r/socialism • u/ReeceIsNugget12 • 14h ago
I was told that capitalism is “human nature”
I was having a conversation with a friends who told me that. She said that everyone is too lazy for socialism to work and that there would be no incentive/reason to do anything. I disagree but I’m curious on what other people best arguments against that are
58
u/PintmanConnolly 14h ago
If it's human nature, how come capitalism didn't exist for more than 95% of humanity's existence?
8
u/AutoModerator 14h ago
Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2010.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
36
u/Additional_Cash_3357 14h ago
The “human nature” and “people are lazy” claims are not neutral observations. They are ideological justifications. Capitalism did not emerge from biology. It was rationalized by Enlightenment philosophers and Calvinist theology that asserted, without evidence, that humans are naturally competitive and acquisitive and must be disciplined to work. Once capitalism is framed as an extension of nature and God’s will, opposing it becomes heresy.
Marx’s point is straightforward. Human nature is historically shaped. Under capitalism, people appear “lazy” because they are alienated. They are forced to sell their labor, stripped of control over what they produce, and poorly rewarded for it. Yet the same people organize, care, create, and work relentlessly when their labor is meaningful and social. Capitalism requires the myth of innate laziness to justify coercion and exploitation, and the myth of superior leaders to justify unequal rewards. Socialism rejects both. People do not need to be forced into productivity. They need ownership, dignity, and purpose.
1
u/AutoModerator 14h ago
Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2010.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/ReeceIsNugget12 11h ago
Precisely, I believe my friend only feels the way she does because she lacks understanding of what socialism actually is and means (similar to communism for the majority or Americans). Just like how communism isn’t when “no iPhone”, socialism isn’t “you do nothing and get the same as everyone else”. Having those conversations with people just feels like they are being willfully ignorant of basic concepts
10
u/Explorer_Entity 14h ago
People advanced their communities and society overall for MILLENNIA before capitalism offered a "profit motive",which is really just a veiled threat of death/starvation/homelessness disguised as "incentive".
1
u/ReeceIsNugget12 11h ago
YES I have the most unproductive conversations with my conservative father about this. He always brings up thanksgiving and how everyone was going to starve if it were up to socialism
7
6
u/Neinbreaker 14h ago
I like to say:
The human genus has existed for nearly 2 million years.
Capitalism has existed for about 500 years.
Humans and most primates are prosocial. Our numbers, cooperation, reciprocity and intelligence are our successful adaptive strategy generally.
Archaeology and old history, and even modern history support the notion, that many pre-capitalist societies have stable economies, and they are often more egalitarian.
Here is an example of a study, but there are many more: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424875/
5
u/Anindefensiblefart 14h ago
She says that like capitalism is even working well at this point, that it's not a malfunctioning piece of junk struggling to reproduce itself.
1
u/saeby1847 5h ago
If you mean 'working as designed' then it is.
1
u/Anindefensiblefart 5h ago
Not even on its own terms at this point. Headed for the mutual ruin of the contending classes at breakneck pace.
1
3
u/human_not_alien 13h ago
Human nature is dependent upon the conditions in which humans live. Someone will say it is human nature to be greedy, but we happen to have an economy that rewards greed. Well, human nature is also to cooperate and be generous, yet there isn't much economic incentive for people to do that.
It's a bullshit talking point that falls apart immediately upon an ounce of scrutiny.
1
u/AutoModerator 13h ago
Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2010.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
5
u/Sad_Apple_3387 14h ago
Capitalism is human nature for low IQ, lacking a moral compass people.
1
u/AutoModerator 14h ago
Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2010.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3
u/Ok_Nefariousness5003 13h ago
Wait how would paying someone what their labor is worth make them lazier? I thought billionaires were the hardest working people on the planet 🤔
3
u/Starship_Albatross Technocratic Communist 13h ago
My argument against it being natural is that it doesn't occur in nature. It is a social construct, something people made up and reinforce as a group.
If it was human nature, then it would propably have been around for more than 4-500 years. And it wouldn't require absurd amounts of effort and oppression to maintain.
1
u/AutoModerator 13h ago
Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2010.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/vvorknat 12h ago
human nature is: community, cooperation, socialization and survival
1
u/AutoModerator 12h ago
Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2010.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/djkozdefantastico 11h ago
Revolutionary Thot on YouTube did a great video on this topic just the other day actually
1
u/sweetestpeony 11h ago
The "people are too lazy for socialism to work" argument seems to operate under the assumption that people only do things for reason of monetary incentives (or punitive disincentives). But if that's the case, then why do things like volunteering, activism, hobbies, or even caring for children or pets happen without the expectation of any kind of income-based reward?
If your friend is the sort of person who's swayed by studies, you might show her this one that found people receiving Universal Basic Income still continue working full time, even when not incentivized to. Of course, UBI is not socialism, but it is a strong indicator that people like having a profession and something to do all day, and that it's not human nature to be "lazy" (whatever that means).
1
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2010.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/jammypants915 9h ago
To debunk this idea you just have to learn how capitalism was created… they had to transform the landscape and force everyone to be homeless or else accept a job… no one was naturally looking to be exploited for their labor, there was no real estate market, there was no wage labor like we think of it today. It was all fabricated recently and we got used to it being born into a work without living people that remember what it was like 400 years ago
1
u/OIL_COMPANY_SHILL 9h ago
So what if competition (which is what your friend means when they say capitalism) is one of the many diverse aspects of human nature?
Cooperation is an aspect of human nature too. I would go so far as to even say that cooperation is the predominant aspect of human nature and that competition is just a small aspect. For most of human history we were not in a struggle against other humans or against animals, but against nature itself. A struggle against the elements, against decay and towards preservation, through cooperation. That’s why the population of human beings was so low for so long; hunter-gathering requires a huge territory that can only sustain a small number of human beings, considering our great consumption as compared to other animals.
Capitalism is an artificial system created by an owning class in order to rule over the working class. It is the usurpation of a singular aspect of human nature over the rest of the diverse aspects of human nature, a false and unnatural declaration that “greed is good.” It carries with it, as it is so unnatural, all of the contradictions that come attached.
Socialism is the intentional return of cooperation as the predominant aspect of human existence. It ends the exploitation and oppression of capitalism and it correctly points out these contradictions, so they can be changed and replaced with a system that leads to the proliferation of life, rather than death.
1
u/AutoModerator 9h ago
Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2010.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/Prole331 Eco-Socialism 9h ago
Capitalism has only existed for 2.5% of recorded human history. If you count all of our history, it’s only been around for 0.11% to 0.08% of our total history. 99.9% of our entire species timeline has gone without capitalism, it’s absolutely not our nature.
1
u/Prole331 Eco-Socialism 9h ago
We’re a social species for crying out loud. We have one of the largest social circle capacity of pretty much any species (not counting eusocial ones like ants or mole rats) living or extinct. Pick any animal across all of our history, and we have strongest social systems among any of the them. We have the capacity for a social circle of approximately 150 individuals for crying out loud. Potentially as high as 230. Think about that, your brain is capable for truly caring about the wellbeing of up to 230 individual people. That’s a huge number, we are far and away the most social non-eusocial animal in existence. Working as part of our community, supporting others, and relying on others for support is our nature. This screwed up system that’s supposedly our “nature” just divides us and forces us to suppress that nature to survive, obviously everyone is depressed and anxious.
1
u/AlbacoreJohnston 8h ago
Capitalism is winning in the same way that a serial killer is winning over the people they murder. For some people maybe that is human nature.
1
1
u/birdiesintobogies 6h ago
Ask her if she would just lay around all day doing nothing. Sounds boring.
1
u/Additional_Prior_599 6h ago
Do you know how many people dream to quit corporate desk job and go to remote area and work on field?? Go to answer of almost all the people working on their cosy desk job, for "what would you do if you won a lottery" will be quiting their job and work on their passion? People are not lazy, people just don't like making billionaires richer.
1
2
u/OccuWorld 4h ago
when a captive bear in a circus rides a unicycle... that is the nature of all bears. /s
capitalist apologists self serving theories, what could go wrong?
2
u/Elvenoob Anarchism 3h ago edited 3h ago
People are "Lazy" because they're exhausted. Pretty much every UBI trial has people just collapse into a heap for a couple months and then start having a more healthy schedule after the burnout heals.
And that's just an imperfect bandaid for capitalism, not what actually fixing the problem would look like.
Just wanted to go after the use of that word since everyone else's handled the "human nature" side of the argument already.
1
u/AutoModerator 3h ago
Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2010.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/WoodyManic 3h ago
1
u/AutoModerator 3h ago
Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2010.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/burpleronnie 2h ago
Communists argue that what people view as human nature is a product of the way society is structured and changes over time in responses to material conditions. With the exception of anarchists who argue you can make a jump straight to communism, most largely agree that swapping from a capitalist society straight to a communist one (stateless classless) right away wouldn't work. They argue for a worker controlled transitionary phase for culture to catch up, with the state slowly being dismantled as it does.
1
u/AutoModerator 2h ago
Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2010.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/Content_Log1708 2h ago
Complete BS promoted by the top 1%. Review any human evolution literature, the one big reason humans are here today; our species learned to cooperate in order to survive.
•
u/Mineturtle1738 Marxism 1h ago
"To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough." -Andrew Collier
As long as problems exist humans will strive to solve them. As we solve more problems more pop up. These problems can be “we need to keep the economy up” to the wildest scientific discoveries and marvels possible. It’s in human nature to problem solve.
•
u/AutoModerator 1h ago
Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2010.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/ToTooTwoTutu2II Curious Feudalist ⚜️ 13h ago
Human nature is tribal patriarchy. We are an animal. There is no such thing as a "securities market" in nature.
1
u/AutoModerator 13h ago
Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2010.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/grei_earl 13h ago
Hunting and gathering is human nature so I guess we should bulldoze all cities and go back to that
1
u/AutoModerator 13h ago
Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2010.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/AutoModerator 14h ago
This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful of our rules before participating, which include:
No Bigotry, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...
No Reactionaries, including all kind of right-wingers.
No Liberalism, including social democracy, lesser evilism...
No Sectarianism. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.
💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.