Aside from your odd definition of capitalism and its outcomes, which other people have addressed, the answer to the headline question is: yes.
Karl Marx, for example, is famously very critical of what he saw as the inherent exploitation in capitalism. He believed that you could not have capitalism without exploitation and that it was therefore an unethical system that should be defeated and superseded by a new economic system without exploitation. He also held that capitalism was inherently contradictory and that it therefore not only should be destroyed, but that it must be destroyed.
However: even Marx acknowledged that capitalism was an enormous improvement on the previously existing social system of feudalism, because it also produced far greater wealth through the development of new technology (this is a key difference between Marxism and the earlier ‘utopian socialism’, which saw technology itself as an evil, and which his theories largely replaced).
Marx also welcomed the fact that capitalism destroyed (as he saw it) some earlier forms of oppression (albeit while introducing new ones). Marx’s letter to Abraham Lincoln congratulating him on his re-election discusses the American Revolution and Civil War in precisely these terms.
So, you can enjoy the greater (obviously not ‘infinite’!) abundance of goods that capitalism has produced, you can acknowledge its positive impact on technological development and its material improvements of the lives of millions of people and be not only a leftist but a fully orthodox Marxist… just so long as you also acknowledge that capitalism is also an exploitative and self-destructive force that should, can and must be defeated.
Jack_Burton@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
I don’t know where you got your definition of capitalism “results in economic singularities and infinite wealth for everyone”, but it’s wrong. The West is currently in late-stage capitalism, which is always the outcome of a capitalist system: wealth and power gets consolidated into the hands of the few, while the many suffer.
The term “leftist” can best be described politically, as supporting the political left. The problem with that term currently is that it’s used to define non-political ideology as well, like social aspects such as empathy/sympathy. I’m unsure where you stand when you call yourself “leftist” so it’s hard to say if your definition can mix with capitalism.
Fundamentally, in my opinion no, enjoying capitalsim is supporting a system that inherently causes inequality, wealth gaps, and the concept of profits over people, which are the opposite of a standard definition of “leftist” beliefs no matter how you define it.
My question to you is, would you still blindly support capitalism if you were one of the many who didn’t benefit from it?