How can you possibly create a revolution unless you move a significant part of the population much further left? How can you possibly move a significant part of the population much further left without people in the political mainstream who will advance leftist ideas?
You can be dead set on the idea that revolution is ultimately necessary to achieve socialism, but that doesn't make politicians who are de-stigmatizing socialism bad, even if they aren't revolutionaries themselves. We're in no position to turn down good-faith allies even if we don't agree with them 100%. For instance, calling Bernie "unacceptable" is a fast track to getting nothing done. You can't be a serious revolutionary -- i.e, literally willing to kill and die for socialism -- if you're not even willing to work with people on the left who don't perfectly align with you.
Free stuff is actually not what socialism means.
Did I say that? Of course not. Universal healthcare is unquestionably socialist. It involves public ownership of the means of production (M4A would essentially destroy private health insurance companies and create a publicly-owned, non-profit replacement; the NHS goes farther with publicly-owned providers). It prioritizes the well-being of people over the accumulation of profit. From an empirical perspective, even the poorest socialist countries have prioritized the creation of a universal healthcare system.
Obviously universal healthcare is not a full overthrow of the capitalist state (another thing I never said). If you call everything under capitalism capitalist, you'll get nowhere because you give capitalism credit for a bunch of good, non-capitalist things, and you have a lot less to show people when they ask what good socialism has done. The goal isn't to win some academic debate about what is or isn't socialism; the goal is to create socialism. Pointing out the effectively socialist facets of the capitalist state advances that goal. Quibbling over an academic question like "can anything be socialist if the capitalist state is still in place?" does not.
One who thinks reading theory is elitist.
This trend of tearing down people on the left with bad-faith interpretations (or blatant misrepresentations) of their statements is pathetic, counterproductive, and needs to be ended.
How can you possibly create a revolution unless you move a significant part of the population much further left? How can you possibly move a significant part of the population much further left without people in the political mainstream who will advance leftist ideas?
You can be dead set on the idea that revolution is ultimately necessary to achieve socialism, but that doesn't make politicians who are de-stigmatizing socialism bad, even if they aren't revolutionaries themselves. We're in no position to turn down good-faith allies even if we don't agree with them 100%. For instance, calling Bernie "unacceptable" is a fast track to getting nothing done. You can't be a serious revolutionary -- i.e, literally willing to kill and die for socialism -- if you're not even willing to work with people on the left who don't perfectly align with you.
Did I say that? Of course not. Universal healthcare is unquestionably socialist. It involves public ownership of the means of production (M4A would essentially destroy private health insurance companies and create a publicly-owned, non-profit replacement; the NHS goes farther with publicly-owned providers). It prioritizes the well-being of people over the accumulation of profit. From an empirical perspective, even the poorest socialist countries have prioritized the creation of a universal healthcare system.
Obviously universal healthcare is not a full overthrow of the capitalist state (another thing I never said). If you call everything under capitalism capitalist, you'll get nowhere because you give capitalism credit for a bunch of good, non-capitalist things, and you have a lot less to show people when they ask what good socialism has done. The goal isn't to win some academic debate about what is or isn't socialism; the goal is to create socialism. Pointing out the effectively socialist facets of the capitalist state advances that goal. Quibbling over an academic question like "can anything be socialist if the capitalist state is still in place?" does not.
This trend of tearing down people on the left with bad-faith interpretations (or blatant misrepresentations) of their statements is pathetic, counterproductive, and needs to be ended.