• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
How do you expect progressive policies to get through when you demand progressive members to tow the line with neoliberal corporate Democrats who just want 'The status quo'? for the sake of unity?

How do you expect progressives policies to become law by alienating your party? It's not simply about "wanting" the status quo, it's acknowledging the status quo is going have a bigger impact on her career than her on it. Which is true. She's not going to come into congress then reshape it to her will, she's a congresswoman not Mr. Mxyzptlk. She could Speaker tomorrow and she'd still have to deal with this shit. Why is unity a bad thing in your eyes? Do you want to see the Dems at each others throats rather than working together to fix the country and the world? It's not our fault centrists and liberals have excelled at making congress their own place, that does from the progressives ceding that ground for decades because they were determined to stay on the outside. Now the progressives are in they need to find methods to make it work for them, like everybody else.

Do you know why unity is prized so much by Democrats? Without it i congress we have nothing. We fall in disarray, our leaders would be unable to discipline their colleagues into voting for the best bills and the GOP take advantage of our weaknesses. AOC is one vote, she neds a lot more than that to pass things and it is within her power to do this.

If it wasn't for Bernie pushing for free/reduced college tuition and education reform during his campaign we would of never had any significant amount of Democrats saying anything about the issue outside of vague lip service. Now it's starting to become a platform staple.
Likewise once AOC started being serious about the New Green Deal- suddenly it's major talk.

Bernie was a significant person getting all that in the open and altering the course of politics to the left, I agree. That is where he stops being useful. Progressives need more than idea people, they need to be able to implement them in congress. He was sprouting silly shit in the primaries that never had a shot at happening, like free college and tearing down the prison system, which gets people excited but are DOA in congress, which helps nobody.

Major talk is all it's been. Congress is for passing bills, not talking.

Fuck outta here do-nothing Centrist apologists. I'm tired of the hang wringing and limp wristed action. Let her shake shit up. It's time more people like her start running and winning.

She's not shaking shit up lol

The point of this discussion is that without properly participating she's not winning anything.
 

Powdered Egg

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
17,070
Looks like there's too many posters that got fat while everybody starved. Your favorite politicians will be out of work in 4 years if they don't read the room now. Bernie is the most influential politician in our generation, as far as getting lay folks to go run for office themselves. That's why every corporate hack is trembling, AOC is rolling 500 deep and they know it.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
Imagine if you went up to Rosa Parks in her bus seat and said "not sitting in the back of the bus is fine but you need to do more than that to achieve anything of note". We don't know which seed is the one that will sprout, so we need to scatter them everywhere and give them time to grow.

Wrong example, Rosa Parks was able to make herself politically significant. You need people to be more like her, which was what I was arguing. Or are you resigned to socialism being all it can be right here right now? I think it can accomplish so much more by working with the system. You do need to do that, and for that to work means learning from the past, not repeating mistakes and adding variety to your tools. Socialism has been neglected too long as a movement to thrive as it should be, it needs to grow and change to succeed.

8 days into her tenure as congresswoman of the House and already "she has a lot to learn, she needs to fall in line, she needs to be a cog that works for socialists" is not the nurturing advice you think it is. It's baseless condescension.

It's not being condescending, it's being realistic. Do you see any other new congress(wo)men getting this controversial reaction from congress itself over fitting in? I don't. This includes from other Justice Democrats, as well. Not a single bad word was said about them or their team during that 8 days.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Not a single bad word was said about them or their team during that 8 days.
Time-cable-news-spent-on-Steve-King-embracing-white-supremacy-vs-Rashida-Tlaib-cursing-updated.png

Wrong example, Rosa Parks was able to make herself politically significant.

She was able to make herself politically significant no thanks to moderate Dems telling her to stay in her lane and work with the system that she has, that's what.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
Wrong example, Rosa Parks was able to make herself politically significant. You need people to be more like her, which was what I was arguing. Or are you resigned to socialism being all it can be right here right now? I think it can accomplish so much more by working with the system. You do need to do that, and for that to work means learning from the past, not repeating mistakes and adding variety to your tools. Socialism has been neglected too long as a movement to thrive as it should be, it needs to grow and change to succeed.



It's not being condescending, it's being realistic. Do you see any other new congress(wo)men getting this controversial reaction from congress itself over fitting in? I don't. This includes from other Justice Democrats, as well. Not a single bad word was said about them or their team during that 8 days.

Your obsession with forcing AOC to kiss the ring is getting kind of weird.

If other Dems dislike AOC for refusing to play ball, good. Maybe they should support more progressive policies and then they won't get criticized on Twitter.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
Looks like there's too many posters that got fat while everybody starved. Your favorite politicians will be out of work in 4 years if they don't read the room now. Bernie is the most influential politician in our generation, as far as getting lay folks to go run for office themselves. That's why every corporate hack is trembling, AOC is rolling 500 deep and they know it.

I've heard that so many times it's a cliche. They read the room fine, that's why they're shifting to the left with progressive policies which is why they're going to be there longer. The funny thing with progressives is that their policies are popular but their politicians are not. We had a wave election, only 7 survived the general. AOC got there by a fluke.

They're upset because they don't want to feel attacked by AOC or her followers, not because they fear her bills passing. This is about the political process, not her belief system.

Bernie is the most influential at polling, he's hardly winning presidential nominations. He had his chance and blew it.
 

TheLucasLite

Member
Aug 27, 2018
1,446
If you've already given up of course you think there's nothing to do. What's happened here is Trump's defeated you. He's made you think his stuff is normal, eroded your faith in the system, and convinced you that the democrats are worthless with his obstructionism. I'm not there yet.
I think the opposite is true. That the American experiment at its best has become a Gordian knot incapable of keeping up with the change people demand. Socialism is not giving up, it's playing Alexander.
 

Deleted member 4346

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
Time-cable-news-spent-on-Steve-King-embracing-white-supremacy-vs-Rashida-Tlaib-cursing-updated.png



She was able to make herself politically significant no thanks to moderate Dems telling her to stay in her lane and work with the system that she has, that's what.

Big Media here in the US exists to further white supremacy at the end of the day because that's where they make their money. Tlaib was impolite as a PoC so that's a lot worse in their eyes. Shame, really. We should probably tear the whole system down and create something that serves the American people.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
I've heard that so many times it's a cliche. They read the room fine, that's why they're shifting to the left with progressive policies which is why they're going to be there longer. The funny thing with progressives is that their policies are popular but their politicians are not. We had a wave election, only 7 survived the general. AOC got there by a fluke.

They're upset because they don't want to feel attacked by AOC or her followers, not because they fear her bills passing. This is about the political process, not her belief system.

Bernie is the most influential at polling, he's hardly winning presidential nominations. He had his chance and blew it.

I'm actually pretty curious to see what evidence you have that AOC winning was a "fluke." You certainly assert it a lot!
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Big Media here in the US exists to further white supremacy at the end of the day because that's where they make their money. Tlaib was impolite as a PoC so that's a lot worse in their eyes. Shame, really. We should probably tear the whole system down and create something that serves the American people.
Mhm. Trump and his dumbfuck supporters don't know how right they are when they rail against the MSM. As usual they get the reasons wrong. It's not because of anti-conservative bias, but because of obstinate both-sideism and white supremacy. They pick the right targets despite being cultural idiots.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375

Which is an exception, Tlaib isn't in AOC's league as being a fire starter in the party. Her comment got some heat from Dems, but that's been it. They're hardly writing articles about not being able to work with her.

She was able to make herself politically significant no thanks to moderate Dems telling her to stay in her lane and work with the system that she has, that's what.

AOC isn't Rosa Parks, Parks wasn't a politician. Parks knew how to get those moderates on her side, so did MLK Jr. AOC is a question mark.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
AOC isn't Rosa Parks, Parks wasn't a politician. Parks knew how to get those moderates on her side, so did MLK Jr. AOC is a question mark.
You know this only with the benefit of hindsight. How do you know what AOC can or cannot do, unless you give her time to do it instead of falling in line? You're going to tell me that her falling in line is her best bet to do something and I will never agree with you on this. Revolutionaries are always told to fall in line and they never do, this is what makes them revolutionary.

"Falling in line" has been the historical death knell of ideology.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
I'm actually pretty curious to see what evidence you have that AOC winning was a "fluke." You certainly assert it a lot!

AOC went against Joseph Crowley, the dude who couldn't be bothered to campaign and who sends surrogates to debates because he can't be bothered.



She wasn't fighting the Democratic All-Stars.

I'm not saying she didn't impressively as a campaigner. She put in the work on the ground, and did all the right things to win. But this does not mean she didn't have any easier fight than a lot of Dems in the mid-terms.
 

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
When you do have someone like that it will be a boon to have someone like AOC in congress convincing others to vote for bills that support their causes. Cant do this without congress.

There's Alicia Garza I guess but I don't think she's really a household name and BLM shifted tactics to do things behind the scenes.
 

SaveWeyard

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,540
Okay, here's probably where we'll never agree. I think we've already done all we can. It didn't work out. You think there's more to do.

I cited utilitarianism because it's the philosophy I'm mos comfortable with. I think the Lockean justification, which I'm not all that familiar with, would go over too many heads here.
I'm not really a fan of attempting to do moral calculus. I didn't really have Locke in mind either, though of course his argument for revolution fits into a conception of self-defense, and you could see the anarchist justification as an extension of the Lockean justification, applied with a view of liberty as freedom from domination, and where any state by definition is domination.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
AOC went against Joseph Crowley, the dude who couldn't be bothered to campaign and who sends surrogates to debates because he can't be bothered.



She wasn't fighting the Democratic All-Stars.

I'm not saying she didn't impressively as a campaigner. She put in the work on the ground, and did all the right things to win. But this does not mean she didn't have any easier fight than a lot of Dems in the mid-terms.


Joseph Crowley was literally in line to be Speaker of the House. Soon.

If your argument is that the Democratic leadership is full of morons who don't know when they need to campaign it's not really clear that they have any justification for telling AOC what to do. She knew!

And, of course, Crowley being incompetent doesn't prove that AOC isn't capable. Just because she beat a mook doesn't mean she can't take on tougher fights. She just hasn't had to yet.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I'm not really a fan of attempting to do moral calculus. I didn't really have Locke in mind either, though of course his argument for revolution fits into a conception of self-defense, and you could see the anarchist justification as an extension of the Lockean justification, applied with a view of liberty as freedom from domination, and where any state by definition is domination.
Yeah I'm a neophyte with anarchism proper, I'm much more comfortable around enlightenment thought (and I'm not exactly well versed there).

I do agree with your general point that climate change can be seen as a form of systemic violence that demands retribution in kind. I try not to be too militaristic in my rhetoric though, because it tends to warp discussion on a board like this.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
You know this only with the benefit of hindsight. How do you know what AOC can or cannot do, unless you give her time to do it instead of falling in line? You're going to tell me that her falling in line is her best bet to do something and I will never agree with you on this. Revolutionaries are always told to fall in line and they never do, this is what makes them revolutionary.

"Falling in line" has been the historical death knell of ideology.

Which doesn't make it any less true. I never said I knew definitely what AOC's future is, just that if she continues this path isn't a winner strategically in her line of work. I am going by how congress and the Democrats works, which it's a top down organisation/s that get by on compromise not intimidation on twitter. She's not the type of revolutionary you're thinking of, that's why she's in congress.

She's already falling in line with one group already: the Justice Democrats. Who all get along when they're on the same page. This is how they won their elections, they took stock in what resources they had and adjusted their bearings against their opponents. They learnt from mistakes and increased their strengths, the same tactics apply to congress.

Revolutionaries work in groups and organisation, the better ones work together in teams they're not loners who constantly fight each other. The ones who do that get nowhere.

Not falling in line is why the socialists are shattered, rather than united, as a single group. That's a death knell for an ideology.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
Joseph Crowley was literally in line to be Speaker of the House. Soon.

If your argument is that the Democratic leadership is full of morons who don't know when they need to campaign it's not really clear that they have any justification for telling AOC what to do. She knew!

This was his failing. He spent too much effort in Washington to get that position that made him vulnerable back home.

My argument is that a big factor in why she won was running against a moron in leadership, and not all leaders are that stupid.

AOC wasn't working alone on the campaign trail, either. She had wisely teamed up with various groups like Brand New Congress, Justice Dems etc and she did have experience with campaigns. These are her strengths, but she would have had a tougher campaign had Crowley not being fucking around.

And, of course, Crowley being incompetent doesn't prove that AOC isn't capable. Just because she beat a mook doesn't mean she can't take on tougher fights. She just hasn't had to yet.

Agreed.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Our government is in shambles and you want her to play by the old rules. I don't get this. Trump exposed our government guardrails for the illusion they are. The realistic path is playing the game of politics that's post-Trump, which involves Twitter flame wars, not burying your head in the sand of pre-Trump norms and unspoken rules.

You argue two contradictory stances at once. You say she's not a known quantity but you ascribe all these achievements to her, you know more about her than I do. You say she shouldn't be the socialist revolutionary of my dreams but you argue that she already compromises with the Justice Dems so she's not actually that revolutionary at all. You say revolutionaries are not loners but you continually praise her shrewd coalition building in her own wing.

Ultimately, it seems to me that you like AOC, but you'd like AOC even more if she was working for your side instead of resisting your attempts to assimilate her and your only objective here is trying to convince me that your side should have her instead of my side.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
This was his failing. He spent too much effort in Washington to get that position that made him vulnerable back home.

My argument is that a big factor in why she won was running against a moron in leadership, and not all leaders are that stupid.

This fails to answer a key question — if Joseph Crowley was a moron, why was he able to achieve a plum position in the Democratic leadership?
 

Artdayne

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
5,015
You know this only with the benefit of hindsight. How do you know what AOC can or cannot do, unless you give her time to do it instead of falling in line? You're going to tell me that her falling in line is her best bet to do something and I will never agree with you on this. Revolutionaries are always told to fall in line and they never do, this is what makes them revolutionary.

"Falling in line" has been the historical death knell of ideology.

Ya know, that reminds me of what Martin Luther King said about the white moderates who desire order above all things and how he felt they were a bigger threat to civil rights than member of the KKK.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
This fails to answer a key question — if Joseph Crowley was a moron, why was he able to achieve a plum position in the Democratic leadership?

People can be good at some things and bad at others. Ben Carson being example A. Talented surgeon, thinks pyramids are grain silos.

Our government is in shambles and you want her to play by the old rules. I don't get this. Trump exposed our government guardrails for the illusion they are. The realistic path is playing the game of politics that's post-Trump, which involves Twitter flame wars, not burying your head in the sand of pre-Trump norms and unspoken rules.

Our government is shambles because Republicans have ignored the rules.

Trump may be breaking norms, but not all the norms have shattered. Congress and the parties themselves within remain held by their own rules and customs. Trump hasn't destroyed the Dems rules and customs within congress, it remains there to this day. That's why she's getting pushback, it exists and it is powerful. AOC alone isn't going to break those norms, to break the norms require everyone else to go along with it.

You're not going to stop Trump on twitter, people have tried. What do you expect the Democrats to do by breaking norms?

You argue two contradictory stances at once. You say she's not a known quantity but you ascribe all these achievements to her, you know more about her than I do. You say she shouldn't be the socialist revolutionary of my dreams but you argue that she already compromises with the Justice Dems so she's not actually that revolutionary at all. You say revolutionaries are not loners but you continually praise her shrewd coalition building in her own wing.

I'm simply trying to predict based on the facts I know with what we know of her behaviour. I never said I knew everything, but there is enough to make some sort of prediction. AOC's career could go in numerous directions and not all those directions are good. How you've framed revolutionary upthread does not match the Justice Dems, you've described someone completely outside the system when the Justice Dems specials being within the system. That's why they're elected politicians in congress. They're part of the system now. AOC can coalition build, her weakness is that it's too tied to her own wing. The Justice Dems on their own can't influence congress, they're 7 members total. They've had limited success convincing others, with the New Green Bill, which is great. They don't have the numbers to pass it. They need to do more of this, on a larger scale to succeed here. The problem is they're having difficulties appealing to people, which is why her behaviour has been bought up as not always being a good thing as it obstructs people who might have been allies into backing off. That is a fatal flaw unless she's able to lose that long term. She can't go anywhere, whether it getting bills passed or elected into leadership positions or being allowed on committees unless she's able to play nice with with her colleagues. Is it unfair? Sure. It's something she has find a workable solution for, regardless.

Ultimately, it seems to me that you like AOC, but you'd like AOC even more if she was working for your side instead of resisting your attempts to assimilate her and your only objective here is trying to convince me that your side should have her instead of my side.

You're overthinking my stances, and this isn't about "sides." To do her best to accomplish her goals as a congresswoman requires she be able to assimilate into the working conditions, doing the opposite leaves her wasted on the sidelines regarding the big causes where she can do a lot more than focusing solely on her district.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
People can be good at some things and bad at others. Ben Carson being example A. Talented surgeon, thinks pyramids are grain silos.

This is just a handwave. Crowley wasn't a brain surgeon. He was a politician. Either he was a good politician who lost to a good primary challenger, or he was an incompetent politician who managed to elevate himself among a bunch of other professional politicians, ones you and I trust to be competent. The fact that you don't want to think about the implications of this doesn't mean they magically go away!

You're overthinking my stances, and this isn't about "sides." To do her best to accomplish her goals as a congresswoman requires she be able to assimilate into the working conditions, doing the opposite leaves her wasted on the sidelines regarding the big causes where she can do a lot more than focusing solely on her district.

You have spilled a lot more ink than any other poster on this board arguing that you know better than AOC how to do her job. And believe me, when it comes to talking about AOC, that's a comically high bar.

Maybe you should consider that you don't know more than she does about being in Congress?
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
This is just a handwave. Crowley wasn't a brain surgeon. He was a politician. Either he was a good politician who lost to a good primary challenger, or he was an incompetent politician who managed to elevate himself among a bunch of other professional politicians, ones you and I trust to be competent. The fact that you don't want to think about the implications of this doesn't mean they magically go away!

It's an analogy. It's possible your scenarios are possible. Being good at politics does not necessarily mean he's good at all of them. It's not out of the question he could have been a competent politician who was too busy focusing on the bigger picture at Washington he lost track of back home which cost him. It's not like his seat was one that was constantly in danger, that district is a very safe blue district. None of this takes away the impressive work AOC did during that election.

You have spilled a lot more ink than any other poster on this board arguing that you know better than AOC how to do her job. And believe me, when it comes to talking about AOC, that's a comically high bar.

Maybe you should consider that you don't know more than she does about being in Congress?

Perhaps you're right, we'll find out in 2 years.

edit: I'm certainly not alone in thinking I know better than politicians in this thread, either.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
I am morally obligated by my ideology to sow the seeds of revolutionary socialism among the youth today.

No, this is actually just moral self-indulgence on your part. Democratic socialism has a much higher success rate than vanguard socialism (like, literally infinitely better) with significantly less utilitarian cost. I don't really think a clear-thinking person could come to the moral conclusion you come to here, so you're either just pretty ignorant or redefining your moral position to provide an indulgence for your existing anger. Neither is a good excuse here. Do better!
 

Xaszatm

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,903
It is interesting that people tried doing the "well if band-aids is all you have, you make do" as a serious proposal. Hey, do you want to know what you call a patient who is dying of cancer and all the doctors have available is band-aids? A dead patient. Doing "incremental" proposals means that humanity will be on the brink of extinction before steps we needed 10 years ago might be even considered, let alone the drastic changes that would be needed then.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
It is interesting that people tried doing the "well if band-aids is all you have, you make do" as a serious proposal. Hey, do you want to know what you call a patient who is dying of cancer and all the doctors have available is band-aids? A dead patient. Doing "incremental" proposals means that humanity will be on the brink of extinction before steps we needed 10 years ago might be even considered, let alone the drastic changes that would be needed then.
Incrementalism is just conservatism masquerading as pragmatism
 

OrangeNova

Member
Oct 30, 2017
12,615
Canada
Imagine if you went up to Rosa Parks in her bus seat and said "not sitting in the back of the bus is fine but you need to do more than that to achieve anything of note". We don't know which seed is the one that will sprout, so we need to scatter them everywhere and give them time to grow. 8 days into her tenure as congresswoman of the House and already "she has a lot to learn, she needs to fall in line, she needs to be a cog that works for socialists" is not the nurturing advice you think it is. It's baseless condescension.

Isn't that what Rosa Parks' actions said to Claudette Colvin though?
 

JABEE

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,848
No, they're still racist, they're just expressing it systemically instead of in-your-face slurs and shit. Like they'll talk about equality and shit but stil gentrify the shit out of your neighborhood.
Basically the Phil Ochs song "Love Me, Love Me, Love Me, I'm a Liberal"
 

Semfry

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,951
Ya know, that reminds me of what Martin Luther King said about the white moderates who desire order above all things and how he felt they were a bigger threat to civil rights than member of the KKK.

This thread is a crash course in how that quote hasn't aged a day. Things are the worst they've been in years and they still advocate for doing essentially nothing while everything burns down. As if there's even going to be a Democrats to "incrementally improve" within the next few years if things continue as they are.
 

JABEE

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,848
What legislative victories has this strategy bought us since ACA in 2010?

"She's naive"
"She's inexperienced"
"She needs to stay in her lane"
"She needs to stay unified"
"She needs to stay focused"

What has being realistic, experienced, unified and focused given us so far? Fuck all.
It moves the party right which has been the goal since Bill Clinton took over.
 

Briarios

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,238
"She's new here, feeling her way around," added Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.). "She doesn't understand how the place works yet."

Isn't that why she's popular and got elected? Because we, the American people, don't like how the place works and we want change? They just don't get it.
 
Oct 29, 2017
6,248
"She's new here, feeling her way around," added Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.). "She doesn't understand how the place works yet."

Isn't that why she's popular and got elected? Because we, the American people, don't like how the place works and we want change? They just don't get it.

Democrats really don't have any business whining about how someone is genuinely trying to shake things up right now.

For nearly 20 years now, they have only been able to make big gains in Congress or win the White House after calamitous fuckups by Republicans, don't have any real consensus in policy beyond "Republicans are bad", and have been hilariously incompetent in terms of campaign strategy in most election cycles. Despite the fact that so many of their ostensible policy goals are supported by a majority of Americans, people don't give a fuck about the Democrats as a party because they don't trust them to follow through.

I'd much rather AOC and the other freshmen risk making people angry by holding firm than simply go along to get along. Democrats are at their most disappointing and useless when they feel safe and comfortable.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
Democrats really don't have any business whining about how someone is genuinely trying to shake things up right now.

For nearly 20 years now, they have only been able to make big gains in Congress or win the White House after calamitous fuckups by Republicans, don't have any real consensus in policy beyond "Republicans are bad", and have been hilariously incompetent in terms of campaign strategy in most election cycles. Despite the fact that so many of their ostensible policy goals are supported by a majority of Americans, people don't give a fuck about the Democrats as a party because they don't trust them to follow through.

I'd much rather AOC and the other freshmen risk making people angry by holding firm than simply go along to get along. Democrats are at their most disappointing and useless when they feel safe and comfortable.
And when they do get power, it's incrementalism. Yay!
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
No, this is actually just moral self-indulgence on your part. Democratic socialism has a much higher success rate than vanguard socialism (like, literally infinitely better) with significantly less utilitarian cost. I don't really think a clear-thinking person could come to the moral conclusion you come to here, so you're either just pretty ignorant or redefining your moral position to provide an indulgence for your existing anger. Neither is a good excuse here. Do better!
Gotta shift that Overton window though. People who aren't down with vanguard socialism can settle for Democratic socialism, as long as they feel the urgency or desire for change I feel I come out ahead in the end. It is pretty self-indulgent I won't deny that.
 

thebishop

Banned
Nov 10, 2017
2,758
Ocasio-Cortez is a rare talent, and she's a welcome addition to the political scene. But she is politically isolated in congress and her accountability to any independent organization is pretty much nil. Whether she is able to maintain a socialist ideology and a hostile orientation to the political establishment is completely on her own shoulders. That's too much pressure for anyone to keep up forever.

If we actually want to see policy wins for working class people, we need politicians who are developed through independent movements/organizations and who depend on those organizations for their continued electoral success.

On the question of "democratic socialism" vs "vanguard socialism" (not a huge fan of that framing), check out this piece by Arun Gupta. He compared the statements released by Ocasio-Cortez and Kshama Sawant after the death of John McCain. Cortez's called McCain "an unparalleled example of human decency", while Sawant said McCain "shares responsibility for hundreds of thousands of deaths". It's not a huge issue in itself, but Gupta does a good job showing how differences in the *political movements* behind a politician determine their political potential. It's a really important point for our moment.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/0...e-and-peril-of-electing-socialists-to-office/
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I remember that piece yes. From a strictly socialist perspective I'm aware of the criticisms around AOC towards her left, and agree with a lot of them, which is why I find it silly when moderates tell her she needs to moderate because she's already doing this really. Any more moderation and she'll lose even more semblance of being a DemSoc, although it won't stop her critics from judging her as an outsider to be destroyed/assimilated.
 

makonero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,648

thebishop

Banned
Nov 10, 2017
2,758
I remember that piece yes. From a strictly socialist perspective I'm aware of the criticisms around AOC towards her left, and agree with a lot of them, which is why I find it silly when moderates tell her she needs to moderate because she's already doing this really.

lol, yep questions of "moderation" or "purity" are ideological black holes. We're supposed to start from the premise that the center-right and the radical left share the same "Core Values", and that everyone left of Joe Arpaio are essentially on the same team. It's unthinkable that supporting Sanders might be a compromise position for someone on the left.
 

Sensei

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
6,490
shes one of the only ones i like so she should keep it up. if she ends up highlighting how bad the establishment dems are then so be it
 

thebishop

Banned
Nov 10, 2017
2,758
if she ends up highlighting how bad the establishment dems are then so be it

I'd argue this is the main thing she actually can do from her position. She's not going to be able to single-handedly shepard through medicare for all or something. And I don't mean that as a criticism at all. Practically the entire "progressive caucus" voted for Nancy Pelosi's wretched PAYGO rules package.