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.

You joke, but this is a real thing, 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.

I appreciate the sentiment, but the public sector supporting the private is not “socialism.” Socialism describes an economic formation where public ownership is primary in an economy, ie where large firms are publicly owned and controlled. Segments of an economy cannot be Socialist or Capitalist just like an arm cannot be a human, it can only exist in the context of the whole.

Sure, I don’t see why these two concepts can’t be pushed together. Don’t hide your intentions or obscure them, but explain them clearly and directly, in an understandable manner.

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.

There’s pretty much no evidence the USSR’s famine in the 1930s was intentional. Moreover, it was the last major famine outside of war time in a country that had regular and common famines before collectivization.

As for this being “the most peaceful time in history,” that’s wrong, and is Neoliberal propaganda. The US Empire is still propping up genocide around the world, and expropriating the fruits of the labor of the Global South.

As for 1 example out of “many counter-examples,” can you legitimately link Capitalism itself to LGBTQ rights? The USSR had better treatment of queer folk than the modern Russian Federation, one of the PRC’s most famous celebrities is openly trans, queer rights advance more quickly in countries where the working class has control. Consider reading Leslie Feinberg’s Lavender & Red | Audiobook

I don’t know what you mean by “authoritarian tendencies,” AES states are generally more democratic for the working class than Capitalist states. I think you’re just accepting the tyranny of the bourgeoisie as outside the realm of democracy, when political economy is interlinked.

As for the EU, it’s in decay and relies on Imperialism, it isn’t a sustainable model and they are thoroughly vassalized by the US Empire.

As for Socialism, I don’t mean Social programs. I mean moving from an economic model where Private Property is dominant to one where Public Property is dominant. You’re right, this will be a long process, but it will be through such a model based on Public Owneship. Look to the PRC to see the kind of long, drawn-out process this is in action.

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.

Generally yes.

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.

Not sure how to take the idea that dissolving Socialism and replacing it with Capitalism was harmful other than a preference that Socialism be maintained.