For a minute I was hung up on the apparent oxymoron of vague and specific, but I think I see now: vague re: what leftism is allowed, yet hyper specific re: what is not. Agreed.

I think the problem is that there are many people who would describe themselves as "leftwing" but then propagate neoliberal, conservative or reactionary politics. I'm not 100% aware of all the terms dropped in the post, but in my mind a leftwing community should definitely not include liberals, capitalists or conservatives (these are filtered out above via e.g. liberalism, social democrats, anarcho-capitalists, etc). Imo this rule makes perfect sense.

yeah this rule sounds very specific and very vague at the same time. and needlessly sectarian. i get pushing out libs but some of the people mentioned seem to imply china isnt on the road to socialism? or that socdems or dengists are right wing? i get disagreeing with them, because i mostly do, but like cmon.

socialism and the process to achieve it will be different on each place according to its particularities. its not a perfect dogma to be applied like a cake recipe to every country to make it socialist.

What a neatly succinct way to put your understanding, well phrased.

It's unfortunately conflating economic policy with social policy, and is quite divorced from anything happening since 1917. Most of Europe lives in democratic socialism, which combines none of A), with none of B).

From the power perspective you're mostly right though, in socialism it's the citizen that has rights, in capitalism it's capital. Meaning that voting and influence stems from different fundamental perspectives, sometimes different enough that they aren't opposed (like in most western DemSoc).

Economic socialism typically means that the purpose of the economy is to raise the standard of living for the citizens, this typically means providing healthcare, infrastructure like roads, housing and clean water, and affordable goods. And usually leads to equalising tax structures, with progressive taxation of the affluent, and higher tax burden in the things that exploit/hinder the societal good, like companies, damaging luxuries (like alcohol, sugar) and pollution.

Ideologically it typically means that every citizen has the right to a comfortable and fulfilling life, where emphasis and understanding differs across the world. And it typically translates to citizens having equal, unalienable rights, with support structures in place for the more vulnerable. That could be that official documents are made available in multiple languages, more flexible voting arrangements, advocacy and support for infirm, elderly and marginalised groups. I'd simplify it as: every citizen is entitled to a comfortable and fulfilling life, and all the support they need to live it.

Politically the focus is on common good, with as little individual impingement as possible. Universal healthcare and education are great investments in the national economy, so is child and elder care, which frees up the workforce from other chores. Support for the arts, hobbies, and recreational spaces is common, as is public beautification, public forums, parks/nature preserves.

But none of this is in necessary opposition to capitalism, which isn't a political system of governance more than economic anarchy. Capitalism doesn't by itself have any aims, ideology, or principles about voting rights, it simply wants capital to produce more capital, and would in the extreme not have any voting rights beyond what you can create with your capital.

In the US it translates through liberalism to policy, where small governance leaves more room for individually powerful citizens, of which capital is increasingly the dominant party.

I think this is a joke about political infighting, but I'm not 100% sure.

Presumably they'd be referring to the espoused ideal proposed by Lenin?

IIRC the dude stated he believed the ideal system was something like a representative democracy and a syndicalist labor union run government.

MList is often used as a PC way to refer to Maoists and Stalinists so it can get confusing

I've never heard of dengism before (just read through the Wikipedia page now), but that it is banned here doesn't contradict that China may have benefitted from it economically. Many countries may have benefitted economically from colonialism or from capitalism. That does not make them good politics for the people.

Yes, the capitalist road has benefited the bourgeois state of a new time.
With the "communist" party bureaucracy partially taking up the role of capitalists. Deng Xiaoping did what Gorbachev couldn't, he saved the party bureaucracy

Pretty sure it comes down to do you think we can bandaid capitalism enough to suck not so hard, or do we need to amputate. The former is democratic socialism.