

You raise valid points, yet I think we’re talking about different kinds of Socialism in a way. Your form of socialism here is like a Cold War era form of the ism. That form is often thought of as something which needs be imposed in a top-down fashion unto society — an inherently vulnerable approach. Look to history, a lot of 20th-century “socialisms” were really authoritarian states using socialist language to justify centralized control, and they did often end up as new dictatorships.
I think what I am aiming for, though, is not socialism as a bridge from dictatorship to democracy, but as a result of capitalism evolving beyond its own contradictions. More like democratic socialism: cooperative ownership, strong social infrastructure, but still open markets and innovation. It’s less about revolution or replacement, and more about integration. A phase where capitalist systems start to internalize social equity and worker participation as competitive advantages rather than ideological opposites. The socialism Id advocate for can (and maybe should) rise organically from the bottom up.



It was once an upon a time reasonable to boycott. Now look, as your options dwindle to fascist supporter A, B, or C. That, or a single alternative who can’t actually meet your consumption needs. This is a problem that has gotten worse with time and will continue to get worse so long as nothing is done. Imagine a world where all your options for water are Nestle and similar. We can argue on the specifics, but that’s the general consumer dystopia we’re clearly headed towards. Our way of life has been compromised.