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.

Anarchism is preferable to Capitalism, of course, but as a former Anarchist I find Marxist theory and historical practice to be more evidently effective.

In what manner is a Capitalist company’s ecosystem able to be considered Socialism? Capitalism and Socialism are descriptors for entire economies, not slices of one company.

Yep, this is the concept behind “Social Democracy.” Class collaborationism is a myth used to justify the perpetuation of Capitalism, not ending it.

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.

In the lead-up to the Russian Revolution, there was disagreement over the necessity of reading theory. The SRs thought it was unneccessary, and got in the way of unity. Lenin and the Bolsheviks disagreed, as theory informs correct practice. The SRs became a footnotez and the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing the world’s first Socialist state. One of Lenin’s most fanous lines, from What is to be done? is “without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice.”

As studying theory is necessary, people will realize you’re repackaging Socialism. This will backfire, and people will realize they’ve been tricked. This will hurt the movement.

As for Dialectical Materialism, in a nutshell it’s the philosophical backbone of Marxism. It’s an analytical tool, focusing on studying material reality as it exists in context and in motion through time, as well as their contradictions. If you want an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list that will teach you the fundamentals, I have one here that I made.

H3H3 is a Zionist who defended his wife’s IDF membership, who volunteered for raids to “break up the monotony.”

All 3, including audiobook links, are on my list in the parent comment for this thread! Great suggestions, too.

AES leaders have never been “saints,” no human has been, but the Socialist systems nevertheless have resulted in robust systems with dramatic improvements in the lives of their people. The PRC is an example, I wouldn’t call Xi a perfect saint but the Socialist system itself works well.

I suspect that this vague gesturing doesn’t really have a point for me to go off of if you aren’t giving an example. If you don’t want to, that’s fine, but I don’t see the point in this comment without one.

“No investigation, no right to speak” is a good mantra. One should not speak on matters they don’t know enough about. Vaush is confidently incorrect, Hasan more often than not just won’t speak if he isn’t knowledgeable (in comparison). The fact that it “preserves his image” is a side-effect, the true benefit is not contributing to a miasma of misinformation and misguided analysis like Vaush does.

That’s why Vaush is a danger to Leftists, while Hasan is generally not.

The US Empire being incredibly evil and predatory towards anyone daring to exert domestic control over their economies and even their own allies does paint a better picture for AES states. It doesn’t make them automatically good, but it starts them off on the right foot.

Then you can analyze how AES states have brought immense democratizations of the economy, massive expansions in key quality of life metrics like education, literacy, life expectancy, Home Ownership, and more, while expanding worker rights and supporting the Global South against the Imperialist countries, it’s hard to see AES as “bad.”

There are genuine critiques of AES countries, but I wouldn’t call them “autocratic,” considering they are generally more democratic than western countries, and moreover the needs of the people are better met. For example, people in China believe the government represents their interests at rates surpassing 90%, and more Chinese workers believe they have democratic control than USian workers.

All of these considerations need to be taken into account, and the fact that these AES states have been treated with the harshest of violence from the US Empire means they are deserving of support for their own existence.

I’ll repeat, shutting up when you don’t have a clear and thorough understanding of a problem is a skill, and it’s one Hasan tends to have more than Vaush.