this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026
319 points (88.4% liked)
Socialism
823 readers
26 users here now
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of "ML" (read: Dengist) influence. This is a place for undogmatic and constructive discussion from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
A certain knowledge of socialism is expected, if you are new to/interested in socialism, please visit c/Socialism101 before participating here. Socialism101 will gladly help you by answering questions, providing resources etc.
Memes go in c/Lefty Memes
Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, upvoting good contributions and downvoting those of low-quality!
Rules
1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith discussion is enforced here.
Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism
2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such,
as well as condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavour.
3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.
That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" (read: Dengist) (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).
4. No Bigotry.
The only dangerous minority is the rich.
5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.
(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Xenial Xerus" when answering question 2)
6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.
7. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:
- Racism
- Sexism
- Queerphobia
- Ableism
- Classism
- Rape or assault
- Genocide/ethnic cleansing or (mass) deportations
- Fascism
- (National) chauvinism
- Orientalism
- Colonialism or Imperialism (and their neo- counterparts)
- Zionism
- Religious fundamentalism of any kind
(This is not a definitive list, the spirit of the other rules still counts! Eventual duplicates with other rules are for emphasis.)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Which version of capitalism would you prefer? Does it still involve the private ownership of the means of production?
Having a small business or store doesn't require capitalism.
It does if you employ someone
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?
I think concern is placed on the wrong end, at least in terms of criticality.
I am less concerned about "maximums" right now. I know that's going to set off all kinds of alarm bells right now, but bear with me.
The two are intertwined for sure, but I'm mostly concerned with "minimums". If we had a society with Universal Basic Income, housing and Healthcare for everyone, and people had a safety net to pursue their passions, then I'm far less concerned about if someone has a billion dollars.
Again, they are both part of the same problem, but it's the focus. If billionaires were no longer allowed, and the money was re distributed amount people with 9 figure net worth already, it doesn't solve anything.
So yeah if people have the mobility to move from jobs, housing and Healthcare taken care of, and their basic needs met, I think it solves a lot of labor exploitation right away.
From there we can continue the debate, but I'm more concerned about taking care of everyone who is closer to the floor then worrying about the ceiling. I think there are capitalist ways that continue to reward actual breakthroughs and risks rather than the exploitation we have now.
I think that capitalism as we have it, but with a solid welfare state as you describe, is pretty close to my ideal society. But when I think about how such a system evolves over time in the presence of privately owned businesses, it seems to me that it is an unstable equilibrium. That is, it has an inherent tendency to break down the welfare state. I'll sketch the argument.
The first ingredient is that the owning class has an outsized influence on politics. This happens through a number of means, including:
Through these means they can influence politicians to pass laws that benefit the owning class. Note that it is not beneficial to politicians to do something about this. This is their bread and butter.
The next ingredient is that the welfare state as you and I would like to see it (UHC, UBI, and so on) is detrimental to the owning class. A solid welfare state means that workers have a much stronger position to negotiate from. Without UHC, refusing a crappy offer is much riskier since your health is at stake, for example. That is to say, the welfare state drives up operating costs for the owning class. As such, it is in their best interest to fight tooth and nail against the welfare state.
Combine these two ingredients, and you see that in the presence of privately owned businesses, you eventually lose whatever kind of welfare state you had.
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.
How exactly does wealth redistribution not solve anything? The disparity is the problem.
And how are you going to pay for that without wealth redistribution?
Yes, the disparity is the problem. But it needs to actually be spread out. Things like universal health care do that inherently if they properly raise taxes on the rich.
Redistributing wealth from the top 0.1% to the top 1% doesn't accomplish anything meaningful.
And yes, paying for it will come from taxing the rich. None of that has to do with capitalism exclusively.
I feel like we're after the same thing but you're more interested in attacking my idea than building something together or proposing something different. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but your questions are quite loaded and you didn't offer anything of substance yourself. The only thing you didn't deflect back to me was saying "the disparity is the problem", and that is precisely the point I was making. I'm specifically pointing out that it's about the full disparity.
I think I actually misinterpreted your original comment because of the typo in this sentence:
(I now realize you probably meant to write "among".)
I didn't realize you were saying, "it doesn't help if you redistribute wealth to the wrong people". And that sort of set the tone incorrectly for the rest of your comment. That materially changes how I read your comment, and I do mostly agree with your points.
I'm not sure I agree that this isn't exclusive to capitalism though. If you impose a tax that effectively caps wealth, then you are inherently compromising one of the core tenets of capitalism: private ownership of means of production. And I'm also not sure that this type of tax even goes far enough to prevent worker exploitation, but I guess we'll see if it ever actually happens.
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.
The one without human beings at the helm.
Funny, that's what I think about communism.
It is almost like the people are the problem and not the ideology.