Okay, a “fdr new deal socialist” isnt a thing. FDR was a social democrat which isn’t socialist. The new deal was a social democrat policy, not socialist.
Please consider reading “the abc’s of socialism” it is a good introduction to socialist thought.
They were more extreme than the bolseviks but less extreme than the monarchists, they were just on the side of capitalists so were painted with a nicer brush by capitalist historians
We literally have. Look at the massive literacy, life expectancy, and political rights increases under literally every single communist government compared to what came before them instead of comparing them to some utopian ideal that capitalism compares even less favorably to.
This was legitimately a problem after ww2 where the politically active communists were more heavily involved in the war and a bunch of the human infrastructure of (especially local)democracy got killed by nazis
Voting in bourgeois democracy is a way of channeling political activity into an unproductive avenue. It doesn’t follow that voting is required for political involvement. And also your original claim was that it was the bare minimum, it isnt. It is below the bare minimum. You could say “it is a step toward the bare minimum” and I’d disagree but that would be more accurate to what I believe you’re trying to convey.
Okay but voting didn’t prevent fascism in those countries. Fascism didn’t happen because some communists and anarchists refused to vote, it happened because of class war on the part of the petite bourgeoisie and precarious haut bourgeoisie
To me capitalism is defined by free markets. A free market is one in which the economic relationships are consensual.
If you think a system where the means of production are owned by a class of people and another class of people must sell their labor power in order to survive (the definition of capitalism according to Marx) is full of consensual economic relationships I worry about your definition of consent.