I can't tell if you're joking, or if you actually meant to suggest that liberalism in the US -- the most violent and destructive ideological hegemony in human history -- could be socialism in a trenchcoat because some liberals sleep better with welfare liberal policies as opposed to the more honest and open genocide.

You know socialism was already popular in the US, right? For fifty years before WW2 it gained traction and its advocates successfully clawed away concessional labour rights and social-welfare programs. Y'know what happened? It did improve the conditions for workers in the US; and the institutions of white supremacy and patriarchy effectively disarmed its popularity once privileged classes got theirs. You're claiming to be a communist of some sort, yet have neglected a material analysis of this history. They will reward people who subscribe to liberalism with better material security, and we know it works very well.

Liberals in the US believe what they believe because they correctly identify that so long as this system exists, they will be guaranteed something above any colonized people. They aren't fucking stupid, they don't have to have theoretical language to apply intuitive knowledge on their position in an empire. Liberalism is a result of their position in that society, not some form of victimization that compromises some innate moral purity.

When I say they suffer, it's because of the fundamental ways in which a person who subscribes to that system must sever their connection to humanity and the world to maintain their comfort. It isn't because they're powerless.

Or there is no benefit to introspection. there is no party left of democrats, so it doesn’t change my vote either way.

Nah, it's morally wrong and if you are honest you will actually agree. Let me explain:

Let's set a moral baseline that we both agree with. Shooting a random person that has done no harm to anyone in the head without their explicit consent is morally bad, yes?

Now, what is different about, say, a pig that makes it less than morally bad to kill the pig? If we then apply that difference to that random human again, is it now less than morally bad to kill them?

The honest answer (and one that I can at least accept) is: there is no such difference.

What is your answer?

I'm not even sure about plants not having something similar as a nervous system. They live on different timescale, but it's impressive what e.g. Trees in forests are capable of (with a little help of funghi)

Yep, sure did. Thanks for the correction

And how do you suppose that warning response leads to qualia?