Most people aren’t going to change their minds over a Lemmy conversation, but a significant number will change their minds over a bunch if conversations.
There’s a Mao quote I can’t find about how party members shouldn’t presume they can change people’s long-held political opinions with just a lecture or two. Deeply held beliefs by definition take a long time to change.
Whenever I see these sorts of posts I think about how different they are from revolutionaries who have accomished major successes. The latter group almost universally says you have to keep explaining, keep educating, keep persuading.
I don’t think it can be said enough that bringing revolutionary change will require doing a hundred things we would rather not do. It is labor, and it is unpaid, because that’s what a social movement requires to differentiate it from posting. I’d rather not go to meetings, or organize my workplace, or go to a protest, or go on strike – but if it’s necessary to get to socialism, I’ll do it. I’d rather not put in the effort of patiently bringing people along to my views, but if that works better than telling them to fuck off, I’ll do it.
Another part of the problem is that Obama promised fundamental changes, made only some minor improvements, then the party took a significant rightward turn (especially in foreign policy). His signature domestic policy achievement was so minor that healthcare was the biggest issue in the next two Democratic primaries. His two biggest foreign policy achievements (the nuclear deal with Iran, beginning to normalize relations with Cuba) were immediately undone by Trump, and Biden took no steps to revive them.
He overpromised and way, way underdelivered, often with a notable lack of trying. You can’t sell people on incremental change if you build only small things the other guys can immediately break, and if you don’t even try that hard to do better.
If an election shows a socialist country’s government is unpopular, it’s a clear sign of oppression. If an election instead shows a socialist country’s government is popular, well that’s clearly rigged, another clear sign of oppression.
The character has been consistently anti-facist over the years.
What was he doing during the Cold War?
We’re all about “let people enjoy what they want” until someone says they enjoy something besides your favorite media
everybody who has a retirement plan is a capitalist because retirement funds invest in stocks, bonds, etc.
The term you’re looking for is petite bourgeoisie: people who do get some income by owning slivers of the means of production, but who also have to live by selling their labor. Someone who has investments purely for retirement purposes is straining the lower bounds of that definition.
Everyone with a savings account is a capitalist
Change in your pocket is not anywhere close to owning the means of production.
Many of today’s problems were yesterday’s solutions. It’s a common cycle for an improvement to come along, be implemented, show some new problems over time, and then need another improvement to address those problems.
Capitalism was an improvement over feudalism (Marx agrees with this!), but no one is advocating going back to feudalism. The argument is that the problems with capitalism are so large and capitalism itself is unable to address them. Hence the need for the next improvement: socialism.
police state where the leaders pretend that there’s a higher ideal
When the Bad Countries do this it’s a damning indictment of their entire system; when the U.S. does it, it’s just bad apples that can be reformed away.
Trump is driving off the cliff at 100 mph, Biden was driving off it at 90. “We’re technically better” – when part of that argument includes doing hypothetically less genocide – is a losing platform. You have to seriously promise major improvements.
I’m not sure there’s a good definition of this. Your comment makes great points and I read it as respectful to comrades who might disagree, but I’ve seen similar comments called tone policing before. It’s also hard for me to imagine an organization upholding a party line on an issue without some method of policing how its members communicate about that issue.