Nobody genuinely believed that Trump would support Gaza, even the article says he would bring "peace," which as anyone knows would require the dissolution of the state of Israel and a full, secular, democratic Palestine. Harris lost because she campaigned to the right of Biden, who was already right-wing.
The Left is fighting an uphill battle. Capitalism is the status quo, and the US relies on imperialism using its vast financial capital and massive number of millitary bases to keep goods relatively cheap, but this is crumbling. Change works as quantitative buildup until significant, qualitative change. Orgs like PSL are growing rapidly. They are still small, but the rate of growth is large. Time is on the Left's side.
Just look at Palestine, as an example. 5 years ago, the vast majority of the US was Zionist. Now, the majority oppose the genocide. Mamdani winning the primary in NYC shows that more overtly left-leaning individuals are valued over right-wingers like Cuomo. Change works on trends. History doesn't reset every day, eventually water droplets bore through stone. The left has never been in the White House, it has always been a toss between the right amd the far-right, this isn't a new struggle, but it's one that is changing every day thanks to historical work.
Perhaps the biggest impact of Luigi and Mamdani is in showing how radicalized the US proletariat is becoming, compared to even 10 years ago. We have a long way to go, and revolution is always going to be necessary no matter how much adventurism and electoralism happens before then, but I am seeing a more united working class than ever currently.
The Left does both. The purpose of real life stikes and protests is because its proof that Leftist organizations have the logistical capacity to plan, demonstrate, and act in a cohesive and unified manner. Organizing is more important than meme sharing. Memes, agitprop, etc are very useful recruitment tools, so they should not be ignored, but it's more important to actually put in the work of organizing effectively once recruited.
Sharing memes without actually organizing is just an outlet for people to express frustration, but organizing is an actual necessary and important step in toppling the existing system and replacing it with a better one, as the hard work on organizing has already been laid out.
I'll be honest, I completely fucked up the wording there. Rather than "reconcile," I meant resolve, as in when the bourgeoisie comes into conflict with the proletariat, the state will resolve it in favor of the proletariat through class oppression, hence why I said it would resolve them in favor of the proletariat. Thanks for pointing it out, I'm not a Kaustkyite I assure you.
As far as your second paragraph, I'm in full agreement. What Engels calls the "Administration of Things" cannot be anything but an organized society, and that implies government, but with private property sublimated it will no longer have any class character and the state as such will no longer exist, as it cannot resolve class contradictions that no longer exist.
I already explained elsewhere that it isn't a binary, what's important is which is the principle aspect, public or private ownership. There are elements of private property in socialism, and elements of public in capitalism.
Cooperatives do not eliminate the need for eventual full public ownership. Cooperatives are still based on competition and profit, not fulfilling needs. As cooperatives grow and develop, they will form monopolies, long past when coherent planning and public ownership becomes more efficient at fuflilling needs and growth.
Further, we as the workers cannot restructure capitalism. Capitalism is dominated by capital. In order for workers to have genuine power over the system, we need control of the state, large firms, and key industries, without ownership we cannot pivot to a cooperative society to begin with. Political economic systems are not thoughts in your head, recipes to be picked out, but real, material things, and as such what comes next will be what our current system is economically compelled towards. As centralization is a key side-effect of capitalism, common, collective ownership and planning is what will come next, after revolution sped up by capitalism's own drive for disparity.
Ultimately, you have a very idealist, utopian view, and not a materialist, scientific view. That's why you're running into opposition so heavily.
It isn't a binary. Elements of private property exist in socialism, and elements of public property exist in capitalism. What matters most is which is the principle aspect of the economy. Liberalism stands for the current, capitalist system, but usually argues for minor modifications. That lands it squarely in the right-wing side.
Cooperatives are neither left nor right. They do not fundamentally change property relations, in that they are based on private property and petite bourgeois class relations. Cooperatives can be part of early socialism, like Huawei in the PRC or the agricultural sectors in the USSR and PRC, or they can be a part of capitalist systems like Mondragon in Spain. At best, they could be considered quasi-socialist.
The reason why "fixing laws about investing" isn't really "left" is because it doesn't alter the base mode of production of society. It keeps capitalism intact, it just tweaks how you interact with it. This makes it less right wing than, say, Nazi Germany, but it doesn't make it left, either.
I have a Marxist PoV, as I am a Marxist-Leninist, but that isn't why liberalism is right-wing. Liberalism is right-wing because it is based on private property rights as the centerpoint, and that is the status quo. Maintaining the current status quo is a right-wing, conservative point of view, while the revolutionary, progressive point of view is in socialized ownership.
The definitions you keep linking are from liberal organizations that are benefited by constraining the window of political economic discussion to the confines of capitalist viewpoints. Often, they rely on the Overton Window, which is about what is considered more progressive or reactionary in a given window by the median opinion, ie if you have 100 people in a room, 3 are communists, 67 are bog-standard liberals, and 30 are conservative liberals, then by the Overton Window, you'd have 50 on the left and 50 on the right, with most liberals on the left. However, this erases the actually increasing momentum for socialism, and hides the fact that 97 people in the room are for the current system plus tweaks, and only 3 are for radical change.
The origin of the terms "left" began in France, when capitalism and liberalism were revolutionary, and monarchism was the status quo. We are far beyond the time when liberalism is capable of being seen as revolutionary, however, most of the world is dominated by private property. It is now socialism that is revolutionary, and it has been so for centuries.
I've provided a more nuanced, thorough, and complete analysis than you have, which is why other users are suggesting you listen to me. I can recommend some good works on political economic theory, if you'd like. There's a difference between nuance, and vibes, and you've relied heavily on vibes over nuance.
Deeply unserious managers of empire continue to self-cannibalize their own productivity in an effort to go even more all-in on financial capital, all while the global south is doing its best to pivot towards more favorable relations with countries like China. When the US Empire runs out of countries to exploit, and financial capital ceases to be profitable, it will have no developed industrial base nor a strong scientifically trained worker base to pull itself back up. The US is cooked, this is just speedrunning the demise of the empire in a faster and harder fashion.
The good news is that the worse this gets, the more favorable the conditions for organizing become, and the more vulnerable to revolution the state becomes. We can legitimately take advantage of this, and gain mastery over capital, rather than the inverse. We can re-industrialize, become socialist, and begin the long and difficult but necessary path towards legitimate progress. It won't be easy, but it will be doable.
I strongly disageee. Historical experience of communists and socialists proves that hiding your actual views is a way to earn deep distrust from the people. Honesty, and a focus on the Mass Line, are what has brought the most unity and most success.
Bernie calling the GOP "Stalinist" is deeply unserious behavior, and Bernie's role has been historically to serve as a sheepdog for the DNC. He opposes the DNC like Chomsky opposes the US, loud critique until it comes time to toe the party line. Correctly pointing out that Bernie calling the GOP "Stalinist" is absurd is not "parroting Russian propaganda."
Marxists having a problem with Bernie acting as a sheepdog for the DNC isn't a good thing for Bernie. Further, this isn't "RT propaganda," it's a clip of Bernie himself. Are you saying Bernie is RT propaganda, or quoting him is the propaganda?
I find the easiest way to explain it is that public property should be the principle aspect of the economy, rather than private. Labor should be the focus, not ownership, and this helps humanity chart its course rather than guessing at what is most profitable for the few.
![Cowbee [he/they]](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c18ce632-5fb5-4888-8226-3dc55a07acc4.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Nobody genuinely believed that Trump would support Gaza, even the article says he would bring "peace," which as anyone knows would require the dissolution of the state of Israel and a full, secular, democratic Palestine. Harris lost because she campaigned to the right of Biden, who was already right-wing.