I don’t know what this means, Socialism is not a gas.

It’s the opposite of absolutism, actually. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy, where large firms are held in public control, and smaller firms that aren’t are often formed in cooperative structures. A cooperative in a Socialist economy exists in a different context than a cooperative in a Capitalist economy.

Advocacy for Socialism isn’t necessarily based in mystical properties of participating in a collectivized structure, but more of a materialist question of efficiency. As firms grow to large sizes, it becomes more efficient to publicly own and plan them.

I think we should absolutely be learning from Lenin and the USSR. I don’t see what is “backfiring,” if you could elaborate on that I’d appreciate it. The thing is, the USSR broadly got many things unquestionably correct. They also had missteps, and we can learn from those just as much as we can from their achievements. The PRC learned from what succeeded and what failed in the Soviet Union, and is currently overtaking everyone else.

As for reading theory and “dogmatism,” this is indeed a problem, but not as big a problem as avoiding theory. 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.

As for new theory, there is new analysis all the time! Much of older theory absolutely holds up, especially Marx and Lenin, but new theory exists too. I am currently reading Michael Hudson’s Super-Imperialism, which analyzes the modern form of the US Empire and how it extracts wealth as a debtor country. The reading list I made has older theory I consider essential, as well as newer works.

That’s not the issue being discussed, though. In the US, there is the notion among the Working Class that just backing the Democrats harder will solve the ails of society. This isn’t true, though, the answer lies in millitant labor organizing.

Moreover, without erasing the foundations for why there’s a Republican party in the first place, you can’t truly “destroy” it. Another far-right party will continue to take its place, be that the Democrats or a new party. Asking how to destroy a party isn’t the problem, here, the problem is in moving away from using the Democrats to push for change, which historically is a strategic failure, and instead push for millitant labor organizing.

Not sure what you mean by “insanity” in this thread, either.

Conservativism is a wing of liberalism, though. They are based in the same general underlying understanding of economics and methods of solving social problems. Right here you accuse OP of wanting to stroke their ego more than solve a problem, but I don’t believe that’s the case at all. You believing in a different solution does not mean they aren’t also trying to solve problems, this is more of a character assassination than anything else.

Conservativism cannot truly be undermined without also undermining liberalism. Leftists must organize, millitant labor organizing remains the most effective means of combatting conservativism, and is held outside the realm of liberal problem solving, usually. In my opinion, we cannot effectively combat conservativism without also addressing liberalism.

Depends on the instance.

I do this. I don’t pay it too much mind, but it’s helpful for seeing which posts or comments gain more traction.

In what manner?

I don’t know what you mean by saying Mutual Aid networks “already implement what I’m talking about.” Are you saying Mutual Aid networks are spreading theory? Just want clarification here, charity is a good thing but that’s not what we were discussing to my knowledge.

As for the individualism and isolationism, that’s due to the class characteristics of the US Empire. As it depends on Imperialism, and has a large population of petite bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy, it is much harder to get genuinely leftist ideas to penetrate. The solution, however, isn’t to contribute to that by obscuring your intentions. A right winger suddenly thinking universal healthcare is a good idea won’t change the fundamental systems at play.

As for Cuban immigrants, it has been a long time since it became Socialist, and the Land Reform Act enacted. The descendents of these Cuban Exiles largely side with their parents, who tended to be against the Socialist revolution, as they were among the ones who lost out. Other exiles leaving due to the conditions imposed on Cuba by the US Empire’s brutal trade embargo aren’t likely to be convinced either.

You have to meet people where they are at without obscuring, otherwise you allow them to control the narrative.

Truth is material reality. People feeling like magic is real doesn’t make it so, and if you cede ground to these solipsists then you can’t get anywhere as a society.

I think you’d benefit greatly from 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.

American conservatives are not going to align with any kind of Socialism except for 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. This needs to be combatted direclty. Cubans leaving Socialism because their slaves were taken away by Castro are not going to have the same class characteristics, same with small business owners in the US.

Over time, as the conditions in the US Empire decay, more conservatives will be proletarianized and open to Communism and Socialism. It is a danger to let these narratives be driven by Nationalists in the Imperial Core.

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.

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.

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.

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.