No because left means anti-capitalist. The Democratic Party is not anti-capitalist. Therefore, the Democratic Party is not a left party.

However, they are a neoliberal party. Which, when compared to the Republican Party’s existence as a fascist party, does certainly make the Democrats preferable. But just because they are preferable does not mean they are left

Russia is much stronger militarily today then it was in 2022.

What are you basing this on?

Within the context of US politics, the center left/Democratic Party is the largest political obstacle for socialists. So antagonism towards the center left seems to be rational within that

Democrats hate progressives

Democrats hate socialists. Their job is to ensure that the leftward fringe of the party, and of acceptable mainstream discourse, never moves past progressive/social democracy. The Democratic Party serves capital by ensuring a neutered American left

Hopefully this can be changed

The current structure of society is wrong and is extremely harmful. Oligarchy is an abomination which produces terrible outcomes.

You wouldn’t choose this system in a vacuum. Therefore, the system must be fundamentally altered. To oppose this restructuring is both cruel and irrational. It is the epitome of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good - you’re so afraid of change that you’d rather keep an evil system in place.

Such paralyzing cowardice is not reasonable, and it is even less reasonable to feel smug about such cowardice. If you are going to protect this harmful system, then the more appropriate emotion to feel is shame.

Lots of people die in the United States as it is. Homelessness is rising drastically. How long until you’re next to be put out onto the street? Your employer can’t wait until they can automate your job and fire you.

Also, the United States has a long history of carrying out genocide even prior to Gaza. Odd given your fallacious implication that capitalism is peaceful

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965–66

Looting may be warranted or unwarranted. But, because majority support is not relevant, we shouldn’t evaluate the propriety of looting based on this metric

The point is that majority support is unnecessary for a thing to exist. In fact, it increasingly appears to be an irrelevant metric in general

He doesn’t focus on any of those things though, and instead talks about prioritizing anti-poverty and anti-hypocrisy.

The line that the Gospels are the why and socialism is the how appears to be apt. Liberation Theology is based on this principle. Which is the sect of Catholicism that clearly has heavily influenced both Francis and Leo

That link states that no federal reform occurred. Which supports my point.

Of the state level changes, they are all aesthetic and surface level changes - and even those are now being undone.

So I’m not seeing the real change. Which demonstrates that the protests were not effective

Isn’t this just admission to stereotyping which is inherently illogical?

The US is an oligarchy. Any actual threat to that would be suppressed. Because these protests were not suppressed, what conclusion can be drawn?

What I said would be true of Russia. This is because Russia is an oligarchy and this is how oligarchies operate.

The United States is an oligarchy as well.

Therefore what I said applies to the United States.

The goal of law enforcement is to preserve the existing social structure. American social structure is that of oligarchy. Therefore law enforcement exists to preserve oligarchy.

American law enforcement is immensely well funded. These protests did not all encounter law enforcement opposition. Therefore, law enforcement must have determined that these protests did not represent a threat to oligarchy. Therefore the protests were toothless because they did not represent a threat to the existing social structure

These protests, while better than nothing, will not produce real change.

Just as the George Floyd protests did not produce real change (Pelosi kneeling and raising a fist is not “real change”)

UnitedHealth reduced claim denials following the murder. So at least that is some tangible positive result

Law enforcement will only target protests that are a threat to the oligarchy.

If a planned public protest is not targeted by law enforcement then it has been determined to be a toothless protest

Oligarchy is not supported by the majority. Yet it exists nonetheless

The United States was created by the Revolutionary War.

We live in a country that only exists because of violence. We celebrate and honor this violence every year on July 4 (and on Memorial Day and Veterans Day)

Clearly we as a nation deeply believe in the transformative power of violence. It’s literally what it means to be an American.

it chooses to focus on judgement of how others live their lives or choose to enjoy said life rather than focus on the real and tangible injustices we face

Why do you see it this way?

Lack of dense affordable housing, inefficient transportation, empty consumerism, and grossly negligent yet expensive elder care are all examples of real and tangible injustices that Americans face.

Other real tangible injustices also exist, of course. And some of those other injustices may be more severe (homelessness, medical debt, declining life expectancy, unresponsive political systems). But the depicted injustices are real and present. They accordingly deserve to be criticized

We are fighting to change it.

Peacefully and inconsistently

That’s the International Monetary Fund and World Bank

The currently alive billionaires largely didn’t design it; previously alive billionaires designed it and the currently alive ones have refined it.

Which is the way capitalism is supposed to work; it’s a society ruled by and for capitalists - aka the billionaires who own the largest units of capital

Regardless, it is this system that is to blame. The actors within the system are also contributors, obviously. But individualizing systemic issues is not an effective way at seeing the solution.

The way to solve the problem of a bad king is not to replace him with a good king; it is to abolish monarchy altogether and replace it with a system wherein the people are the ruling class