- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
I mean even if you believe this Marx at least suggested the benefits of industrial capital should be retained somehow. Whether that’s by fencing it in, simulating it entirely, or by disciplining capitalists directly you do realistically need some form of industrial production.
Pedantic structuralism is right wing. Period. If you are obsessed with any modernist philosophy, you are right wing. There is no structuralist left. That’s a polite fiction children on the Internet tell themselves as they argue about which outdated political dogma they have pinned to their jacket.
Post-structuralism is moderate left wing/left neoliberalism, period.
If you are pro-post-structuralism, you are academic new-left post-Marxist left neoliberal moderate.
There is some shared reality. Over emphasis of the subjective elements of social reality is inherent in mind body dualism of the hegemonic order that no one can understand as the contradictions of class antagonisms escalate around us
/hj I’m being cheeky
I know there’s a lot of people who say “look, I know, capitalism sucks, absolutely, but it’s the only thing that works right now!”
This absolutely shouldn’t stop you from dreaming big, my friend.
Europe is great because of a huge number of fully public or heavily tax subsidised services.
It’s a stupid argument because China is socialist and is rapidly overtaking the US and Europe on every economic measure while maintaining a 90+% satisfaction rating from their citizens, and while adopting green technology faster than anyone else. Their welfare system is lagging a bit, but I would expect that to change within the next 10-15 years. Socialism obviously works.
Please explain so my European Cro-Magnon derived stupid brain can understand:
If China socialist, why so many quadri-spillion dollar multinational capitalist businesses there? If China socialist, why social welfare “lagging a bit” as you say? We in Europe think: social service priority good. Really good. We don’t lag.
Socialism is not synonymous with social welfare, it is a mode of production where capital (the means of production) is controlled by the working class, not the bourgeois.
Chinese socialism allows limited capitalist activity because capitalism is really good at developing productive capacity and China was basically a non-industrialized country before the revolution, so they had lots of catching up to do. I say limited capitalist activity because 1) China tends to nationalize control over corporations once they get to a certain size, and 2) the CPC is fundamentally a working class party and does not allow bourgeois political activity. Capitalists can make money in China, but they don’t get to decide policy, and even their ability to make money gets curtailed if they get to big so that they don’t become too powerful. In this way, China has harnessed capitalism to achieve rapid industrialization while preventing capitalists from gaining control over the working class.
Chinese social welfare is also better than I believed when I made my previous comment. Prior to 2014, urban citizens had access to government progress providing healthcare, employment, retirement pensions, housing, and education, but rural citizens were expected to provide for themselves. Since then, reforms aimed at rural welfare have lifted 100 million people out of poverty and integrated rural welfare with the national system (in the last 50 years they have lifted 800 million people out of extreme poverty). Just this year, China has announced the elimination of absolute poverty entirely, and are continuing to improve the social safety net. I recommend reading the Wikipedia page on Welfare in China, they are doing much better than even I thought.
The reason China has lagged behind European welfare systems is that they were really poor and had a huge population that was living in extreme poverty. They didn’t have funds for welfare. However, they are rapidly catching up and the systems they are creating will most likely let them surpass European welfare soon.
Meanwhile, capitalist welfare systems face constant threat from “austerity” policies, and are designed to keep a portion of the population unemployed and/or unhoused so that capitalists have better negotiating power over labor.
There’s a lotta people that also think using a system of currency is all capitalism is and is what they want to be rid of. But you can still have money without capitalism.
I knew someone once who thought capitalism was basically all forms of commerce. Like there was no trade before capitalism i guess. Don’t understand how they thought the world worked for most of the last few thousand years.
Course a distressingly number of people in this thread seem to think similarly. Which makes me sad for the world.
I knew someone once who thought capitalism was basically all forms of commerce.
Here’s the problem: if capitalism is essentially just a remix of mercantilism and industrial manufacturing, then it’s not something fundamentally new. If it’s not something fundamentally new, then it is not itself going to lead to anything else fundamentally new; that is to say: the belief in a future utopia DEPENDS on a history being an arrow instead of a circle. The more you tie capitalism back to earlier eras, the more you erode the belief that there is something better coming after the Bell riots.
It’s all just a remix. Always has, always will be.
Amen, brother. We’re trapped in an endless cycle of slavery, beheadings, liberation and creeping servitude. The long arc of history bends not towards justice but back towards itself.
Unfortunately I have to decline that “amen”. I take the "brother, tough, bro!
We’re better off than before enlightenment hit us… We are in fact better off than humans have been at any other point in history.
My point is: Let’s take the bad shit (e.g. wealth and power concentration creep) and work (the “remix”) on those parts and try to not destroy the wealth (e.g. ultra low infant mortality rate) we build on the way to here.
Are we better off spiritually or socially? The modern world is emotionally, existentially and socially bleak. Life expectancy does not indicate happiness except to say that people aren’t killiing themselves early.
Ask a mother if she would trade half her kids for a natural lifestyle.
But yes, that’s the question… I think I take modern life over endless struggles and getting eaten by a lion.
And just to be clear: pretty much all of existence between “settling” and now has been worse in almost all regards compared to now!
If you want what I’m reading from your statement, you have to consider the old style (semi-) nomadic lifestyle that’s natural to us
But you can still have money without capitalism.
All major organized society from the 20th century onwards used some form of currency, be it fascist, liberal or socialist. This isn’t really debated.
Yes, and as you’re already there:
You can, and I’m betting we will, also have privately owned production in post-capital society (if we ever get there…). Exactly the same way as owning and running farm land in capitalist society.
It’s not the core aspect that needs an upgrade, it’s the role it has in society that is due for an upgrade
What do you call it if I don’t like capitalism, but also don’t think it’s even possible for any governing body to remain both competent and non-corrupt for long enough to make a centrally managed system work?
maybe you’ve got anarchist sensibilities.
Im also not dumb enough to think everyone will play nice when states no longer exist.
So in political science broadly and especially foreign policy, the default is to assume that states themselves exist in an otherwise anarchic environment with no supernatural rules. Only responses to their own behavior, to the extent that another state can actually impose that on them, exist to potentially ‘govern’ them.
States are literally an abstraction, the fundamental reality is anarchy.
States also tend to not play nice with each other, nor with their own subjects.
So an abstraction that puts you in its prisons when you break their rules doesn’t seem very abstract to me.
You’ve missed the point.
I can put you in a dungeon if you break my rules.
… when a person acts this way, they tend to be viewed as a serial killer or perhaps vigilante or terrorist.
What’s the difference?
Scale of power? Perception of legitimacy or moral justness?
A constitutional charter that defines the limits of one’s authority tends to aid the perception of legitimacy, at least until that charter begins to be ignored.
In theory at least, the charter is written by folks representing their constituencies, and approved by those constituencies either directly or through their representatives. Thereby gaining legitimacy through the consent of the governed.
In practice though, it doesn’t always work out like that. Representatives might not truly represent the interests of their constituents, or might be captured by financial powers or ideological interest groups. Hence, corruption ensues.
I think smaller-scale units of governance would enable more direct democracy. These could then be syndicated into larger units to prevent issues like border skirmishes and resource wars, as well as competing value systems (like you might live in a socialist utopia, but the next village over might be a fascist hellscape that frequently raids your land to capture and enslave your people).
It’s a more bottom-up, grassroots approach. As opposed to what we have now, where we still have multi-tiered levels of governance (federal, state, local, and sometimes municipal or metropolitan), but it’s more top-down. The federal government makes the primary set of rules, and each level down makes more detailed rules to fill in the gaps and work within the space that’s left to them.
In a syndicated system, the smallest unit makes their primary set of rules, and then those small units get together with others of comparable size to form an umbrella set of rules which governs their relations with each other. Then another level up, etc.
Of course, any system is only as just as the people who are running it, but anarchy is no different. In an anarchical society, nothing is stopping the next village over from becoming more powerful than you and asserting their will and dominance upon you.
Although it might seem contradictory, something can be abstract and concrete at the same time. These are relative qualities.
Relative to anarchy, the state is abstract. It depends upon a socially shared model of thinking that gets acted out by individuals. Take away this layer of abstraction and you are left with anarchy, i.e. the precursor of the state.
Prison is itself an abstraction, though its consequences feel very concrete to a prisoner. All of your thoughts and feelings are abstractions, and yet they seem concrete to you.
States aren’t an abstraction, any more than the earth’s gravity and atmospheric pressure are an abstraction. Both exist and are very stable, despite nominally existing in what’s otherwise empty space, if you ignore the whole world.
They are abstractions in the sense that they are collections of rules that people made up.
They are real in the sense that those rules are reliably and effectively enacted and carried out.
You can say just the same for a single person with a moral code, or a group of people, some kind of organization with its own rules, codified or implicit.
A person can decide to shoot you or stab you, or give you a donut or sing a song in praise of you, depending on their rules… just in the same way as a group, or a state.
The difference is just scale, and the number of layers it takes to get from something you can drop from above the ground and reliably know it will fall, and things that have massive effects via much more complex processes.
The state ‘exists’ to roughly the same extent that ‘I’ exist.
I might change my rules, my behavior, so might a state.
A person’s personality, the way a state functions and acts… both are emergent patterns or concepts or ideas that ultimately derive from something physically real, yet themselves are not directly, tangibly ‘real’…
They’re also not static, the way gravity is a static rule of reality. Their ‘nature’, their own internal rules are mutable. The speed of light, ohm’s law, set theory… things that we discover, not invent… those are static, universal rules, spatially and temporally invariant.
Emergent patterns of course also often have particular ways that they tend to behave, rules that they tend to follow… but the more abstract, the more indirectly ‘real’ the thing is, the more complex and nuanced those rules tend to be.
Odd things begin to happen when you treat certain emergent patterns, certain rules, as more primarily, fundamentally ‘real’ than they actually are.
No one, certainly no anarchist suggested they would. So that’s a really weird thing to assert. Just completely irrelevant, non sequitur. Hardship and tragedy will always occur even without the existence of a state. But if you want atrocity, mass oppression/suppression you need the state.
Yes there is the argument that the state is theoretically capable of being a net benefit. The problem is the reality where the state struggles to even stay net neutral. Generally outright oppressive corrupt realistically. Even the best states.
But if you want atrocity, mass oppression/suppression you need the state.
Any sufficiently large gang, left well enough alone for long enough, will become the de facto state.
Your own local anarchist conclave may all be friendly and would never do such a thing to their neighbors. But if the next one down the road decides they need your land and resources, and if they outnumber and outgun you, then you’re just done for. No one will come to help defend you. No one will arrive to mete out vengeance afterward.
The state holding an implied monopoly of violence is what enables said state to enact their atrocities, but is also what prevents smaller groups from falling into the same trap.
We don’t have territory wars within the US states because if you start shooting at your neighbors, the police arrive. They are a higher authority that can compel punishment for your crimes. Say what you will about the cops (trust me, I’ve got a lot to say, and most of it ain’t nice), but the threat of the police compels civil behavior from people who would be otherwise disinclined to it.
Another key part of that, is that the police force is effectively inexhaustible. There may be, factually, a limited number of cops that exist in America, but in practice, if you just start blasting at them, you’ll never see the end of it. You’ll be hunted by police and feds and SWAT teams until you achieve death.
In smaller, more localized communities, none of this remains true. You may have local peacekeepers, folks in your community that serve the same function that police would in a different environment, but they aren’t going to be numerous enough or authoritative enough to combat an outside threat. When a bike gang rolls up with a dozen shotguns, and you have, say, five peacekeepers in your commune, the bike gang is getting whatever they want, one way or another.
And here we have the primary argument that prevents me from supporting anarchism as a realistic political standpoint. We can all chant “Abolish the state!” all we want, but when the state is gone and someone takes advantage of their absence, we return to the “might makes right” era of human history, which has, historically speaking, brought about many of the very worst times to be a living human being.
Any sufficiently large gang, left well enough alone for long enough, will become the de facto state.
Again this is kind of non sequitur. No one argued that they wouldn’t. States are definitionally just gangs that have been legitimized.
Your own local anarchist conclave may all be friendly and would never do such a thing to their neighbors. But if the next one down the road decides they need your land and resources, and if they outnumber and outgun you, then you’re just done for. No one will come to help defend you. No one will arrive to mete out vengeance afterward.
And? None of these are gotchas of any sort. Even that case is still preferable to the state doing it. If the state does it does that make it better/more acceptable. And at that point wouldn’t that group be a burgeoning state anyway? This is why anarchist are strong advocates of arming the populace.
The state holding an implied monopoly of violence is what enables said state to enact their atrocities, but is also what prevents smaller groups from falling into the same trap.
Smaller groups are capable of less total violence at scale. That’s like saying, more violence is justified, otherwise we would effectively have less violence. It doesn’t make the sense you seem to think.
Oh and there is also a huge difference between the state acknowledging that it is at War for territory. And not being at war for territory. In the United States my people are constantly at war with the state to preserve what little territory we’ve been left. Let alone get back what the state stole. But it’s okay because the state did it therefore it’s okay. Otherwise some roving gang might have gotten much smaller section of it. And that would be so much worse than losing nearly all of it as we did.
And no community is an island. You keep mentioning “my community” as if that is all there is. Or that having neighbors and allies is impossible. All you arguments realistically just boil down to “we need the state, or else the state”. Classic circular reasoning.
We don’t have territory wars within the US states because if you start shooting at your neighbors, the police arrive.
You are aware of ICE going around and terrorizing and shooting at people, and doing all kinds of property damage… commiting literally tens of thousands of crimes… and the police largely just do nothing about this, in the moment, often outright aiding them in this?
This is where your model breaks down.
You don’t even need ICE. You just need ‘protestors’ the police are friendly toward, vs ‘protestors’ they are not friendly toward.
Or, howabout civil asset forfeiture? Police can legally steal your money, literally charge the money itself with a crime, and the money is presumed guilty untill proven innocent… the onus is now on you to prove that your property is not guilty of a crime.
Or, a similar kind of thing, scaled up is when states do this to other state’s funds, ‘freezing’ them is usually the terminology used.
Or what about mass, systemic, persistent wage-theft? One class of people/legal entitities are just allowed to commit… on the book, illegal crimes, all the time, every day… and nobody really looks into that, the victim usually has to do an inordinate amount of work. Compared to the reverse situation where an employee embezzles money or steals a thing from a company, or where a customer steals a thing off a shelf.
States and state-based and state-backed/favorrd organizations play by the same actual rules as anarchists do.
Anarchists just don’t lie about that fact, as state-based/backed/favored organizations often do.
But if the next one down the road decides they need your land and resources, and if they outnumber and outgun you, then you’re just done for.
Which is different from states invading their neighbours how?
we return to the “might makes right” era of human history
We never left it. The might just calls themselves governments and CEOs.
But if you want atrocity, mass oppression/suppression you need the state.
Are you seriously trying to say atrocities and oppression can’t or won’t happen without a state?
People will still exist. What do you think would happen in Texas or Oklahoma or the Carolinas if there was no longer a state telling them they can’t enslave people?
(Caveat: yes, I know about the prisons carve-out. That’s unjust, of course, but how do you expect to even patch that hole without a state?)
thanks for the input, but also, im not sure who you are or why you’re worried about seeming intellectually superior to the next person
Did they say “everyone else?”
no, i dont think so. did i?
Mu. You’re accusing someone worried about everyone being a dick, as if they think the problem is only other people. It’s a rhetorical attempt at reversing a nonexistant grasp for superiority - and it’s a non sequitur. Even if someone believed they, themselves, would act decently, they could be right to worry about other people, and only mistaken in forgetting they are other people.
appreciate the thorough explanation, but unfortunately it seems completely irrelevant to the actual words i said, or any meaning, intent, or purpose therein.
Socialism doesn’t have to be centrally planned.
There’s market socialism for that. Socialism/communism just means the workers own the means of production, you can do that in a market system with a bunch of competing worker owned cooperatives. No giant Soviet state required.
IMO you need a mix of markets and state planning though. State planning for industries that are necessities with natural monopolies that require mass coordination like healthcare, infrastructure, basic food/housing, with markets with cooperatives for everything else.
Market socialism used to be a thing.
Anarchist, mayhaps
If you’re in favor of a balance between a free market and regulation to cover capitalism damages on people, you may be social democrat, like Bernie Sanders and most of the left in EU.
Which is still capitalism
There is absolutely no way that a complete move away from capitalism will ever take place. Even the so called “communist” countries are just state driven capitalism.
Number one most tiring aspect of politics on Lemmy is the delusional level of “the o my way to improve lives is the complete destruction of capitalism”
Hold on, no, you don’t get to just make such a huge broad sweeping claim as no one will ever move away from capitalism like it’s an universally agreed upon truth.
Ok, I’d love to hear of a modern example of a system that isn’t based on some form of capitalism. If the broad statement being thrown around that capitalism in any form is inherently evil, what is the alternative?
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - What Is To Be Done?
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
Horkheimer & Adorno - Dialectic of Enlightenment
Mark Fisher - Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?
John Holloway - Crack Capitalism: How can we rebel against the capitalist system? John Holloway argues that by creating, cracks, fractures and fissures that forge spaces of rebellion and disrupt the current economic order.
S.D. Chrostowska - Utopia in the Age of Survival focuses on resisting that kind of political cynicism and defeatism, attempting to address humanity’s existential challenges, the most totalizing and dominant of which being capitalism.
And yet none of these systems exist in any modern country in the world… maybe because they are all good on paper, but impossible to implement in the real world because they won’t work.
And really, you’re linking Lenin? Communists are just naive. It will never work in real life, and every time it’s been tried, it fails, or is perverted to be CINO.
There is a difference between possible and will the state allow it. Not only is it possible. It’s happened several times. But no the state will do everything in it’s power to keep its power. Regardless of who suffers.
anarchist.
deleted by creator
You don’t need central management. You just need to have workers keep the proceeds of their labor instead of uninvolved shareholders and “owners”.
Central management is still needed to make global plans, like in production or healthcare etc.
Why not local communities that feed up into larger representation groups?
hiw would you call the largest representation group? Isn’t it central management?
I wasn’t imagining something that just makes decisions that are handed down. They collate and evaluate the decisions and input from below.
We actually do have a term for that. It’s called capitalist realism.
It doesn’t include attempts to move beyond capitalism.
I haven’t read that book, but it sounds like he’s taking the starting point of my opinions, and then going way too far with the conclusions.
I think part of the problem is that people seem to view these systems as absolutes that that we have to go all in with and apply to everything. I think they should be thought of more like tools. You apply the right tools to the right situations.
Dangerously nuanced thought that….
Like a capitalism tool? Or a capitalist realism perspective tool?
For the latter I agree, good to have many lenses to look at things through.
This is exactly the line of questioning that originally led me to look into anarchism
I agree with that sentiment and I consider myself to be either an anarchist, or at the very least, heavilly lean towards anarchism.
You need to learn the difference between market economy and capitalism. And not to mention anti capitalism doesn’t automatically mean centrally managed. You are making a false dichotomy/straw man
Ngl, this desire to flatten the entire range of human political thought into a single dimension is pretty right-wing
Well, thats more of a general thing for extremists. That happens to be independent of left or right. Just watch Lemmings down vote brigading.
That being said: generally of anybody tries to break any complex problem down to a simple answer you should be very careful what you do next. Thats how scams work and long existing political problems like right wing populism still exist for a reason. Yes, its complicated. A guillotine won’t solve that. Yes I’m taking to you… ;)
“Eating the rich” won’t help either, but taxing the shit out of them might do away with some of the problem for some time, so this would be better than doing nothing and letting people get so angry they fall for the populist scam.
I interpret “eat the rich” as a call for a 180 attitude change on the oligarchs: to view with extreme distrust anyone with a country-sized capital, especially if they leverage it for political power.
Admittedly that’s my interpretation, I’m sure many call for literal guillotines.
It’s more of a problem of having no base definitions on which everyone agrees upon. So anything goes and no one ends up knowing what they’re talking about.
Nagle no.
No True Scotsman can be a capitalist either, they said
There’s little I detest more than when someone makes an absurd yet completely sincere claim and just doesn’t elaborate whatsoever.
I guess I should go to Mars or something since that seems to be the norm among our species
I tried to find the absurd claim, can we get a hint?
There’s no necessary object of my sentiment, so I’ll let you be the judge ;)
Gonna left it there for those who agree with that dude :
Normalize including an argument with hot takes
That’s cap. You can be pro-capitalism in some form and still be on the left wing of politics.
But of course, this is extremely subjective.
You can be pro-capitalism in some form and still be on the left wing of politics.
Pro capitalist and socially progressive is just called liberal.
The problem here is that part of the left deny that liberals are on the left.
I mean, the capitalists has a left, moderate, and a right, the middle class has a left, moderate and a right, the revolutionary left has a left, moderate, and a right. The conditions that determine these definitions vary from place to place and time to time.
Like I agree with the post, in one very narrow interpretation, but instead of insisting that one extremely broad abstraction is the “best one,” which is a tendency we inherited from bourgeois hegemony and a misconception about how ideas spread, we should be helping each other to determine our own local conditions, how to be concrete and scientific about those determinations, and sharing those local conditions to develop regional -> national -> international perspectives. Only a mass party of and for the workers organized on the basis of objective human need and interest is capable of such coordination.
For example, many areas have organically progressive petty capitalist elements. During a period of mass struggle, like a general strike, the role of organizers is not to allow or even force those individual capitalists to side with the capitalists, but work with them to divide them from the right and moderate capitalists so they side with the workers. Is this deeply contradictory! Yes! But real conditions, especially revolutionary ones, are inherently contradictory.
I think its true that capitalism is right wing, that is, against progress. But is that actionable information? If applied crudely to actual struggle, it will create more confusion for people, than just like, getting people to talk to and work with each other and understand the objective conditions, so they can be changed and struggled with directly. Its too easy to intellectually transform capitalism = right wing into right wing = bad, and therefore individual capitalists = bad; which just leads to campism and sectarianism.
At this point, a left wing revolution will not destroy capitalism, it will transfer power from the minority capitalists to mass workers; and from there, continue to struggle on the basis of class toward another revolution that eliminates capitalism. Each revolution will be more humane than the one that came before, each counter revolution less severe. Getting engagement and agreement with a social media post or meme is completely different, and much much simpler, than getting engagement and agreement among the masses to initiate and defend a new phase of social order.
North Korea has markets nowadays where currency is traded for goods, even if they also have government rationing and almost total government control of the economy. China does not only have markets where currency is traded for goods but also has the whole stock exchanges and billionaires thing. The democratic socialist states of northern Europe also follow capitalism, even if the government is heavily involved in both the economy and is giving out large amounts of welfare. Capitalism is very broad. You can absolutely be left wing if you live in the USA and want capitalism to work more as capitalism works in the Nordic countries. In a way you can therefore be pro capitalist and left wing. However I kinda get what the guy in the post means but I still want to be clear that you can be left wing and not want to abolish currency at the same time.
Currency, and this is going to be astonishing to hear, isn’t capitalism. Capitalism is the system of economics where owners of capital control the profits from that capital, even if they can’t get those profits without the labor of others. It has fuck-all to do with literal currency which has existed since far before Capitalism and will exist far after it as well.
Neither socialism nor communism are incompatible with currency cause that’s just a way of expediting the exchanging of goods. Instead of social debt, people exchange currency instead for goods or services. Makes keeping everything straight quite a bit easier. Hoarding it is problematic in any system, since the whole point of currency is to, again, aid in the exchange of things.
Still according to your definition we still have capitalism in the Nordic countries and in China. Both allow for private ownership of companies and have their own stock exchanges. So my point still stands.
And when do you mean we didn’t have capitalism? Since the dawn of agriculture it has been possible to own farms where the owner of the farm profits off the laborers of the farm and the land itself, the means of production. Isn’t that capitalism then?
It’s not his definition that’s the definition. Your definition is so absurdly broad as to be meaningless. No since the dawn of Agriculture capitalism has not existed.
Hell since dawn of agriculture it’s been very rare that farmers have owned their own land so your entire premise is absurd.
Capitalism is the part where having money makes money. Markets are a different thing.
Yes I’ll admit I was thinking of market economy. Nevertheless both the Nordic countries and modern day China are places where having money makes money. That’s still capitalism. Only north Korea would be out.
China is a capitalist state in all ways but officially now. It’s closer to fascist than it is communist at this point. Enterprises are not owned by the people, capital is owned by individuals who are beholden to the state.
Unfortunately the center-left - the socialist democrats, the most popular faction on the left - does not reject capitalism, rather they want to builds on it. The “I can fix her” league.
These are also the guys most prone to be provoked into cultural war by the right, completely abandoning the class war.
Gauche caviar. They are not socialist, they would call themselves the democratic socialists if they were, but that would require of them to completely abandon any loyalty to the current system and focus on eating the rich that fund them.
Basically every major social Democrat party in the EU has Democratic Socialism as part of their official platform.
I feel there are many as well who know capitalism needs to go away, but also understand that sudden change will cost many lives and violent revolution doesn’t guarantee that you’ll end up any better off, and as a result are trying to go for a “soft landing”. Downside is that takes a lot of time and needs to have successively more progressive governments and policies in place each election cycle. Given the “tick-tock” pattern of switching between D and R administrations, this simply does not happen.
Always odd when people are more concerned with potential damage caused by change than the massive amounts of damage caused everyday by the current reality.
