DemSocs are great, but AOC is proving she's a western SocDem.
edit: death to the west :amerikkka:
Easy test for socdems is always anti imperialism.
Also, don’t trust politicians in general ffs
imply we need a new constitution
That's an interesting idea I hadn't considered before. Without some kind of mass line backing up those socialist politicians, the US would wind up with an even more fash constitution. It's an appealing approach, but I'm pretty skeptical.
I don't expect a lot from politicians, but holy fuck this is an especially bad take. Most of the time I'm just like "oh cool AOC / Bernie / etc did a non-shit thing. What a nice surprise."
Anti-imperialism really is a great test. Is Ilhan Omar the only anti-imperialist congressperson in the US right now?
I'll look into both of them. It's good that Ilhan apparently isn't alone.
I saw a tweet calling her "gusanx"
Thought that was pretty funny
No I think she's right. Cruelty is the point of most US policies directed at Latin America
Love to both sides a genocidal embargo and a shitty attempt at a color revolution.
:AyyyyyOC: :haram:
Christ, isn't she Puerto Rican? Shouldn't she know how this shit works?
Ugh. Where's Ilhan Omar on this? Please tell me she's not falling for this bullshit.
I'm Puerto Rican. Most here are even worse than mainland Americans, because literally from the moment we're born we're taught that Cuba is the problem child of the Caribbean where people are poor and they're all starving etc. etc. Honestly I'm sure a lot of Puerto Ricans would see this statement and think she's being far too soft on Cuba.
Someone said Illhan liked some tweet saying Jeff Bezos should help the Cubans.
So you compare a country to what it came from, with all its imperfections... and those who demand instant perfection, the day after the revolution they get up and say "are there civil liberties for the fascists?? Do they get to have their newspapers and their radio programmes? Are they gonna be able to keep all their farms?"
The PASSION that some of our liberals feel the day after the revolution - the passion and concern they feel for the fascists, the civil rights and civil liberties of those fascists - who were dumping and destroying and murdering people before.
My criteria is - what happens to those people that couldn't read? What happens to those babies that couldn't eat, that died of hunger? See that's why I support revolution. The REVOLUTION that feeds the children gets my support.
- Parenti
I don’t, saw it posted in the r/genzedong thread I made for the meme.
edit: found it. it’s from part of a speech he gave on Cuba
I am never entertaining the notion that these assholes are worth tactically supporting again. If you cannot do the most basic support for revolutionaries, if you cannot cease for 5 seconds being a tool for imperialism and colonialism, you are not a socialist and can go fuck yourself
Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy.
There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.
J V Stalin :stalin-gun-1::stalin-gun-2:
Varsity Stalin really upped his game when he faced off against the kulaks.
That’s why he inhaled all that grain, like a Georgian Kirby; he was trying to get in shape for varsity
I'm glad this shows her full statement, unlike the other AOC bad post up right now. Omitting her unequivocal call for the end of the embargo (and her emphatic description of it as cruelty for cruelty's sake) is chud-tier bullshit. You can't do more to twist someone's words than posting only their cringe stuff and cutting out the legitimately good stuff they say that's better than what you'd hear from 99% of U.S. politicians.
The #1 part of every leftist conversation about Cuba is ending the embargo. Here we have a federal elected official calling for exactly that. The fact that so many people here can't even muster critical support is fucking embarrassing.
Sorry, but I don't give a single shit that she calls for an end to the embargo when she had to preface it with mUh cUba aUthoRitAriAn gOmmULiSm nO fOoD.
Stop making excuses for these people, they are not on our side.
This is the road to purity testing the left into a thousand different insignificant reading groups.
If we want to actually accomplish anything, we need people who can do mainstream politics. Sometimes that means prefacing the #1 thing the left wants to do regarding Cuba with some mealy-mouthed lib shit. When someone comes along and figures out how to do mainstream politics while saying "every country you've been taught to hate for generations is good, actually," I'll support them wholeheartedly. Until then, shitting all over a congressperson calling for the end of the embargo is what you do if you want to lose.
You know what, imagine Trump said this -- word for word. People here would be doing backflips over how great the comments on the embargo were, they'd be saying no Democrat would ever say that, and they'd gloss over the first part because it's expected that someone who grew up in the most anticommunist country on the planet would have some of that left over. When you treat Trump's comments more generously than AOC's, your priorities are fucked.
Yeah no.
First, there is nothing to strategize about. We are not organized. AOC gets to lie and call herself a socialist in part because there are no socialist orgs large enough and minimally principled enough to even ask the question, "should we call that out?" Instead, these bourgeous-adjascent lib politicians drop morsels of Twitter-friendly talking points that "the left" picks up and either celebrates or rejects. There flow of power and information is top-down. We are just socialists on the internet commiserating.
Second, while we're attempting to talk about building something that actually could have such thing as a "purity test" (cool reference, Neera Tanden), i.e. minimally disciplined socialist organizations, we're going to have to actually have principles and discipline or there is exactly zero point to organizing. In this, there will always be a balance to strike between adhering to principles and discipline vs. embracing diversity of thought for growth purposes: what positions are worth enforcing and which are not?
Imperialism is the worst violence created by capitalism and the United States in particular. It's responsible for truly overwhelming amounts of death, injury, disposession, and misery for the most cynical and even pointless of reasons. It is also the most destructive to existing socialist countries, like hey fucking Cuba. Telling others that it's a "purity test" to prioritize the most impactful thing is disrespecting these violent realities and those who recognize them. You need a damn good reason to condescend to criticizing this regime change propaganda mouthpiece when they spread regime change propaganda under the banner of socialism.
I assume you don't know or aren't aware of anyone, or anyone who knows anyone, who's suffered and died at the hands of casual imperialist sociopathy. Must be nice.
Oh yeah, I remember that.
Those Chapos would be (more than a proportionate fraction being Westerners) leftists who haven't fully shed the casual imperialism that turns the liberal human rights Kabuki into a weapon. They don't see that the (possibly valid, though not usually) human rights talking point isn't actually about whether you personally agree with it, which is how liberals process so much of politics. It might even be part of their sense of personal fulfillment, where political talking points are about being officially "informed" without actually knowing enough to sift out sufficient BS. They don't see that the talking points feed into manufacturing consent for the strategic violence of the state department, that it gives life to a media cycle with a tendency to whip up consent to war. That it is often just about giving cover for these pols to vote for imperialist legislation.
I feel like this is in a similar domain as the baby leftists who only care about Medicare for All.
I guess the best we can do is educate those who will listen and dunk on those unwilling.
Struggle sessions can be extremely productive as long as comrades keep on topic and stay calm(ish).
This thread is doing pretty good at that. Having to mod less than I thought. Also how the fuck do the sitemods do this for the entire site? This shit is time consuming.
That was me years back, it takes a long time to learn, even if you're enthusiastic about that stuff.
Imperialism is the worst violence created by capitalism and the United States in particular.
Too bad we don't have anyone calling for an end to the most glaring example of imperialism towards Cuba.
You know what, imagine Trump said this – word for word. People here would be doing backflips over how great the comments on the embargo were, they’d be saying no Democrat would ever say that, and they’d gloss over the first part because it’s expected that someone who grew up in the most anticommunist country on the planet would have some of that left over. When you treat Trump’s comments more generously than AOC’s, your priorities are fucked.
:what-the-hell:
For the record I think you're pretty much right, but it's just depressing that AOC is one of the most left wing figures in mainstream American politics and this is the level she's at.
Lmao. What part of "We are seeing Cubans rise up and protest for their rights like never before" is twisting someone's words? What does she think happened during the revolution? Literal gusano propaganda and you are still defending a politician who thinks Biden putting kids in cages is better than Trump and one who is still on the China Bad train while her own country is out there killing millions of people overseas. Fuck off with that imperialism apologist bs.
What part of “We are seeing Cubans rise up and protest for their rights like never before” is twisting someone’s words?
I don't know, maybe the part where people are quoting all the bad stuff and omitting all the good stuff?
because the bad stuff matters. Because providing ammo for the empire and making the face of the "progressive" left in america support cold warrior lines is more harmful than that voice saying the embargo should end. Obama fucking tried to end the embargo, saying that does not mean much when you stoke the fires of counter revolution
People should see her full statement, but it's not helping anyone. "Every justification you have for frothing at the mouth to invade Cuba is correct, but we shouldn't do anything about it" is the most harmful form of liberal compromise you can make in as statement like this. It's attempting to look 'reasonable' to your opponents in a way that undercuts any point you're trying to make. This statement is a sandbag to the left, gives cover to democrats to hem and haw for a bit before continuing the embargo, and enrages the right. All this says to the right, and right-leaning democrats is that "Even the left agrees that Cuba is an evil dictatorship, they just don't have the stomach for the violence that needs to be done."
but we shouldn’t do anything about it
Literally calling for the end of the embargo
No, Segorinder has it right I think. She's making the kind of move you saw some demorcats pull in the lead up to the Iraq War. They oppose war but agree with all the premises to war. It's mollifies the left and creates cover against any anti-imperialist protest movement that might pop up.
"Those commies are crazy! Even AOC can see that Cuba is Bad and Not Good!"
Right, but she starts by riling people up about the "anti-democratic" government doing "gross violations of civil rights". If you believe in that (and AOC says you should) then ending the embargo does nothing to solve that problem.
One of three things is going on here:
- She's sincere about the "anti-democratic" comments but insincere about ending the embargo (but for some reason said it anyway).
- She's sincere about ending the embargo but insincere about the "anti-democratic" comments (but for some reason said it anyway).
- She's sincere about both, maybe because she knows enough to understand that the embargo is bad, but still hasn't come around to the fact that the Cuban government is actually democratic.
Option 3 looks like the most plausible to me.
I don't know or care what AOC personally believes about this, the effect of her statement is to manufacture consent for regime change, then turn around and say 'but let's not do that'.
She literally called for an end to the embargo. It's ridiculous to portray a statement expressly opposed to our policy towards Cuba as supportive of our policy towards Cuba.
Textually, the argument that she's making is a left wing one, but by making 'concessions' to state department talking points, she's muddying left wing arguments and strengthening right wing ones, and doing more harm than good.
Saying the embargo should end is great, but when you just finished giving statements that are going to get americans bloodthirsty for regime change, pulling a 180 like that isn't going to work. It either leads people to think we need to do regime change through other methods, or like I said, makes people think that leftists actually want regime change, but don't have the stomach for it.
I partly agree with you. The thing I don't exactly agree is, she didn't have to use regime change arguments. She could have stated how the people are suffering and how lifting the sanctions could ease the suffering. She does that thing where she explains herself before even being under attack
I can imagine a better statement, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the person who has to operate in an environment where she's the only sitting congressperson (and probably the only congressperson in decades) to call for the end to the embargo. A politician who openly said the consensus opinion of this place would never get any measure of political power. Do we want to have any power, or do we want to be on the sidelines patting each other on the back about how perfect our takes are?
The bottom line is she suggested something that's far to the left of any national politician on this issue, and that's the #1 thing the U.S. could do to end its imperialism towards Cuba. This place is slipping into dead-end ultraleft territory if our collective response is that this makes her worse in our eyes, not better.
The "shouldn't do anything about it" is about presenting regime change talking points without calling for regime change.
"End the embargo because it's senseless cruelty" is a regime change talking point?
You're reading a statement that says "end the embargo" as support for regime change, and you want to talk about good faith?
You're being intentionally obtuse or are too tired to have this conversation and should consider logging off. It is very clear what we're all referring to regarding regime change talking points. Take five minutes to stop straw manning everyone and actually deal with your comrades' points.
Yes, a statement that includes "end the embargo" also has a bunch of regime change talking points. In fact, it leads with them. Did you miss that? Do you need us to walk you through the statement? Of course not, you are a perfectly competent human.
So yes, please try to have good faith with comrades. Actually attempt to understand what they're saying rather than going for the really fucking stupid lazy dunk.
You’re being intentionally obtuse or are too tired
Did you miss that? Do you need us to walk you through the statement?
please try to have good faith with comrades
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
I'll take that as a no. I hope you at least enjoy misrepresenting your comrades for your socdem.
You’re being intentionally obtuse or are too tired to have this conversation and should consider logging off.
The top line of the statement expresses support for pro-regime change protests and parrots bogus claims about "anti-democracy activities" on the part of the Cuban government. Her statements about being against the embargo ring hollow after leading with that. This statement is still unfortunately imperialist dogshit, even with the full context.
Exactly. She's doing the legwork for anyone that is going to make an argument against ending the embargo with her the first part of her statement.
That's not without even taking into the account that she's practically spitting in the face of the majority of Cubans who support the government. Supporting the Cuban people also means supporting the government that they are behind. It doesn't have to be done explicitly.
Most of us aren't expecting her to go out there and say that Diaz and the Cuban government have her full support. But feeding into the narrative that had been created isn't going to help much either. Had her statement omitted the first part it would have been fine.
So she doesn't want to end the embargo, yet she's emphatically calling for an end to the embargo?
She wants to end the embargo, yet she uncritically repeats the reasons the U.S uses to justify the embargo?
She obviously doesn't think those reasons justify the embargo, otherwise she wouldn't be calling for the end of it.
Eh. I'm just commenting how, for as much as we all get up in arms about what she said or hypothetically should have said, it's all meaningless without the presence of enforceable party message discipline. She won't lose her DSA membership over this. She doesn't and never has had to answer to the party and its members about her public comments. That's regretable, and its's part of why stuff like this keeps happening.
Why would she lose her DSA membership over calling for an end to the Cuban embargo? That's what the left's been asking for since the embargo started!
Because of the stuff she put in front of asking for the end of the embargo? Having a Party Line means having more control over messaging so you get more good stuff - like calling for the end of the embargo - and less bad stuff - like (maybe unintentionally) broadcasting imperialism.
I didn't say she doesn't want to end the embargo. I'm saying that by feeding into the narrative she's make it easier for those who support the embargo to use her own words against her.
"Sure they are eating babies but we shouldn't stop them because that would be worse" basically.
I don't know. They say if you are given an apology you should ignore everything before the "but." Does that apply to press corp statements? The "but" is actually missing in this one but it has the same turn -- an interesting rhetorical choice.
The second half seems more impassioned, but it's a waste of time to go down Trumpean rabbit holes just to convince yourself of what she's really saying.
Speaking of, the platitudes in the first line could be slotted wholesale into a Trump speech -- "like never before"? Come on, does she really believe this American media hyped up waste of time is the biggest protest ever in Cuba?
All that said, who the hell is still arguing for an embargo? I thought we were supposed to start normalizing like 2 election cycles ago?
All that said, who the hell is still arguing for an embargo?
Hexbear dot net is pretty far removed from the real world:
Just last month, the U.S. opposed a United Nations resolution to condemn the six-decade embargo on Cuba — a move that, according to the New York Times, was seen as a litmus test of Biden’s willingness to reverse the actions from the previous administration. The Obama administration, when Biden served as vice president, chose to abstain from voting on the UN resolution instead of directly opposing it.
Bad and gross. It would be interesting if UN resolution vote results were actually discussed in our news cycles instead of non-stories like the protest. It really demonstrates how far the US is out of step with
the rest of the worldreality.I refuse the position that Trump was a not-in-all-ways-bad, could-have-been-worse president because he gave us an interregnum on US imperialism. He talked the talk of isolationism but he reversed the thaw on Cuba and sunk our relations with China.
Glad to see Biden is proudly continuing his legacy on both of those fronts.
All that said, who the hell is still arguing for an embargo?
The ruling class, Floridian gusanos, and Langley.
All that said, who the hell is still arguing for an embargo?
A whole lot of libs and conservatives.
I’m glad this shows her full statement
I am too. We should be criticizing politicians for the full context of what they said. The call for an end to the embargo at the end makes this less bad, but the regime change stuff at the beginning is horrible and why I can’t give critical support in this instance.
I'm honestly at a loss for how people read a statement that includes "end the embargo, it's cruelty for cruelty's sake" and interpret that as supportive of regime change. If you're directly calling for an end to the most destructive U.S. policy towards Cuba, it's pretty clear you don't support Bay of Pigs Episode II.
I get what you’re saying and I think we’re just focused on different parts of the statement.
The first half is what I’ve got an issue with since it’s repeating imperialist propaganda about Cuba, which feeds into the effort to manufacture consent for regime change. The second half calling for the end of the embargo is fine.
I think AOC is generally a positive for the left in the imperial core since she brings people into the pipeline, but it’s frustrating to see leftist figures furthering imperialism.
I agree that calling Cuba undemocratic is bad. Whatever her intentions, you're right, it fits in with the imperial narrative towards Cuba.
But what do people think mainstream politics entails? And I'm not talking about electoral politics, I'm talking about any sort of politics mainstream enough to appeal to a major part of the population. Do people really think a politician would get anything done if they said "Cuba is more democratic than the United States, and not only should we end the embargo tonight, but we should pay them reparations for the last century of colonialism?" Look at how Bernie got roasted for extremely tepid praise of Cuba. Look at all the people to the left of the Democratic Party who haven't come around to supporting AES states. What value is there to having perfect leftist opinions if you never get the power to do anything?
We not going to get anywhere if we yell "social fascist!" at people who are further left than 99% of U.S. politicians. It is frustrating, but there's no easy path here.
I see what you’re saying. I don’t expect aggressive support of AES from a moderate socialist in the imperial core, but I do expect leftist politicians to be selective about commenting on topics they can’t (currently) win on or play politics and focus on the positives.
Eg A message of support for the cuban people in need of medical supplies and then pivoting to the embargo.
Reiterating the “cuba evil” propaganda is counterproductive to the political goals I assume AOC is (hopefully) working towards. It’s one more moment of anti-communist propaganda from someone who is often on our side. It shows a lack of solidarity and that’s worrying.
If I was talking with a lib or chud I’d be more coded in my language, but I’m talking shit with you and other comrades. Important for us to have a space to do that.
I can imagine a better statement, too, but she needs to reach an audience much broader than a lefty forum full of DPRK emojis. We want to build a mass movement, right? Building a mass movement involves saying things that don't get you written off as too radical to take seriously.
This is a great site, but we can't lose touch with the real world. We're judging politicians by the standards of this place, which are incompatible with the type of rhetoric you have to use if you're a politician trying to reach mass numbers of people. You mention the importance of coded language when talking to libs or chuds -- that's what politicians have to do.
Yeah, I think we’re in agreement here. If I’m being charitable, I think AOC severely overshot on any coded language she was using. If I’m being more militant, I chalk it up to imperial core brainworms. Social chauvinism is a real thing and takes effort to work through.
Either way, fingers crossed that she becomes more anti-imperialist. Calling for an end to the embargo is a good start, it’s unfortunate it was mixed in with condemnation of the Cuban people and their revolution.
Yeah, I think this is a good read on everything.
:fidel-salute:
I see OC, I pin OC. Is it fine for me to repost this on reddit with a watermark to get the word out about the site?
This is just Diaz-Canel's speech in the second half but she had to add a whole fucking shitlib thing in the beginning.
Fuck this fucking country and fuck every single person that takes the mantle of democrat or republican. There are no good ones.
Started reading through this. Have the "AOC good vs bad" struggle, but don't make it weird and remember we're all comrades. Anything sexist/ reactionary will be removed and you'll probably get a comm ban.
CW misogyny
Had to ban someone from the comm already for ranting about her genitals. I think they were trying to claim someone else was sexist, but they started in with that which is... :cringe: .
Also if something shitty gets left up, that just means I fell asleep before I saw it.
Edit: the reports for this thread are a mess, so I’m sure I probably missed stuff. I’ll take another look tomorrow.
Argue about the contradictions of being a socialist politician in the imperial core and assume good faith. This is a discussion worth having.
Hell world outcome: They lift the embargo, but do it at the same time as an assassination / coup attempt. The resulting shock / disorganization to Cuba's economy allows the CIA to push an entrepreneurial SocDem into power under the pretext that the Cuban gov is intentionally not reopening trade fast enough.
