The particulars may vary, but whether or not this is absolute truth in the strong, classical sense, the fact remains that this framework is the single most effective one through which we can ever hope to interpret and change the world that exists
By "economic" I do not mean "oh shit, palladium dropped half a point today, my cancer is back." I am referring to economics in the actual, broad sense, i.e. game theory, individual and social choice theory, microeconomic theory in general and so on. If you can't study human behavioral phenomena rigorously you aren't really studying them at all, as the replicability crisis in psychology clearly shows. Attributing suffering a priori to some metaphyiscal malaise is a painfully solipsistic position when building actionable theory, so we bracket that question and deal with what is. Clearly not all suffering deterministically flows from an explicit set of causes, but that doesn't mean attributing it to "sin" and suggesting you take communion is in any way useful.
We all care about the human cost of a Trump administration, user. Do you care about the immense human cost of Obama's tenure? Why don't mainstream liberals, who so rightly chided Bush over the very same actions? What does this tell you about the nature of their political consciousness, and what it can achieve?
I don't think this is a faithful representation. No leftist believes America has "never gotten better or worse." Look at the recession. The cyclical crises of society that erode living standards, social programs, and democratic rights while they plunge the world into war are literally the basis for our activities.
The key is thinking dialectically. That is, these "rights" are mere muh privileges extended by the bourgeoisie as the product of opposing forces in society. It is profitable for them to tax themselves and provide welfare so that hungry disenfranchised people don't riot in the street, steal and destroy property, or overthrow the government, because this allows business as usual, in a word, stability. The level of dissatisfaction with the current regime of social programs is naturally counterbalanced by the bourgeoisie's ability and level of willingness to provide more. These opposing forces push towards a natural equilibrium. The state we revolve around is just such an equilibrium, subject to these changing pressures. Working to build, focus, and mobilize this dissatisfaction further or drum up ideological support doesn't change anything on the fundamental level about this system. It can be opposed and negated by a corresponding pressure in the other direction when the next contraction comes and the bourgeoisie revisits the concessions it has previously made. The historic gains of the working class and democracy are not some monolith set in stone, much as we enjoy, depend on, and demand them. Nothing is ever truly guaranteed beyond the next round of cuts. The Bush-Obama years should have shown you this.
But by all means, push for more programs and rights to help people "now" if that's your thing. Or more like in 5-10 years, since the government is pretty inertial. This can't build socialism in itself, but bringing a well-organized, compelling movement for a certain level of basic concessions (that people actually need and will agitate to gain or defend, not for ideology) into conflict with a bourgeoisie that absolutely cannot provide it should create a powder keg of revolution. This is the real accelerationism, in a sense, and not electing reactionaries like Trump to "make it worse," because his actions and policies are again a set of tactical choices by the ruling class on how to respond to these opposing pressures, just like those of Sanders and the democrats.
All I can really do is point you to Jimmy Dore. He's good normiecore.
