312
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
312 points (87.9% liked)
Memes
54323 readers
431 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
So Marxist socialism and classical liberalism are mutually exclusive?
Leftism starts at anti-capitalism. Liberalism is pro-capitalism. Simple as.
Yes
My curiosity is genuine piqued. Any recommendations to read about this in particular?
If you want to learn about Marxism, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. I'll also copy over @Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 's reply to you, which you cannot see:
Thank you comrade for copying over my comments
No problem!
Engels and lenin had good writings for beginners. You might want to read principles of communism, or state and revolution to get some basic context and theory. The first one is structured like an FAQ and is short. The latter you can find english translations that are quite accessible.
Once you understand the basic principles of marxism, you will understand just how different the whole philosophy really is. If you get deep into the theory, you might see that Marxism is basically a whole separate branch of philosophy that breaks away from the enlightened tradition of western philosophy. In some small sense, I see Marxism as a refuation of liberalism.
Sadly .world accounts won't see this.
Any kind of socialism is mutually exclusive from classical liberalism; not necessarily on every bullet point but broadly speaking. The common thread among the various socialist ideologies is typically that the economy and society exist to provide for the needs of the people.
Liberalism is the ideology supportive of capitalism. Marxism is supportive of socialism. I think it's important to recognize that liberalism was driven by capitalists to fight the aristocracy while justifying their own future rule.
Marxism opposes it in theory, not practice. Soviets had nomenklatura - senior party members and officials who controlled key positions in government, industry, the military, and media. They didn't "own" factories but they controlled them.
This place is so overwhelmingly biased that it will most likely refuse to acknowledge this and maintain their simplistic black-and-white views. Marxists simply abolished the term "aristocracy" in a formal sense while continuing such practices.
Administration is not itself a class, and is necessary for any large-scale economy. Marxism opposes capitalism in theory and in practice. Management of industry is not the same as owning said industry. Marxism has never been about eliminating managament, because managers are not a class in and of themselves, but instead a section of the proletariat that perform necessary roles in coordinating production, distribution, and logistics.
Where did you get the idea that Marxists oppose administration from? It certainly isn't found within Marx and Engels' writings, without severe misunderstanding. Moreover, you're displaying black and white thinking in believing administration under socialism is the same as capitalist ownership outright.