I get that most leftists won't consciously lead with that hot of a take. But we have it all over this public forum that libs frequently wander into, so you can tell a lot of folks who'll lead with "AOC is not a path to revolutionary change" will break out "social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism" after about two beers. And I'd say those are two very different concepts.
Then when they push back we'll give historical precedence and evidence. My experience with MLs was having them be clearly correct in a way that a lot of others weren't and then they would say wack shit like "AOC is a fascist" but I'd stick around anyway and now I understand why it's true. I think it's generally good for us to always be honest
they would say wack shit like "AOC is a fascist" but I'd stick around anyway
How much of this is survivor bias? How many people punched out at that wack shit and never came back?
Being honest is important, but so is knowing the difference between a topic you are solidly, unambiguously correct on (stuff like the Nazis pulling directly from the U.S. treatment of natives) and a theoretical point that is debatable and ultimately has no provable answer. Honesty works when someone who desperately wants to believe you're lying digs deeper and only finds more evidence that you're right. It doesn't land the same when you're talking about a topic that a skeptical reader can't prove to themselves in the same way.
What is the point here? What do you think the left stands to gain by calling her a fascist?
The useful part of this discussion is "she's a dead end for any real leftist movement." Calling her a closet Nazi adds nothing and clocks as "wack shit" even to people who eventually become leftists!
We clown on Israeli officials for not realizing how unhinged they sound to people who don't already agree with them -- this is the exact same thing.
It breaks the illusion that she is an ally in any way or that the avenues she took to power can be pursued by ourselves. They cannot. We won't plan around her at all and will instead dismiss her praise and admonish her resistance; and if the time ever comes understand she'll advocate the same insane violence against us that the fascists will.
Edit: this isn't to reduce her to "just" a fascist. We don't treat her the same way we treat the proud boys. But she's a social democrat, which is the left wing of fascism and when push comes to shove she will absolutely side with capital.
It's still fundamentally the truth, provable with historical precedence and her clear actions. Besides, posters like you will appear to be a calm and rational voice to my outrageous rhetoric. I think ultimately it comes out to a balance with both of these socialist perspectives given.
Actually yes, the point of Marxism Leninism is that it follows Scientific Socialism, so the vast majority of things are no longer an opinion but simply a bank of knowledge that's grown over time with hypothesis and proven results, so that some issues are resolved and we need not seriously discuss them as they won't change in this mode of society (bourgeois led).
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.
~ 1924, nearly one hundred years ago in Concerning the International Situation
Historically this has been shown time and time again. SPD in Germany cooperating with the freikorps during the Spartacist Revolution. Italian Social Democrats cooperating with Mussolini. The failed unity against naziism of the socialists and social Democrats. Labour cooperating with the Anglo empire to liquidate those colonized, labour cooperating with the American empire to liquidate Iraqis, progressive elements in the US having dogshit foreign policy because it may lead to better outcomes here if they shut up (Bernie supporting Israel and bombing Yugoslavia to smithereens). Etc. We can simply look at the course of AOC's career and see the same things appear time and time again. Fascism isn't just Nazis, it's the entire apparatus the bourgeois state uses and will use to attempt to annihilate leftists when they present any challenge whatsoever. It's not wrong to apply these historical teachings to today's figures when the reasons for it happening haven't changed.
I also once would all read this and find it ridiculous, but frankly, the longer you spend organizing IRL and interacting with the state and other leftists, the clearer this all becomes. I've gone from an anarchist to a staunch ML because MLs are almost always correct and willing to correct themselves when they aren't (Cuba and LGBT). When I say AOC is a fascist, I know I won't convince those who haven't tried to organize IRL, but the real heads who know will know. And those who care about Palestinians being liquidated by the United States will come to this understanding as well.
Edit: the point is having a sound analysis for MLs so they can properly engage with and tear down the world's order. Figures like you can act as the milquetoast that gets others on board, whereas eventually when engaging with the reality of the world they will understand and appreciate our seemingly extreme rhetoric.
I'm aware of the concept of scientific socialism. It does not mean we can perfectly predict the future, and it certainly does not mean we can perfectly predict future actions down to an individual level (AOC's).
We could spend all day listing the differences between Germany and the USSR in the 1920s and the U.S. in the 2020s. If you want to be scientific, tell me how the predictive value of an experiment changes when you spend a century altering key inputs before running it again.
It depends, have the key inputs truly changed, or have the same incentives which cause social democrats to prop up empire and far right regimes when push comes to shove remained the same.
When push comes to shove, these social democrats abandon all realistic modes of progressive change and instead ask us to stay within the system. When we don't they support the system coming down on us hard; if any real revolution or change were to occur it's clear she would stand on the side of the bourgeoisie like an old fashioned uncle tom. The fundamental incentives have not changed in over one hundred years; they value staying in the master's house more than liberation.
There clearly is, but you'd be a fool not to see that the same incentives have not changed whatsoever for social democrats to continue aiding and abetting fascism. Has AOC even made a statement against bombing the only outside force who's taken clear and successful military action against the zionist entity? Is it only fascism when ? If we take a clear definition of fascism as a tool of the bourgeois class/liberals to forcibly cut down opposition to their rule by whatever means necessary when they're actually in genuine danger, would the attacks on Yemen not constitute utilization of a fascist machine? Is she not already carrying water for fascism? I don't mean this as hypotheticals or predicting the future; she's already doing exactly what I'm talking about and it's clear how this can and will escalate as things get worse.
We're repeating the same things to each other, so this is the last comment I'll make.
It does not matter if you are right
It does not matter if you are right
It does not matter if you are right
You still have to work to get people to agree with you, and Step Zero for that is getting them to listen. They will not listen if you say AOC is a fascist, whether it's right away or a few comments in.
It's also (charitably) not a great argument because you cannot in fact prove it objectively. It is still a political opinion, because while you can learn from history, societies do not follow laws so precisely defined that you can predict their development the way you can predict how long it takes a dropped object to hit the ground.
Clearly one of us reads the other's perspective and engages while the other does not, it's up to reader interpretation which perspective is more aligned with reality. I invite you to continue discussing your ideas though, as it will give Hexbear the balanced perspective you're looking for.
I get that most leftists won't consciously lead with that hot of a take. But we have it all over this public forum that libs frequently wander into, so you can tell a lot of folks who'll lead with "AOC is not a path to revolutionary change" will break out "social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism" after about two beers. And I'd say those are two very different concepts.
Then when they push back we'll give historical precedence and evidence. My experience with MLs was having them be clearly correct in a way that a lot of others weren't and then they would say wack shit like "AOC is a fascist" but I'd stick around anyway and now I understand why it's true. I think it's generally good for us to always be honest
Amber.
Amber
Amber.
How much of this is survivor bias? How many people punched out at that wack shit and never came back?
Being honest is important, but so is knowing the difference between a topic you are solidly, unambiguously correct on (stuff like the Nazis pulling directly from the U.S. treatment of natives) and a theoretical point that is debatable and ultimately has no provable answer. Honesty works when someone who desperately wants to believe you're lying digs deeper and only finds more evidence that you're right. It doesn't land the same when you're talking about a topic that a skeptical reader can't prove to themselves in the same way.
That's the difference between you and I I think, I know AOC is a fascist in waiting, you don't believe so.
What is the point here? What do you think the left stands to gain by calling her a fascist?
The useful part of this discussion is "she's a dead end for any real leftist movement." Calling her a closet Nazi adds nothing and clocks as "wack shit" even to people who eventually become leftists!
We clown on Israeli officials for not realizing how unhinged they sound to people who don't already agree with them -- this is the exact same thing.
It breaks the illusion that she is an ally in any way or that the avenues she took to power can be pursued by ourselves. They cannot. We won't plan around her at all and will instead dismiss her praise and admonish her resistance; and if the time ever comes understand she'll advocate the same insane violence against us that the fascists will.
Edit: this isn't to reduce her to "just" a fascist. We don't treat her the same way we treat the proud boys. But she's a social democrat, which is the left wing of fascism and when push comes to shove she will absolutely side with capital.
It doesn't! People ignore it as "wack shit," exactly how you did!
It's still fundamentally the truth, provable with historical precedence and her clear actions. Besides, posters like you will appear to be a calm and rational voice to my outrageous rhetoric. I think ultimately it comes out to a balance with both of these socialist perspectives given.
Actually yes, the point of Marxism Leninism is that it follows Scientific Socialism, so the vast majority of things are no longer an opinion but simply a bank of knowledge that's grown over time with hypothesis and proven results, so that some issues are resolved and we need not seriously discuss them as they won't change in this mode of society (bourgeois led).
~
1924, nearly one hundred years ago in Concerning the International Situation
Historically this has been shown time and time again. SPD in Germany cooperating with the freikorps during the Spartacist Revolution. Italian Social Democrats cooperating with Mussolini. The failed unity against naziism of the socialists and social Democrats. Labour cooperating with the Anglo empire to liquidate those colonized, labour cooperating with the American empire to liquidate Iraqis, progressive elements in the US having dogshit foreign policy because it may lead to better outcomes here if they shut up (Bernie supporting Israel and bombing Yugoslavia to smithereens). Etc. We can simply look at the course of AOC's career and see the same things appear time and time again. Fascism isn't just Nazis, it's the entire apparatus the bourgeois state uses and will use to attempt to annihilate leftists when they present any challenge whatsoever. It's not wrong to apply these historical teachings to today's figures when the reasons for it happening haven't changed.
I also once would all read this and find it ridiculous, but frankly, the longer you spend organizing IRL and interacting with the state and other leftists, the clearer this all becomes. I've gone from an anarchist to a staunch ML because MLs are almost always correct and willing to correct themselves when they aren't (Cuba and LGBT). When I say AOC is a fascist, I know I won't convince those who haven't tried to organize IRL, but the real heads who know will know. And those who care about Palestinians being liquidated by the United States will come to this understanding as well.
Edit: the point is having a sound analysis for MLs so they can properly engage with and tear down the world's order. Figures like you can act as the milquetoast that gets others on board, whereas eventually when engaging with the reality of the world they will understand and appreciate our seemingly extreme rhetoric.
I'm aware of the concept of scientific socialism. It does not mean we can perfectly predict the future, and it certainly does not mean we can perfectly predict future actions down to an individual level (AOC's).
We could spend all day listing the differences between Germany and the USSR in the 1920s and the U.S. in the 2020s. If you want to be scientific, tell me how the predictive value of an experiment changes when you spend a century altering key inputs before running it again.
If you think you can perfectly predict the future, I don't know what to tell you.
If you think there is no significant difference between late-czarist Russia or Weimar Germany and the modern U.S., I don't know what to tell you.
There clearly is, but you'd be a fool not to see that the same incentives have not changed whatsoever for social democrats to continue aiding and abetting fascism. Has AOC even made a statement against bombing the only outside force who's taken clear and successful military action against the zionist entity? Is it only fascism when
? If we take a clear definition of fascism as a tool of the bourgeois class/liberals to forcibly cut down opposition to their rule by whatever means necessary when they're actually in genuine danger, would the attacks on Yemen not constitute utilization of a fascist machine? Is she not already carrying water for fascism? I don't mean this as hypotheticals or predicting the future; she's already doing exactly what I'm talking about and it's clear how this can and will escalate as things get worse.
We're repeating the same things to each other, so this is the last comment I'll make.
It does not matter if you are right
It does not matter if you are right
It does not matter if you are right
You still have to work to get people to agree with you, and Step Zero for that is getting them to listen. They will not listen if you say AOC is a fascist, whether it's right away or a few comments in.
It's also (charitably) not a great argument because you cannot in fact prove it objectively. It is still a political opinion, because while you can learn from history, societies do not follow laws so precisely defined that you can predict their development the way you can predict how long it takes a dropped object to hit the ground.
Clearly one of us reads the other's perspective and engages while the other does not, it's up to reader interpretation which perspective is more aligned with reality. I invite you to continue discussing your ideas though, as it will give Hexbear the balanced perspective you're looking for.