Also the sight of a so-called "socialist" or "radical" government managing capitalism, imposing cuts, breaking strikes and generally attacking its supporters will damage the credibility of any form of socialism and discredit all socialist and radical ideas in the eyes of the population. If the experience of the Labour Government in Britain during the 1970s and New Labour after 1997 are anything to go by, it may result in the rise of the far-right who will capitalise on this disillusionment.
- see also: the Italian general election of 1921, and the weak liberalism it brought, which led to the Fascist March in 1922, which led to Mussolini.
- see also: most governments in Europe right now.
i have two minimums: the socialist minimum (the broad front; groups i'd act together with), and the libertarian socialist minimum (groups i'd organise with).
the socialist minimum is:
if you aren't for the negation of capitalism, private property, nationalism, imperialism and false consciousness: you're not a socialist; you're not a comrade.
the libertarian socialist minimum is:
if you aren't for direct action and free association, or your means don't match your ends: you're not an anarchist; you're not a friend.
i identify with social anarchism because it describes my approach to life, but i'll broadly advocate for anything matching my libertarian minimum, and more broadly lend (critical) support for anything matching my socialist minimum.
within this frame, i feel that Zohran is a socialist (public utilities, social housing, city-owned grocers, BDS; a focus on improving the material conditions), but the focus on state-mediation (ex. rent control) over dual-power (tenant unions) makes me feel — aside from tugging the Overton window — that he's more focused on relieving people than empowering them.