While I think it’s true that AOC represents one of the biggest steps in the progressive direction we’ve seen from US Congress recently, the use of the word “plenty” here makes this feel like we shouldn’t still expect more. I both appreciate the good that she has done while also hoping for more, and that’s really the best I can do.
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
13 points (100.0% liked)
Socialism
5131 readers
3 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 12 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
AOC is a sellout and will hurt our cause not help it. 20 years she will be no better than Nancy Pelosi. Who funny enough use to campaign for universal healthcare herself back in her days but then money got her.
AOC let her fame go to her head and she caved on some pretty bad bills and instead of voting No she voted present. That to me is cowardly.
She cares more for furthering her career than helping the progressive cause.
[+]
CompassInspector@invariant-marxism.red
7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
(1 children)
[deleted]
When they ultimately fail to contain the class struggle they will side with the fascists and turn their guns on the working class like they did in both world wars.
Uhhhhh what? WWI was pre-fascist, WWII had social democrats on the same side as liberals and communists against the fascists.
[+]
CompassInspector@invariant-marxism.red
5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
(1 children)
[deleted]
Both of those examples are from shortly after WWI. And both involve attempts by armed communist groups to seize control of the state, which for good or ill is not something we're going to be dealing with in the US for the foreseeable future.
[+]
CompassInspector@invariant-marxism.red
4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
(1 children)
[deleted]
Is there anywhere in particular you're referring to? The US at least doesn't really have a social democratic party, and the closest thing we do have, the Democrats, certainly don't have any level of institutional control of the country's labor unions.
[+]
CompassInspector@invariant-marxism.red
1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
(1 children)
[deleted]
What I mean about the US not having a social democratic party is that the Democrats are to the right of what we'd usually refer to as social democrats - at best a hybrid between a social democratic party and a liberal party. Classic European social democratic parties were born as socialist parties aiming at a gradual parliamentary transition to socialism, which through a combination of moderating themselves and being defeated electorally never actually managed to get there. DSA does have a lot in common with that earlier version of social democracy, though in the present day they're more aligned with the further left parties like die linke or podemos than the official still existing social democrats.
As for the union issue, you're not distinguishing between unions being a major constituency of the Democratic Party and their being controlled by it. Democrats are obviously not as consistently pro-union as we'd like, but they for the most part accept them as a valuable part of their coalition who they need to keep happy, as opposed to Republicans who want to bathe in their blood.
[+]
CompassInspector@invariant-marxism.red
1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
(1 children)
[deleted]
What you’re calling “socialism” is not socialism You’re talking about capitalist reforms. Socialism is the end of private property and wage labor which can’t be established through parliamentary transition due to the class nature of capitalist society - ie. the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
I haven't described what my conception of socialism is, just described one mechanism socialists have used and are trying to use to enact the changes we want. So far we have not ever seen a developed capitalist society transition to socialism, so I don't think parliamentarism has been ruled out as a mechanism for that happening any more than anything else has been.
This is all very tangential to the actual issue. It doesn’t really matter from the point of view of the struggle whether they’re controlled directly or indirectly. You’ve been nitpicking very insignificant points the entire time without addressing the main points and it’s starting to look like trolling at this point.
I think this point just seems insignificant because you're not getting what it is. Unions are not controlled either directly or indirectly by the Democratic Party. Instead, unions are one of the social forces that control the Democratic Party, which is ultimately an incoherent mess of forces and agendas stuffed into a big tent by the oppressive American electoral system that only really allows for two parties.