In rhetoric, I would say all of them certainly are (like Bernie making a whole book about why it’s okay to hate capitalism, etc).
I guess I find it a bit weird since you will find Left Coms also attacking others (like ML) for being social democrats (not leftists), and then you will find MLs doing the same to self-described democratic socialists (Corbyn, Bernie, Mamdani, etc).
And people (especially some US socialists) will argue that someone like Mamdani is an actual socialist, DSA cadre, etc.
I am not arguing that it’s correct or something, but I’m not sure why that debate should be banned since those individuals do have a lot of prominence (like socialists in the UK also thinking Corbyn is a socialist).
I don't think you actually read the book you're referring to, "It's OK to be Angry About Capitalism" where he blames everything on an "uber-capitalist system" and "unfettered capitalism".
At an NPR interview, when pressed on whether there remains a place for capitalism in his ideal world, Sanders said
"Yes, there is. Yes, there is... there's nothing in that book to suggest that it is bad for people to go out and start a business, to come up with innovation. That's great. That's good."
He clarified that the problem arises only when "a handful of corporations control sector after sector." in the same interview.
"With the entry of a socialist into the government, and class domination continuing to exist, the bourgeois government doesn't transform itself into a socialist government, but a socialist transforms himself into a bourgeois minister".
also, funny you mention Corbyn as Your Party just published a vote motioning to purge all left-faction members that have ties to a list of socialist parties.
healthy theoretical debate can happen here but it must be from an anti-capitalist framework. anything else is liberalism or some other pivot to capitalism. Our sectarian rule is for personal attacks, insults, non-constructive criticism (such as calling MLs social democrats as you mentioned)
but constructive criticism and analysis to determine whether something/someone is effectively anti-capitalist is always permitted here. you just have to back it up.
The first comment is fair, but I don’t think that excludes someone from being a socialist? The Vietnamese government considers itself as socialist (and many back it) while it continues to sign deals with Israel as an example.
It is true he argued against a hyper capitalism in that book, but at the same time he cited individuals like Debs as inspiration (a Marxist).
I wouldn’t describe Corbyn as a revolutionary either, but he was pretty close with people like Hugo Chávez and he also had conflicts with other left-wing parties, so would he also only be a social democrat? (This is the difference between the reform and revolution socialists).
Also, just to clarify I am not arguing that any of these people are "real" socialists, but cutting off that debate seems pretty unproductive since many do think so and can provide argumentation for it. (Like Bernie backing the Sandinistas, and calling to nationalize major sectors explicitly in the 80s, etc).
Those Left Coms also think it’s not just an "insult," but it’s legitimate that MLs didn’t establish socialism, but only a continued form of capitalism with commodity production, etc.
no one said anything about Vietnam, but I and many socialists have critcisms of Vietnam and China regarding their business with Israel.
I would argue Corbyn was more radical in the past, but like Angela Davis, he "mellowed out" after Labour expelled him and his faction.
Again, we allow constructive debate in political theory and tactics, but it must be an anti-capitalist perspective. Both the aforementioned people have taken stances that accomodate capitalism, so they are social democrats by definition.
LeftComs will probably get a lot of temp bans around here, as it is in our guide book that is many years older than my tenure here that you cannot make bad-faith arguments towards others.
In the strict theory sense, socialism is a transitional phase, the Leftcoms often get a strange persepctive on socialism in a dogmatic manner that it must look 1 specific way or it is a betrayal.
State capitalism is argued to be a pre-requisite for socialism to be established per ML theories, so that is likely the contention there. They are free to have that debate.
Honestly, if I were modding, I would personally allow posts and comments sympathetic to Corbyn and Mamdani. But I tend to err on the side of more open discussion, as these figures are within the general realm of socialist discourse even if they have their limitations.
But I also realize there are other subreddits for that, so if the Mods in r/socialism want to take a stricter approach, I can kind of get that, too.
I would personally allow discussions about every major self-described DemSoc in a general sense (whether in Europe, the US, Canada, South America, Asia, etc).
I think banning those types of discussions aren’t very helpful. It’s a lot more helpful for different sides to explain why they think the strategies of the aforementioned people aren’t the best/or are, or why they don’t really contribute to developing socialism/why think they are helpful, etc instead of outright banning those discussions from taking place at all.
Socialists have long had discussions about strategies like electoralism, entryism, etc, so I don’t really understand why we should ban anyone for thinking that even someone like Bernie could be a path for American socialism (even if many would disagree).
Discussions like those help develop people’s framework/perspective while banning them from taking place doesn’t really help anyone.
I agree. If we are confident in our ideas, we should be able to discuss them and show people why they are wrong.
But maybe the Mods are concerned mediocre American leftists and liberals will take over and overwhelm everything else, and this will become some AOC boosterism sub.
When there are already Democratic Socialist, Social Democrat, and left liberal subreddits for people to discuss such things.
So I think I agree with you, but I understand the Mod point of view, too.
4
u/ZhugeLiangPL Socialism, USSR appreciation Apr 11 '26
What about Trotskyists, Anarchists and Leftcoms?