u/AuthenticatedHuman

A core responsibility of any governing body is the basic protection and welfare of its civilian population. Hamas ruled Gaza for nearly two decades, yet they explicitly mention that rhey prioritize idelogy over basic protection.

When asked by Russia Today why Hamas built 300+ miles of underground tunnels equipped with power, ventilation, and supplies strictly for fighters while building zero bomb shelters for civilians, senior bureau member Mousa Abu Marzouk explicitly stated:

We built the tunnels because we have no other way of protecting ourselves from being targeted and killed. These tunnels are meant to protect us from the airplanes... 75% of the people in the Gaza strip are refugees, and it is the responsibility of the United Nations to protect them."

By their own admission, Hamas views the civilian population's protection and survival as the responsibility of international charities, while usign resources, including foreign aid inside their bunkers.

Furthermore, their goals are fundamentally incompatible with compromise, practical governance, or long-term peace. Speaking on Lebanese TV channel LBC, senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad stated:

"Israel is a country that has no place on our land... We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do it twice and three times. The Al-Aqsa Deluge is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth... Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs."

Now, in this case, martyrs are basically human sacrifices either in collareral damage or warfare, which shows how little they care, layering on top of thr fact that they built their bunkers under civillian infrastructure on purpose.

I firmly believe that socialism is a flawed concept because:

-People need money to fund social programs

-The money comes from the "tech oligarchs" or the "top 1%"

-the bottom 50% only pays 3% of federal income taxes

-capital flight is inevitable, as if it costs less to flee the country with all assets then to stay, they would leave.

-When we fall short of funding, which will happen a lot, we'll have to increase tax rates or go into more debt

summarized by former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's quote: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Counter arguments to counter arguments:
-The only reason the Nordic model works is due to competitive (~5% lower) corporate taxes, its social democracy, which is fundamentally different from socialism.

-Some people bring up China, but the only reason it's successful is due to its authoritarian, or though debated, fascist government to keep billionaires in check, which would vaporize the public image if the DSA tried.

Now, im curious how socialist/capitalists interpret my analogy

I know this sub is ran by ACP alligned people; however, I do understand they have pretty different goals and frameworks then run on.

And since we already have people here, for more ACP-aligned and think China's system is great, China is authoritarian, but in practice (not on paper) owns the companies and controls their direction; that's fascism, and they exploit other workers, and independent worker unions and strikes are ILLEGAL, therefore operates closer to facism then true communism, and while scholars debate this topic, I strongly believe that china operates on facism not commnism, which we've had simmilar outcomes throughout history, with authoritarian-communist states often collapsing into facism. Im not saying every framework for socialism is bad, but since I got people often bringing China up as if it were an ideal country, I'm curious, and how would we prevent that or is that what you want?

Hi everyone,

I’ve been trying to think through the realistic, step-by-step progression of a hypothetical democratic socialist transition in the US, specifically if a DSA-ish government somehow gained full legislative control. In an ideal world, I know the transition would go smoothly, which is probably how people in this sub look at it.

Here is how the chain of events would realistically play out in my eyes.

-First, there is the immediate constitutional and legal brick wall. Any legislation aiming to nationalize major industries or seize corporate infrastructure is an instant violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which bans seizing private property without just compensation. Corporations are not just going to hand over the keys, so they will file massive lawsuits immediately. Federal courts would issue preliminary injunctions, freezing government action while the case crawls up to the Supreme Court. During months or years of legal gridlock, capital flight would skyrocket, completely draining the economic stability of the new DSA government.

-If the government decides to just bypass or ignore the Supreme Court, arguing the courts are just protecting the oligarchs, the rule of law completely breaks down. This turns the regime into an unchecked legislative state.

-At this point, corporations with massive capital will start buying out or hiring entire private defense contractors like Allied Universal. On top of that, major government defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, GE, and Raytheon would obviously side with the corporate alliance because they would be facing forced collectivization or heavy taxes. That means these private corporate armies instantly get access to mechanized infantry, advanced drone tech, and cyber warfare.

-From there, it becomes a full-on domestic war. Red-state Governors would back the corporations using their National Guards, and we would likely see major blue states like California and New York locked down by PMCs. The U.S. military itself would fracture. When a trillion-dollar corporate coalition can easily afford to pay defecting soldiers upwards of $300k a year, and given that so many service members come from rural, conservative backgrounds, the corporate side would easily out-pay and out-recruit government loyalists.

Personally, I worry that if a socialist government tries to counter this by seizing total, unchecked control of the state apparatus and bypassing the courts, the outcome ends up way worse than a tech oligarchy.

Think about it, a tech oligarchy, for all its flaws, still relies on efficiency, innovation, and providing tangible goods and services to maintain power, as those are the things that get the money going. They actually provide something functional to society. An unchecked legislative state, however, holds a monopoly on pure political and military force. Historically, when a state centralizes everything to fight corporate enemies, it stops producing real economic value and shifts entirely into bureaucratic survival and enforcement, leading to massive stagnation and total tyranny.

Furthermore, I feel like many socialists completely miss the actual cultural and political demographics of the American working class and gun owners.

To begin with, the manufacturing base is culturally conservative. The actual guys building the weapons, missiles, and heavy infrastructure in states like Texas, Alabama, or Ohio are overwhelmingly conservative. They are not ideologically aligned with democratic socialism, and in fact, they are actively hostile to it.

Then you have gun owners and the Second Amendment. We have tens of millions of heavily armed civilian gun owners, mainly from conservative areas. If a DSA government takes power and threatens the constitutional order, these gun owners will immediately assume the regime is coming to confiscate their firearms.

Finally, there is the alliance with conservative states. These workers and gun owners are not going to strike for the socialist government. They will actively side with conservative Governors and their National Guards, meaning the loyalist forces would be massively outnumbered.

So, from a socialist perspective, I’m genuinely curious:

-How does socialist strategy plan to navigate the inevitable U.S. constitutional and judicial gridlock without completely abandoning the rule of law?

-How would a DSA-style government avoid becoming a non-productive, authoritarian state once it centralizes power to get rid of corporate networks and PMCs?

-Are there historical precedents where a socialist movement successfully neutralized private corporate forces without collapsing into a total military/bureaucratic dictatorship?

Looking forward to your insights and a constructive debate!