>>764236>It's not semantics...
It is a broad coalition consisting foremost of normal liberals, the make of which constitute the majority of the politically active in the US today. Virtually all others, who constitute a small fraction of the whole, are entirely indistinct in the results they produce from that body group of liberals. It's not a matter of their being purposefully malicious, or even malicious at all, it is a matter of the power they have to exercise change being no less limited in scope or focus than that of liberals. >We won't jump from end-stage capitalism to a complete decommodification.
You will never make the jump to de-commodification period, much less through electoral or non-violent means. >I highly disagree. I disagree because the bulk of the people who I aim to radicalize to the left are currently operating within the system.
They work within the system, as do you, because all other avenues are implicitly understood to be impossible or are explicitly proven to fail. The way you phrase this actually makes me wonder if you really understand what the system is, and how complete it's control is both via controlling the means of change and direction of socialization which shapes the use of these means. >The electoral systems as they stand will make whatever concessions they view as minimally threatening to their control of power.
These concessions will never extend to meaningful alterations of the power structure as it currently exists or anything beyond milquetoast philanthropic capitalism, because the power to compel such change does not exist. >My advocacy for electoralism ends the second I believe a forceful seizure of capital could be successful.
It never will be. It is a LARP to suggest otherwise as this point, because, again, the real power of the working and lower classes is decreasing, not increasing, realative to that of the ruling classes and the system itself.