Successful European countries are not socialist to a major extent, unless you use the same definition that says that medicare is "socialized medicine" in the US. Socialism is about taking control of the means of production - which repeatedly has failed (and it has actually been implemented).
The more successful variants doesn't take control of the companies, but use taxes to redistribute some of the gains - i.e. private capitalist companies develop and manufacture new medicines and the state covers some of the cost for some people; but the actual production - and finding out what products are needed - is still in private hands. That happens in the US and EU - to different extents; and not without issues.
At some point this might have been more pragmatic, but it is also progressively creating a real global separation between "socialists" and "social democrats". (And there is also a language issue: "socialist" (and "liberal") can mean different things in different languages and countries.)
so he is a SJW millenial n he is mayor?..
Going to be interesting to see what happens to the police stand down orders when Antifa shows up now that they're getting their asses kicked by those they're trying to terrorize.
Well if you want to go straight to the title of a group rather than their actions, I have a National Socialist party to tell you about that hasn't done anything wrong except National Socialism.
So far, Antifa has basically taken credit for shutting down speeches with violence and causing large amounts of property damage as a protest. Using violence to silence people is terrorism, and despite all the claims of potential harm and words as aggression, this is ACTUAL violence.
To be fair, I don't hear much about them besides Berkeley and DC protests, but given thats what they're in the news for, its hard to even consider what Anti-Fascist is supposed to mean when their primary method is shutting down speech with violent acts.
No wonder the cops have a stand down order every time antifa attacks people trying to hear a speaker talk
You could address my point instead. I am arguing in good faith.
So called classical liberals spend a lot of time lately defending the rights of Nazis to free speech and the right not to be punched in the face.
Classical liberals think everybody should have the right to unmolested free expression. That makes them collaborators. They support fascists by trying to shield them.
And what is the difference between an enabler, a collaborator and the actual thing, really?
How ironic that people that bitch about Nazis and fascist are wondering why their favorite group using political motivated violence to get their way are being called fascists.