The ACA was a concession, and is in danger of being whisked away. Same with gay rights. Electoralist strategies are subject to the whims of Capital, not the people.

That’s not really Socialism, though. Segments of an economy cannot be Socialist or Capitalist by themselves, just like an arm cannot be a human. They all exist in their contexts. A worker cooperative in an economy dominated by private Capital is not an instance of Socialism, as it depends on the broader Capitalist system.

Socialism, in reality, refers to a broader economy where public ownership is primary, while Capitalism refers to a broader economy where private ownership is primary. All Socialist societies have had public and private Capital, and all Capitalist societies have had public and private Capital, it matters most which one has the power.

I recommend reading my post here on common problems people run into when determining Modes of Production.

See, that’s not what I said, though. I can say that it would be great to have universal healthcare, but that we cannot “pray it into existence,” and therefore the question of how we get there is important. Critically, this has been a salient topic for decades, and yet the Democrats have not implemented it, nor does it seem like they would if they had the majority.

Just as important as the ideas themselves is the path to implementing them.

You might find it fitting to start with Oppose Book Worship, which deals with just the problem of overly-dogmatic comrades that only ever read theory. You must read theory and test it via practice, each informs the other.

I’ll also shamlessly plug my own Marxist-Leninist reading list again as it’s designed for people to go from knowing no theory to having a solid grasp of the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, as well as its historical context.

Thanks for the compliments, though you’ve probably seen by now that I ended the other comment thread, haha. I feel that this one is consolidated enough so I linked it over here.

Either way, I don’t actually think you’re wrong from a rhetorical point of view, but I do think that you would see more lasting success by being more open, at least online where you aren’t in (as much) danger if you’re found out. In personal terms, I usually just recommend friends and potential allies to listen to Blowback. It’s very effective for radicalizing against the US Empire, and promotes sympathy for AES states and the Global South in general. Online, however, I find that it’s better to openly state that I’m a Marxist-Leninist, and explain my views on those grounds.

As a side-note, I do recommend diving into theory if you haven’t. The more theory you read, the more effective your arguments can be, and while it isn’t a linear scale this has certainly helped me the most.

There was decay under all of those, though. The US has been getting worse, using a bucket on a sinking tanker will not fix the underlying problems, we need a solution, not another bucket.

As for revolution, it is neither easy nor impossible, but rather difficult and possible. Studying revolution proves this consistently true.

I think my other comment I just wrote here answers this, so I won’t repeat myself. Just leaving a comment so anyone who wants to follow this comment chain can see where it goes, if it does.

The “magic words” bit generally isn’t true, though. I recommend reading “Brainwashing” followed by Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” My strategy entirely changed after reading these, people will not side with you truly if they already license themselves to believe something else. This coincides with the real experience of Communists and other Leftists historically, Liu Shaoqi’s How to be a Good Communist talks about maintaining this honesty in dealing with the rest of the Working Class who may not be radicalized yet. This keeps us in touch with their needs and desires, preventing commandism or tailism.

Further, signing petitions and trying to force the ruling parties into action generally doesn’t work without millitant labor organizing.

You can’t just pray progress into existence. If this second New Deal has no electoral path to implementation, it doesn’t exist, and ergo isn’t progress. To the contrary, based on the analysis of our conditions I have done, I think revolution is genuinely more feasible than passing the New Deal again, and moreover a New Deal would not stop Imperialism, we’d need revolution anyways.

Generally, people will agree that good systems are good. The criticism I have is going from A to B, ie how do we get these things into reality, as well as “hiding your real intentions.”

For the former, again, the Owenites pitched an idealized model that they had managed to get started, and was working rather well compared to other systems. The problem was that the ruling class never adopted it because it would harm their control and profits for the sake of the whole of society. Marx’s analysis led to the development of Scientific Socialism, which has had much more lasting impact and success.

For the latter, it can lead to being seen as sly or manipulative. People can sniff this out pretty well, I believe, and causes them to distrust you. It is better to be open about your intentions.

I have too, and I’ve tried it both ways. Openly being a Communist and explaining clearly and exactly why I hold the views I do has netted me more acceptance and respect. I even made a Marxist-Leninist introductory reading guide, which has netted several new comrades and still gets new upvotes even months after originally posting it.

No, I’m not. The conditions that led to the New Deal are entirely different from the conditions of today, so we must reexamine if such a program could be forced into passing today. I don’t believe there’s a path to that, unless there is already revolutionary pressure bubbling and risking the entire system.

It wouldn’t be terrible if it happened, but there’s no path to actually making that happen that wouldn’t make more sense to go for revolution. Even when congress was more controlled by the Democrats, no such program emerged.

Revolution has already happened in quite a few countries, one of them with one of the largest economies and populations on the planet. It’s more a matter of time.

We don’t live in that theoretical fantasy world, and moreover that still does not logically justify allowing a small handful of people to live like gods. I am talking about reality, not a dream you had.

And we would continue to centralize and give power to fewer and fewer hands, when we could provide much better living standards for all.

However, if you use the right magic words you can convince them that it will be good for them.

This is Utopianism, and was practiced by early Socialists like the Owenites. The problem is that such a practice never works. One of Marx’s major advancements was in developing Scientific Socialism, which looks at material reality and its trends to see how to better guide them.

Historically, this just doesn’t work, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as “MAGA Communism.” Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics. You need to be honest with people, otherwise they will learn they have been tricked and resent you. Further, this isn’t really Socialism, but Capitalism with bigger safety nets.

The problem with policy is that it needs material foundational backing, otherwise it will be walked back if the class in power doesn’t like it.

Considering we are speaking about the US, those safety nets would come from the massive Imperialism the US commits constantly. Workers in the Global South would continue to slave away so workers in the US can live cushy lives.

In a Socialist system, we can end that, but under Capitalism there is no path to deliberately end the practice of Imperialism, as it forms the basis of US foreign policy, and why the US Empire has hundreds of millitary bases around the world.

Only taxing the rich or bringing back the New Deal perpetuates Capitalism, we are talking about Socialism here, not Social Democracy. In that respect, when we analyze AES states, all have a firm understanding of Marxist theory, showing that it indeed has practical merit.

If you want to get started with theory, I keep an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list you can check out if you want.