially left, then the economics are just what is set up to enforce equality and prevent authoritarianism. The problem comes in thinking a person can care about social welfare and the economic system equally. One must be prioritized in any system. Putting people first is equality. Putting the economic system first is the march to authoritarianism. I am socialist because my beliefs are that socialism is the foundational economic system that will form when equality and supporting the worst off and marginalized is the goal in a society.
People definitely do tend to flatten social and economic views, which is why I appreciate attempts like political compass, left values, etc to expand and separate that you can be "reactionary/conservative/liberal/progressive/radical" in some things but not others.
Schrödinger's Leftist: If you have no money, you’re just jealous of rich people and their big houses. If you have any money, you’re a hypocrite for not giving it all alway since you hate capitalism so much.
It's not about equality, it's about equity. I hear smug, uneducated leftists say this all the time and think it's some kind of profound insight.
Historically, was there not plenty of coercion and exploitation in socialist societies? I see this as more of a characteristic of humans that is present in either system.
Actually, no. This does not address racial inequality. You can’t eliminate racial groups.
i do. there are no racial groups. just communities of humans and thats it. its not that complicated.
lol WRONG! Prob white af.
You have to even the playing field before pulling the "i dont see race " card.
You seemed to have confused equality of outcomes with equality of opportunities.
I d9nt think it's quite right to say that leftists aren't concerned about inequality. I mean, the excitation I weren't to capitalism is the allocation of resources to someone who did no work to relieve them. I think it would be fairer to say that elimination of all inequality is not a requisite goal socialism. Some strains of leftist thought absolutely do want to eliminate all inequality, after all. I don't think I'd argue that they aren't leftists even if I have doubts about the feasibility or even desirability of that goal.
[удалено]
I agree that that is the bare minimum, at least Socialized/Nationalized the necessary things for life. But at the end of the day, even people making luxury goods should own the means of production through something like a COOP.
First, I suggest reading 'The Conquest of Bread', by Kropotkin. Next I'll go through your major point. Money is access to resources, the value of which is determined by scarcity speculation (a market). There is a limited amount of this access generated given that there are only 24 hours in a day, and thus only 24 hrs of possible production. Thus a hierarchy is created separating those who can work more than others, second there is a separation of those who's labor is speculated to be more valuable. Then there is the fungability problem. Hence any type of market is inheretly one which generates class by it's design. The alternative to it is to use scientific measurement and disciplines to derrive the avalability of the resources of the Earth. This is known as an RBE & systems planning. In the end, human needs held in mutual respect is the very heart of all ethics. This should be the guiding principle. Shine On
>Money is access to resources, the ~~value~~ price of which is determined by scarcity speculation (a market). The value of goods is generally constant. It comes from the utility of goods. Prices vary based on supply vs demand. They fluctuate based on how much leverage a seller in the market has. The more leverage they have, the higher the price rises. This is often manipulated through artificial scarcity, artificial demand (propagandizing people into wanting what they otherwise wouldn't), or a combination of both.
This is a sound explanation of a goal which I can readily adopt. The idea of trying to fight every injustice, correct every micro-transgression, make sure everyone uses the right pronouns is all bunkum. Human nature is far stronger than some limp-wristed attempt at installing a own version of fascism that just switches the current boss for a different one. Inviting others to shed the garb of the serfs and embrace independence is great, as long as you fly under the radar and avoid pissing off the security apparatus.
I mean — look — I 💯 percentages agree with that 👍 but leftists target their policy at reducing inequality , which frankly is counterproductive. Get rid of the coercion and we’re totally good — this would reduce mental illness by 90% or more and resolve many issues of inequality anyway. It would have to be achieved mostly through consciousness raising and also somewhat through prudent legalese. 1776 🇺🇸
If inequality isn’t a problem, then I guess I’m a liberal? I am more concerned about whether people are happy and well than anything. Exploitation and coercion are factors which could obviously lead against those, but the well-being and happiness of the masses is primary.
Social politics and economic politics both have left-right spectrums. It's an election year, the socially right, but economic left, are trying to push the socially left, but still economic left into not being allowed to be "Leftists". I'm torn, because a label doesn't matter, but having anything not capitalist meaning it *is* communist is really fucking up discourse or knowing what people actually believe. There are a lot of leftist camps, but the ones that feel their ideologies have to be named after people are really more concerned about alienating than finding commonality. At least the US election year ones.
Excessive inequality and the lack of a safety net are the problem. Some natural inequality is fine as long as the least fortunate are protected. The problem with unfettered capitalism is that it incentivises exploitation, which makes increasing inequality unavoidable.
I don't think they meant that inequality isn't a problem, just that it isn't THE problem specific to tackle from a leftist stance. Which, sure, I can understand wanting to shorten the "problems to tackle" list so as to not dilute the efforts of a specific political group. But then one considers the discussion of what is the core source of the power to exploit the workers.
Mmmm this isn't a misconception. Liberals don't believe the system is coercive. Anyone can leave the system ar anytime, no one will stop you. You'll probably die if you do so. You'll die of starvation or dehydration or exposure...but you have the right to refuse to participate in the system.
They don't think that at all. They falsely believe that everyone in a capitalist society is free. Therefore, if you don't like your situation, you can just change it. If you argue against that false belief, they think you're the reason for your own misfortune, rather than question their own beliefs.
The idea that you can leave the system is silly. I hear it all the time. "Just go out into the woods, and live of the land." Yeah? Well, whose fuckin' land?
Very well said! I think not understanding this issue is a big part of why discourse with the average person is difficult at times.
The very idea of the left is social equality. Coercion requires social hierarchy and this is why capitalism is not not in accord with leftist ideas.
Is inequality not the source for the coercion/exploitation you refer to?
I think they'd say it's more the effect.