this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2026
1067 points (98.8% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3828 readers
499 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, anti-communism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.
Introduction to Socialism (external links)
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Basic Course
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A word ending with -ist is just a person that aligns with the word ending with -ism. You can definitely be a salaried worker and be a capitalist. There's evidence for this everywhere, especially through various social media, as just one example.
Morphemes have purpose in words. They're not for vibe-communicating.
You mean like artists are aligned with artism?
Words have different meanings, depending on the context they are used in.
Source
I think OPs argument is silly, but doesn't defintion number 2 from your screenshots favor OP?
Yes. In the context of the original post and my comment (the isms, or ideologies), exactly this.
The first definition is not relevant to capitalism, it is the same usage as their "artist to artism" point, but it is literal and not a confused fallacy trying to introduce an ism that does not exist. An artist is to art, as a capitalist is to capital. However, we're talking about isms here, nothing they've tried to raise.
That should have been obvious from the original post; if not, by my comment; if not, especially as they typed out their artism argument; if not, certainly by the time they consulted the dictionary. Four whooshes.
It does. I‘m trying to say that sticking to just one definition is a bit silly.
Sticking to one definition isn't what's happening here.
The original post already made clear which one is being discussed. The OP is talking about a specific ist-to-ism relationship; I'm talking about ists to their isms in general. Definitions of 'capitalist' unrelated to capitalism aren't 'other definitions' I'm ignoring, they are just not part of this discourse at all. Pointing to them doesn't show I'm picking one definition over another, it shows you're arguing against things that were never raised.