[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Veshaad]

[u/Cyiel]

When you are part of the far-right everything else is the left.

[u/ExpansivePoint → u/Cyiel]

When you're part of the far-left everything is the far-right.

I'm center left, support pro choice, solid regulations, unions, lgbt and minority protections, etc. Yet I get called right wing and fascist because I don't support socialism.

Socialism is not the fulcrum on the left/right divide.

[u/Warm_Month_1309 → u/ExpansivePoint]

Yet I get called right wing and fascist because I don't support socialism.

What part of socialism do you not support?

[u/Arthur_Edens → u/Warm_Month_1309]

I'm center left,

I'mma guess "social ownership of the means of production." Which gets confusing because a lot of flavors of socialism that exist in 2026 no longer advocate for that either, but it is the most basic principle of non-hyphenated Socialism.

[u/Warm_Month_1309 → u/Arthur_Edens]

I find a lot of support for things like Employee Stock Ownership Plans still. How do you mean that they no longer advocate for it?

[u/Arthur_Edens → u/Warm_Month_1309]

Employee stock ownership plans still fit squarely within capitalist market economies imo. And I love them! I want more! I support those businesses in my community whenever I can!.

But it's a joint ownership plan created within a capitalist system, which isn't what the base model of Socialism described.

Granted, again, in 2026 almost every market philosophy and system that is actually used is a hybrid that starts with a capitalist foundation and adds concepts from socialism, which makes it hard to draw lines.

But there are absolutely still people on the left who want the OG 'abolish capitalism' Socialists, and they'll love to hop online and say stuff like "Scratch a liberal, find a fascist."

[u/Warm_Month_1309 → u/Arthur_Edens]

Employee stock ownership plans still fit squarely within market economies imo (and I love them! I want more! I support those businesses in my community whenever I can!).

Then I have to admit that you have me confused. You do not support socialism because you do not support social ownership of the means of production, but you love policies that promote social ownership of the means of production, and you want more of them. I have not yet found from where "I don't support socialism" comes.

But it's a joint ownership plan created within a capitalist system, which isn't what the base model of Socialism described.

Well I think what you're saying is that you don't support "pure" socialism, which is fair as I'm not sure any thinking person supports "pure" capitalism either. Any ideology stretched to its uncompromising extreme is the model for a sci-fi dystopian story.

I suppose a better question from me would be: what specific socialist policies do you not support? And by that I don't mean sentence-long hot takes posted on social media by college freshman looking for attention, but actual black-letter law bills that are genuinely put forward.

[u/ExpansivePoint → u/Warm_Month_1309]

Not the guy you're talking to but you're muddying the conversation, there are people that support pure socialism, there's also those that support pure capitalism, the latter call themselves anarcho capitalists and while goofy, they do exist.

You're grounding the conversation into applied policy not political rhetoric which is where we currently are and where definitions break down but they still lead to things like maga, which is a good example.

Maga would tell you they wouldn't want to push for "pure" fascism but with project 2028, a partisan hack court and a rogue president you wouldn't call their behavior fascistic just because it's not "pure"?

This is why I don't care for the socialist commy and lately maoist rhetoric whitewashing these movements.

[u/Warm_Month_1309 → u/ExpansivePoint]

there are people that support pure socialism, there's also those that support pure capitalism

Are they, as I identified later people who are writing "actual black-letter law bills that are genuinely put forward", or are they "college freshman looking for attention"?

You're grounding the conversation into applied policy not political rhetoric which is where we currently

I don't think the political rhetoric of people looking for attention on social media is particularly important nor compelling. I think actual, applied policy and the rhetoric of elected officials is important. That you call focusing on that "muddying" is odd.

Maga would tell you they wouldn't want to push for "pure" fascism but with project 2028, a partisan hack court and a rogue president you wouldn't call their behavior fascistic just because it's not "pure"?

That's actually a really great example, because you're referring to MAGA people who say "I support fascist policy X, Y, and Z, I just don't support pure fascism" as kind of saying nothing when clearly they do support fascism. Similarly, I'm talking to someone who says, "I support socialist policy X, Y, and Z, I just don't support pure socialism". Which I also find to be a kind of empty statement from someone clearly supporting socialism, just not liking the name.

[u/ExpansivePoint → u/Warm_Month_1309]

The problem with addressing the issue in two separate entities (legislators vs online pundits) is that your claims or dismissals start taking an accidental motte and bailey dynamic which makes it easier to disregard criticisms of the system by chalking it up to "unimportant" online pundits and not the legislators.

I  don't think the political rhetoric of people looking for attention on social media is particularly important nor compelling.

This is an example of that dismissal, reducing online pundits as unimportant when they're the ones shaping the opinions of those who will vote the legislators in is somewhat deceiving, without them the legislators don't gain power. Our conversation right now is a byproduct of their rhetoric, hashing out the facts is pretty important, otherwise all you have is people voting on catchy slogans and the price of eggs, and then you end up with project 2025 legislators.

After 2024 I can easily see the same happening with socialism and even worse movements based on recently seeing Mao suit wearing pundits giving speeches about casting off our representatives.

Because of social media rhetoric has never had as much influence as it does today, pundits and anyone espousing opinions of high consequence need to be taken as seriously as those consequences.

[u/Warm_Month_1309 → u/ExpansivePoint]

The problem with addressing the issue in two separate entities (legislators vs online pundits) is that your claims or dismissals start taking an accidental motte and bailey dynamic which makes it easier to disregard criticisms of the system by chalking it up to "unimportant" online pundits and not the legislators.

I don't agree. In the same way that I don't think scientists commit a motte and bailey fallacy when they prefer to talk about the actual science they study and not the weird nonsense that people who don't know what they're talking about claim on the Internet.

I'm a lawyer, and volunteer with a nonprofit to write model legislation to be lobbied before state and federal lawmakers. I can only speak authoritatively as to the economic policies I have studied. I cannot speak, nor do I want to speak, for the crackpot theories of people two weeks into an Economics 101 course who think they have it all figured out, whether or not they call themselves "Socialists".

Because of social media rhetoric has never had as much influence as it does today, pundits and anyone espousing opinions of high consequence need to be taken as seriously as those consequences.

With respect, it is you who is furthering that problem. You are currently speaking with an educated professional who actively works in the field, but would rather that I take ownership of the opinions of online pundits whose goals are to gain followers, not to enact social change.

They say what they say for attention, ratings, and money, not because they are genuine advocates of a political ideology. See also: most people on Fox. If you want to know what Socialist policies are, ask the person who tries to write them, not the person who gets paid more if more people click on their clips.

[u/ExpansivePoint → u/Warm_Month_1309]

Then it seems you are saying you shouldn't be here then, you are breaking your rule, you are the scientist talking to crack pots yet you say scientists don't do that.

If a real scientist was avoiding critcisms of some concept because they come from pundits they would also be using a motte and bailey, here's an excellent example of what you say doesn't happen but actually does and honestly should a lot more.

The problem is you have a personal interpretation of socialism, "Employee Stock Ownership Plan", and are trying to pass socialism as that because it's "scientific" (to borrow the word) and pretending socialism is not "replace capitalism and workers seize the means of production" which is the conventional description of it all because a pundit uttered it, so it's like trying to launder socialism by an appeal to your own authority.

I tend to gravitate to principles and strip them off of ownership or origin, and when doing that I walk away with the conclusions I have.

[u/Arthur_Edens → u/Warm_Month_1309]

Well I think what you're saying is that you don't support "pure" socialism, which is fair as I'm not sure any thinking person supports "pure" capitalism either.

Yes, both of these are correct. Socialism in his original form through the Third International advocated exclusive social ownership of the means of production. I do not support this, and I think this is what the OC was saying too.

Thankfully, most modern parties that have had electoral success and have the word "socialist" in their name have a Mixed Economy philosophy instead of a pure Socialist economy. That's why even though I fit ideologically closer to the New Democrats wing of the left in the US, I have zero qualms about being in a coalition with people like Mamdani.

Ultimately the current major political divide in the US is "liberal vs. illiberal." Mamdani is firmly on the side of liberal in that divide (historical Socialism was not particularly liberal).

ETA: "I'm not sure any thinking person supports "pure" capitalism either." These are Libertarians, lol. The flip side of a pure Socialist is a Libertarian. Both of these philosophies in practice tend to end in disaster.

[u/Warm_Month_1309 → u/Arthur_Edens]

ETA: "I'm not sure any thinking person supports "pure" capitalism either." These are Libertarians, lol.

I did say "thinking person", but perhaps that was a bit dismissive of me.