Yes it's hijacking. Something to remember is that in the four years of Trump, that proverbial uncle's life has not gotten better.
There is no absolute reason why someone who can be rude must also be intent on nothing more than stealing as much money as possible while doing as little as possible except what is personally enjoyed by the leader.
What he has provided for them were excuses and scapegoats, things to blame for whatever the current problem is, it must be the cause of X!
..which sounds extremely like using labels like 'neoliberalis'. He just uses labels like 'deep state' and 'fake news' and 'snowflakes.'
So? What does that actually matter? People who support Trump aren't supporting him to make their own lives better, at least not in any conventional way. They're supporting him so he will own the libs. Owning the libs is all they care about, it's their number one issue. They can be dying of untreated cancer, stuck in constant filth and misery, cut off from whatever humanity they may have once had...but Trump sure does show those fuckin' libs and illegals what's what, ha hah!
They are receiving what they asked for. They didn't ask for a better life, they've always asked for nothing more than an amusing death, and even right now they're getting it.
As for B,
What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
What metric should we use to judge both terrors? I can agree with you that there are certainly horrors visited by society. If you want to compare the two, I'll need some way to measure them. If there is no way to ever see the other terror, I'm reminded of the parable of the invisible dragon.
Uh, how about scale of misery and death? If 1% of the population gets a life of power and luxury off the labor of the other 99%, obviously you're dealing with an imbalanced equation. Their happiness isn't transferable or anything. It can never be worth the misery of the 99%, no matter how exalted the 1% is.
Twain says it himself - the true terror that was the ancien regime killed and ruined so many over the centuries that the so-called "Reign of Terror" could barely even register, if you truly took all human lives into account. But because of society's idolization of the high and powerful, the deaths of a small noble class are recoiled from as a horrifying error yet the centuries of dead and tormented peasants receive no attention or woe at all.
Similarly, the October and Chinese revolutions ended thousand-year terrors of constant oppression and deprivation for the very large majorities of those countries, but you condemn them as genocide. It is fitting that it was Mao who said "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" - all politics involves killing, but you limit yourself to horror only at the suffering of particular classes, in spite of the suffering of the great majority both in any particular time and certainly in history as a whole.
As for C, Can you come up with your specific terms of marxism, then? What do you like, what do you want?
What I
want is to prevent the annihilation of life on this planet, which capitalism's ethos of eternal consumption makes inevitable. Belatedly, I'd also like myself and the rest of humanity not to be pawns of capital and/or all murdered by the functions of capitalism eating us for the same reason.
In terms of Marxist theory, this means changing our socioeconomic era from a capitalist one to a socialist one, just as we once changed from an aristocratic era to a capitalist era. A society where power is concentrated in the working class, as opposed to the capital class as it is now.