I love this point because it highlights how many well-off and privileged US Americans really think. To the bourgeoisie and labor aristocrats in the imperial core, "socialism doesn't work" because socialist countries never achieved the levels of consumer consumption that the US did before collapsing. So they "failed". But when you highlight how socialism dramatically improved the lives of the poor in the countries it was tried in, they just brush it off as inconsequential. Because the labor aristocrats and bourgeoisie simply do not care about improving the lives of the most oppressed. It is a completely meaningless achievement to them. To many, I'm sure they see it as a bad thing given so much of their identity is wrapped up in thinking they are better than "the poors" and material reality should reflect that.
I love this point because it highlights how many well-off and privileged US Americans really think. To the bourgeoisie and labor aristocrats in the imperial core, "socialism doesn't work" because socialist countries never achieved the levels of consumer consumption that the US did before collapsing. So they "failed". But when you highlight how socialism dramatically improved the lives of the poor in the countries it was tried in, they just brush it off as inconsequential. Because the labor aristocrats and bourgeoisie simply do not care about improving the lives of the most oppressed. It is a completely meaningless achievement to them. To many, I'm sure they see it as a bad thing given so much of their identity is wrapped up in thinking they are better than "the poors" and material reality should reflect that.