Why There’s Infighting on the Left, and Why Western “Establishment Left” Parties Aren’t Actually Left

There's a divide on the left, with the pseudo left trying to poke its way in. The pseudo left ideologies never be accepted in circles on the left. The left starts at anti-oppression, and that means completely anti-capitalist, not any of that opportunists, mixed capitalists bourgeois bullshit.

Democratic confederalism, based on decentralized, grassroots governance through autonomous local assemblies, stands in sharp contrast to democratic centralism, the Leninist principle of centralized, party-led decision-making with enforced unity after internal deliberation. This fundamental split reflects a deeper tension between two long-standing anti-capitalist traditions: anarchism and communism.

Anarchists champion democratic confederalism’s stateless, anti-hierarchical ethos, rejecting top-down authority altogether. Communists, particularly those influenced by Leninist and Marxist-Leninist theory, argue that a centralized, transitional state is necessary to defeat capitalism and defend the revolution. This core disagreement has led to historic ruptures, most notably the Bolshevik suppression of anarchists during and after the Russian Revolution, setting a precedent for ideological conflict on the left that continues today.

Amid these poles, a third tendency exists: true anti-capitalist socialists (not the Bernie Bro./Corbynite crap) who seek a synthesis. These groups, drawing from traditions like council communism, workers’ self-management, Luxemburgism, and orthodox Marxism, often advocate for democratic worker control while accepting either a limited state role or temporary centralization, so long as it remains accountable and serves working-class interests. They reject capitalism and both full on authoritarianism and anarchism, aiming instead for a bottom-up socialism with room for flexibility.

This three-way divide, between confederalists, centralists, and those attempting a middle path, explains much of the infighting on the anti-capitalist left. Disagreements are not just about tactics; they are about how power should be structured, who wields it, what post-capitalist society should look like, and irreconcilable fundamental differences due to polar opposition.

Meanwhile, mainstream “left” parties in the West, such as most social democratic, Labour, Liberal, or Democratic parties, do not fit into this anti-capitalist spectrum at all. These establishment parties have long abandoned socialist transformation in favor of managing capitalism, often promoting only mild reforms within the existing system. At best, they advocate for a slightly more equitable version of capitalism; at worst, they help entrench neoliberalism, imperialism, and corporate power while using the language of progress to sustain wage slavery.

Because these parties operate within and uphold the capitalist state apparatus, anti-capitalist leftists see them not as allies but as obstacles, barriers to radical change that co-opt dissent and deflate mass movements. The label “left,” as used in mainstream Western politics, masks a pro-capitalist, hierarchical consensus that is far removed from the transformative goals of democratic confederalism, robust orthodox socialism, or even democratic centralism. Which is why "mainstream left" is just another way to say "pseudo left."

Why Infighting is Inevitable is due to the very nature of their disagreements means that collaboration, let alone unity, is difficult. When one group sees a centralized state as necessary for revolution and another views any state as inherently oppressive, their paths diverge at the most basic level. The "middle path" attempts a synthesis, but even that involves navigating the tension between these poles.

Tactics and Goals are Intertwined: The arguments aren't just about how to achieve a post-capitalist society, but what that society fundamentally is. If the end goal looks entirely different, then the means to get there will naturally lead to conflict. Past conflicts set precedents and build distrust, making future cooperation even harder. These aren't minor squabbles but deep-seated, ideological rifts that inherently lead to "infighting on the left." As long as these "polar opposition" fundemental differences exist, so too will the internal struggles.