Every national economy has some planned parts (utilities and ag in the U.S., for example). Most less-planned capitalist economies don’t work, either – what has capitalism done for the vast majority of people in Latin America, Asia, and Africa?

China is a major example of a more-planned economy working as well as any economy in recorded history. About two-thirds of the economy is in the form of state-owned enterprises, the rest of the economy is firmly answerable to the government, and there’s top-down economic planning at regular intervals. In 75 years this has taken China from a mostly feudal society that had been carved up by various invaders for the previous century to a country with modern living standards and technology on par with anyone in the world.

Central planning is also at the core of the largest companies in the world, even ones that operate outside of significant state economic planning. Apple and Microsoft don’t have internal divisions operate on market principles; they plan and direct resource and labor distribution from the top down. The People’s Republic of Walmart is great reading on this last topic.

If you are incapable of doing so, then your point is simply considered a rumor.

Why don’t you hold yourself to this standard?

What has been effective is the strategy of “make life as hard as possible on Cubans so most Americans will look at Cuba and think communism doesn’t work.”

don’t tone-police comrades

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.

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.

Heading off predictable counterpoints is often a good rhetorical strategy, especially when those counterpoints are so ubiquitous.

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.

The U-2 first flew in 1955. One was shot down over the USSR in 1960, and another was shot down over Cuba in 1962. They largely stopped flying over peer air defenses at that point.

That’s about a 7-year span where it was useful for its primary task. Hanging around to fly over Libya in 2011 is not the same as fulfilling the role the plane was designed for decades later.

Maybe if there are no competitors. Even as monopolistic as the military aircraft industry is in the U.S., drones open up a lot of space for competition by being vastly cheaper.

Then there’s concern about long-term sales to foreign countries, plus the corresponding parts and maintenance revenues. The F-16 is flown by 25 other countries.

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.

still gotta use capitalism to critique capitalism

I think there’s an argument to be made that this is the best way to get the message out. A book with a publisher and a famous author gets a lot more attention than a PDF on the internet by someone less notable. And the notoriety of authors – for worse – is tied to your book deal, the media hits your publisher helps attract, and being an in-demand speaker. The theses of any prominent book is readily available in interviews, articles, etc. anyway.

It’d be better if she donated much of her earnings to a worthwhile cause, but for all I know she does.

You don’t think a character named Captain America is meant to make Americans believe they are exceptional and good?

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.

Socially useful labor is what creates value, not just any labor on any project.

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.

Twitter also has automated pro-Israel community notes if you post certain pictures from October 7th.