The root of me taking a harder line that is that I see capitalism fighting vigorously any attempts at reform, not just theoretically, but as a matter of record. Capitalists as a whole seem unwilling to support reform because it would require conceding ground. If they were in favor of reform they would have coalesced around Elizabeth Warren instead of Joe Biden. Who led the push for deregulation and dismantling the safety net in the 80s and 90s? Capitalists, through domination of both parties. I have a hard time believing that capitalism can be reformed, which is an opinion based on the behavior of actual capitalists. Consider prop 22 in California and the Fair Tax in Illinois. Those were attempts to reform capitalism rather than undermine the entire structure. These were defeated with the help of a massive ad campaign (which in illinois, at least, consisted of extremely misleading messages) by massive corporations and billions.
I think it is hard for me to conclude anything but the fact that class warfare is an actual thing, and as such, it needs to be waged as an actual war between diametrically opposed interests, rather than something that can be resolved through dialogue. The capitalists don't want a dialogue or a compromise. They want their way to prevail.
Perhaps what is needed is not playing nice, but fighting dirty, because it's a war and not a friendly game between groups of people that value and respect each other. I point to the "success" of the Obama administration and what we got after us as evidence.
An alternative is needed to the ineffectual centrism of the Democratic party. Until that exists, things will continue to get worse.
As the saying says "work smart, not hard".
In other words you evidently need some kind of a progressive/reformist leadership with balls, that is evident. However if you are going to fight too hard you will probably alienate too much people which will buy into the framing that you want to blow up the country or totally change it's nature. I mean this is a fundamental mistake of your political system: if it isn't white then it is black and there aren't middle ground or out of the box stuff. In other words if you don't agree with a certain form of Capitalism then you are a Commie. What is the very simplistic logic that is basically false. Therefore it is perhaps better to change the rules of the game. What means that you say that you will simply offer a better version of Capitalism to the people. Especially since that is basically what people like you want to do. Saying that you want a serious reform doesn't mean that you are making a compromise on your values, it only means that you have taken a different labeling. What is both better and more factually correct. Especially since your country is quite sensitive to labels and definitions even if the bottom line the same.
In other words there are plenty of allies you can easily get by doing this in a right way (what isn't done in my book). Women of all shapes and sizes in general tend to like everything that doesn't rock the boat too hard. Plenty the so called "Trumplicans" are simply people that lost pretty much all hope and they don't even know what to think. There is a huge chunk of none voters that would too some degree join you. There is a fair share of small business owners that would evidently like to see some kinda of stabilization of the whole system ..... etc. Therefore the talking point should be that you want reforms, De-escaltions in all fields, remake of certain laws instead of starting a new crusade or experiments, ... etc. Also you should drop the whole socialist thing since that is just archaic term. Especially since you want some kinda of a social democracy, not socialism. Here we had a war in order to replace socialism with social democracy and therefore for me there is very large difference between those two terms. I am not even American and even with me "socialism" doesn't sit too well due to a number of serious issues, so I can only imagine how this is like in the US that is much more sensitive to this kinda of stuff. I mean if you care about workers rights at least take the more modern version of a model how to help them.
But I must say that in my book progressive movement shoot itself in the foot quite a bit along the way and that is why you can't push through. Socialist labeling should have been social democrat or at least FDR style democrat. "Defund the police" during the riots should have probably been "reform the police" or "stabilize the police". Your leaders should have presented much more details in healthcare plans, since repeating slogans gave the impression that you have nothing. Even if abroad this works for generations and it actually saves money to the people. Perhaps it is better to leave gun issues since that only triggers people that have safety issue in the current climate. Therefore if the system stabilizes due to reforms that should automatically help with the gun issues. I mean the list of my "complains" is fairly long so I will shorten.
Therefore as I said in modern US just about everyone present itself as some kind of new counter culture and that is basically why status quo in the end always wins, since everything is just too unrefined or spiteful. Which is why you tend not to have nice things, since that requires long term focus and it is hard to get through the improvisations and slogans. Especially since you are skipping steps and you just want to push for the largest reforms. What doesn't work since certain stuff you can't do until you prepare things in the terms of details (like healthcare that would require a decade of reform to be what you want it to be). Plus it is generally better to start with smaller things in order go get trust. Like rising minimum wage 50 cents every 6 months based on the amount that is in each state (here we a rising it slowly through years to avoid shocks). Fix water supply in some cities. Build or remake a few factories that went bust lately (which can be saved since workforce is still around). Start upgrading the power grid that looks ancient around the country. Provide food and toilet paper for the kids in school. I mean do this kinda of stuff and that is checkmate, your opponents can't disagree with you in front of the cameras. However if you open with the "remake of the country" while being low on details that just doesn't land as much as it could.
Just a thought.
I'm not against reform. But I've watched regulation, safety net and normal humane policy obliterated in the name of "reform" in this country. I personally have never pushed for anything other than a social democracy but as simple and obvious a need as that is, we can't get there until enough people grasp that what even is. That's where we are right now.
Exactly.
My point was pretty simple: if you advocate for social democracy then it is totally fine to just say so. I mean I don't see people ever doing that on the forum. However when you do that out in the open some people will get curious and start to google and research. What is very very important step. Especially in the country where ton of people thinks you can't have a safety net without becoming a dictatorship. To you and me this is silly but most people simply don't know.
