Huh? I don’t exactly have a PhD on this stuff but AFAIK you have to want to get rid of private property before you can claim to be socialist. Social security is just an addon to make capitalism more bearable.

If you stick with that system that enables and promotes greed, you can then regulate it (rather than make greed illegal and then be surprised that it’s not working). We’d need to actually see socialism somewhere before we can judge which approach is better (both will eventually be consumed by capital), but socialism does have serious persistence issues that need to be considered.

This logic checks out at a glance, but there are three problems:

1-Not all voters understand or care about this logic. “Biden must step down” and “The DNC must change its platform” were in part warnings that not enough voters would be on board with the lesser evil stuff to win the election, which is exactly what happened. There are multiple factions in the Democratic coalition, not just the antifascist coalition. Normal working class voters, for example, cared about their wallets more than all the democracy stuff (which not without reason seemed to them like an exaggeration), and to Gaza voters arguing for genocide support to prevent fascism was—for good reason—nothing short of a farce.

2-If not then, then when? As we’ve seen during Biden’s term, the same people who were supposed to fight those future battles (see: Bernie and AOC) mostly toed the party line rather than take advantage of the weakness of the DNC to advances their causes. This might’ve made sense in October, but people had been trying to rally voters against the party since February. The Uncommitted Movement in particular was a golden opportunity for Americans to demand a serious platform from the DNC, but cult mentality took over and the tit for that tat was Abandon Harris. This ties in to #1; this lost Democrats lost a good chunk of voters and activists that just didn’t care anymore. Maybe this would be different if America had a strong left that could utilize weak liberal rule, but it doesn’t. Conservative rule is actually better for actually building the basis of a strong left that can then thrive during liberal rule. Not saying letting Trump win was a good idea because of that, just that there are stages to this stuff.

3-Democrats, like all liberals, are only weak and feckless when dealing with the right. They can very much unite and fight back when dealing with the left, as seen in the 2016 and 2020 Bernie campaigns, and how they generally deal with progressives. It’s kind of obvious when you think about it; as fellow worshippers of capital to them the right is an inconvenience, while the left is an existential threat. If the Democrats were universally weak and feckless progressives would’ve taken over the party by now.

Again, not saying this meant Trump winning was actually good for America (I’ll reserve that judgement until I see what—if anything—comes out of the anti-Trump resistance, but I’m not optimistic), but there were significant flaws to this thinking that ultimately doomed this route of anti-fascism to failure. And either way, disagreeing with this position is one thing but calling dissenters Russian trolls or MAGAs in disguise was pure cult behavior.

It’s not a fair fight, but it’s gonna happen anyway. I mean a population of perfectly exploitable labor with no one to exploit them just sprung up; why would capitalists ever do anything except try to exploit it?

Most people here aren’t, but too many have a cult-like dedication to the party that makes them say “the Democrats are bad, but we can’t do anything except Believe™” at the eleventh hour. Remember how people here felt about the Uncommitted movement and calls for Biden to withdraw from the nomination? Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about.

Socially progressive today means specifically civil rights and other similar platforms. Think gay marriage and trans healthcare.

Resilience to outside interference and internal perturbations is one of the criteria based on which a system has to be evaluated.

The idea behind leftist criticism of capitalism is that inevitably the greedy businesses will expand more and cannibalize the non-asshole businesses. Think of what Walmart and co did to local grocers. The heart attack (aka late stage capitalism) is the inevitable result of capitalists being allowed to accumulate wealth over generations and capture the system that was supposed to keep them in check, because fundamentally under a capitalist system money is power and the rich have more of it than you do. I honestly have no idea how to solve this, but the problem is a bit deeper than just a heart attack.

Edit: More Engrish.

I can kinda see it.

What about 2?

It doesn’t even need to be bad people at first. For example under a socialist society can you pay a teenager to mow your lawn? What about if you promise to help someone find a teenager to mow their lawn and take a percentage of the money? What if you do it a hundred times?

Edit: Engrish.

Nope OP is just fantasizing.

I mean fearing death is human instinct and not really something based in logic.

And what’s new about bombing Yemenis?

Okay, and you think these bombings will lead to a regime change in Yemen? The Saudis tried that first. Low to moderate level foreign conflicts with a widely hated enemy (which the West and Israel are) do nothing but strengthen the ruling government. Hell, even a full-scale war isn’t at all guaranteed to remove the rulers from power, because it gives them legitimacy that they otherwise lack. This is why Hamas is still in power despite 18 years of blockades, three wars and a genocide.

War is awful shit, but often used to end other much more awful, and less visible shit.

You do realize we’re talking about the war on terror here right? If you think there’s something more awful than bombing an apartment building and killing 53 people being prevented by this shit then I don’t even know what to say.

I want everyone who isn’t vocally opposing the war on terror to see videos like this until they fucking learn human empathy.

A toss up between Putin, Netanyahu, Musk and the highest bidder.

You know that’s not what I meant. The Houthis run Yemen as its own country, not as province of Iran, ergo they’re independent.

Please tell me you’re not trying to support the “they’re being contracted” argument, because if so, like, c’mon. That aside, even if we assume they’re an Iranian vassal state, okay and?