You have such a limited understanding of everything you profess to know about. It’s disheartening. Read Marx. Read Kropotkin. Read Lenin. Read Mao. These people aren’t the demons capitalist want you to see them as. They weren’t perfect either. But reading The NY Times, Washington Post, Forbes, and Wall Street Journal aren’t gonna give you the full understanding of economics. Socialism can work, but capitalism won’t let it.

Say what you will, but the countries with a good balance of socialist and capitalist policies are still on the top of every list, from happiness to life expectancy, to income equality to health to education, etc.

Sorry if my tone isn't exactly right. You have my unconditional respect. I'm learning that I'm just not always a clear communicator, sometimes I get fired up and sound harsher than what I mean, etc.

I think this is actually a major mental blinder put in by the supposed "evidentiary basis" of modern neoliberalism. If you're receptive to philosophy, I think you might like Rawls's "veil of ignorance". And then following from that, statistics mean nothing to the worst off in society. I'm currently fighting Australia's health system for my human rights, why does it matter to me or people like me that statistics say Australia is doing okay? If I die, then what? What value are statistics to my corpse, and all the others who have been killed before me?

I think it's also important to distinguish "social liberalism" from "socialism". This is another instance of tricky words that have distorted people's understanding of history and the trajectory of societies in crisis. Fifty years ago, what you are calling "socialist policies" were just liberalism, social liberalism in particular. This authoritarian meatgrinder we live in is also liberalism, albeit the neoliberal strain.

Socialism isn't when you have your rights accepted and provided for, it's the destratification of society along lines of resource ownership. Also, as an anarchist-adjacent I would say a further goal is the collective custodianship of the natural world and the proliferation of a culture of symbiosis and egalitarianism :) (but that's me).

I don't mean this as a slight, but I'm very sick and don't have much energy, so I'll just make some other offtopic remarks related to what you said, if you're interested in personal research:

"Confederalist" is different from "federalist". For instance, Catalunyan syndicalists were federated, in a confederalist system. The Kingdom of Spain is a Federalist system of government--and one that has very recently blocked Catalunyan autonomy. Also, the Fediverse is "federated" but confederalist in character. But you're right, it is ambiguous.

I say "Bookchinite" because I'm somewhere hanging around the anarchists, but I'm not totally married to anarchism, and there are anarchist tendencies that I have mutual antagonism with; much like Marxists I'll never be friends with. I'll take whatever I can get so there is less horrific evil in the world. Social liberals, social democrats, Marxists, anarchists, whatever. Bookchin's post-anarchist writings are the most aligned with my beliefs, values, and personal context.

I just have a dim view of liberalism as a durable and stable system with the way the world has turned out. Same way I think vanguardists are misguided.