EDIT: AOC is doing what the unions wanted her to do.

https://hexbear.net/post/236928/comment/3033122

DISCLAIMER: Before you jump on me, the below post is to show how much of a dead end electoral politics is. You cannot vote in socialism.

But you should still vote in socialists. The more, the better. Building up the organisations needed to actually bring in socialism is much easier under a more left-adjacent government.

AOC and the other progressive Democrats did not vote for the anti-strike legislation because they’re liberals or hate workers or anything. Their vote was necessary to pass the 7 paid sick days bill. That was the agreement between the progressive and conservative Democrats.

But this nuance is fucking lost on people here. When you play the electoral game, you have to compromise. Every elected official will do so. AOC, Bernie Sanders etc. are not betraying the working class when they support such bills. They’re doing the best they can.

But it’s as if the people here don’t want the best. They just want empty gestures. And when people like AOC do the smart thing that would at least benefit some people, they act as if AOC is the same as Nancy Pelosi.

Guess who wants you to believe that? Guess who benefits from that? The Republicans. It’s grifters like Jimmy Dore and Infrared and Glenn Greenwald that push this rhetoric all to drive more leftists to either apathy or direct support for people like Tucker Carlson and DeSantis who are the “true” populists.

The vote passed by like over a hundred votes. The handful of progressive congresspersons couldn’t have stopped it. But what they could do, was get the other bill with the paid sick leave passed in exchange for a vote that was already going to pass. I mean, it’s like people are forgetting that the latter vote barely passed. Almost no Republican voted for it.

Why? Because the Republicans hate the working class more than the Democrats.

Please don’t forget that.

TLDR: AOC, even if it doesn’t seem like it at times, is better than most Democrats and all Republicans. A Congress and Senate filled with people like AOC will be exponentially more conducive to implementing socialism than any other. It will still not bring in socialism. Socialism can only be achieved by a revolution. But creating the conditions and the organisations and the class consciousness necessary for that revolution, is easier under a social democratic government than any other.

    • bbnh69420 [she/her, they/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Provide evidence for the following claim:

      “But creating the conditions and the organisations and the class consciousness necessary for that revolution, is easier under a social democratic government than any other.“

      • LiberalSocialist [any,they/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Well, we’ve never had socialism in a developed country so there’s no direct evidence for it.

        But it makes sense. A country with a social democratic government and institutions is closer to socialism. It’s a smaller jump from one to the other, than it would be under any other government.

            • bbnh69420 [she/her, they/them]
              ·
              2 years ago

              This is the democrat script comrade… Biden is literally being outflanked to the left on workers’ rights by Marco Rubio and you’re blaming online posters for fascism in the heart of first world white supremacy

            • MsUltraViolet [she/her]
              ·
              2 years ago

              I see enough of this bullshit lib rhetoric on twitter, can we ban this fucking loser already? Since reaching voting age I've only ever voted for the "lesser of two evils" dems and it's essentially done shit all for me and everyone around me, while the right has only gained more power and gotten bolder. So spare me the "you're helping fascism by rejecting liberals' bourgeoisie appeasement tactics that functionally do nothing and show no ideological solidarity for the working class or marginalized" bullshit.

              So go join a forum for like Pod Save America or some lib shit or something but leave us alone.

            • ilyenkov [she/her, they/them]
              ·
              2 years ago

              The fascists aren't "taking power," they've been in power this whole time. "Fascism" was the reaction of the capitalist-imperialist world system to the success of the Bolshevik revolution. It took a different form in different countries, depending on the conditions present. In the US, it took the form of the New Deal. FDR was the first fascist US president, and the US has been fascist ever since.

              (And yes, I'm aware that the CPUSA supported the new deal, etc. Look where that got them - the party basically liquidated itself. A lot of mistakes were made.)

              • LiberalSocialist [any,they/them]
                ·
                2 years ago

                That’s not something I’ve heard before. In a way, that just begs the question of what you would say is the different between US “fascism” of the New Deal that benefited people (due to the pressures of the rising communist movement) and German, Italian and Spanish fascism (that killed the millions of people advocating for socialism). I mean, you ideology just makes the term itself meaningless and require us to create new terms to explain the very real differences between the methods these different capitalist systems adopted to combat communism. It’s…ludicrous, honestly.

                • ilyenkov [she/her, they/them]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Also, yes the new deal "benefited" some people, that's exactly the point - reform wouldn't defuse revolutionary movements otherwise. As our societies are incredibly stratified, in any sort of movement people have all sorts of levels of commitment, levels of improvement in their personal situation at which they would return to being largely okay with how society is (rather than continue to try to make revolution, which is hard and sucks and is not something that most people do if they are fairly okay with things). Capitalism is obviously not going to make things good for everybody, it can't do that and still be capitalism. But, you make things better for some, taking them out of the movement and you violently repress some (the exact mix depending on the situation) until you have a situation where those who remain can be safely ignored. (And then, when things are safe, you slowly start to roll back the reforms. This is what reformists don't get, you never get an accumulation of reforms that eventually add up to socialism, because once the revolutionary movement is gone, the reforms get taken away).

                  The new deal only benefited some. At the same time FDR was doing that, he was throwing Japanese-Americans into camps, and so on. Under capitalism, benefits for some come at the expense of others. Plenty of Germans were benefiting from the Nazi regime.

                  BTW, this is exactly how they disarmed feminism, and every other revolutionary movement ever. This is also why revolutionary orgs need to center the most exploited/oppressed/marginalized/etc. If you are focused on those at the bottom, reform can't destroy the org or siphon away leadership. If black sharecroppers had had a real voice in CPUSA, things wouldn't have gone like they did.

                  • LiberalSocialist [any,they/them]
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    This is an interesting comment and actually leads me to think of social democracy and fascism on the same spectrum, depending on how much “benefits” get dolled out to how many people, versus how many get oppressed. In places like Germany where millions died while very, very few benefited, it’s called fascism. In places like America, where comparatively more people benefited, while still at the expense of some, it’s called social democracy.

                    In the end, they’re both the same. A transformation of the state of being of capital from one to another, more adapted to the environment.

                    The only way out, that helps all, is socialism. Where historically socialist orgs went wrong was by not centering the most marginalised and oppressed because if they are the ones who call the shots, then they are the ones to pacify, to do which would require also helping everyone else, thus being impossible under capitalism.

                    Interesting thoughts and praxis. Puts to bed people like PatSocs too, showing them to be the fascist clowns that they are.

                    • ilyenkov [she/her, they/them]
                      ·
                      2 years ago

                      Puts to bed people like PatSocs too, showing them to be the fascist clowns that they are.

                      Exactly. And I think these people are dangerous because white chauvinism has basically been the major stumbling block in the history of US communism, but the patsocs are basically like "no, you don't have to question your own identity, you don't have to look at patriarchy, whiteness, settlerism, patriarchy, cis-normativity, het-normativity, etc., you don't have to listen to the marginalized or oppressed, you can love America, be a misogynist and totally still be a communist bro!" and that message appeals to some people.

                      Anyways, ty for reading my post. Hopefully what I'm saying is making sense, I am brain-fogged the fuck up from covid atm. I think struggle sessions are important. I used to be a gigantic lib until I got bullied into reading Lenin on the old subreddit. I started falling into the patsoc trap a bit too, until i got called out on that too and actually read some theory by Afrikan Marxists, Marxist feminism, and stuff. So I think it's good for us to talk seriously about this stuff. I think when it comes to some things, like crucial things for socialism, the whole "you believe that, I believe this" and lets all just get along thing is liberalism and harmful. But also, it can be hard to find the right tone online. It can be hard to remember there is another person on the other side of things. So I hope I haven't been too hostile. I hope you keep making posts and we can all keep learning together. Left-unity is good, but real unity emerges from struggle :)

                • ilyenkov [she/her, they/them]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  First, it's not something I first came up with. I first ran into this idea reading George Jackson and have since encountered it elsewhere. The main connection between them all is "reform." The main difference was the strength of the communist movement and the strength of the bourgeois government. Basically, no bourgeois regime could remain as it was and not fall. To defeat communism, they used both the carrot (reform) and the stick. In places with a strong communist party and weak bourgeois regime (like Germany), that took a lot of stick. In places with a weaker communist movement and strong bourgeois regime, it took much less violence and reforms played a larger part in defusing the revolutionary situation. But even in a country like Germany, reform was still very much part of the process. Reformists played a big role in the defeat of the communist movement - this is why social democracy is the "left wing" of fascism. As reformists, they are on the same side as the fascists and actively work against the communist movement.

                  As for real differences, there are some for sure. But the Nazis especially were not very different from the US. Everything they did was basically inspired by the US. The Nazi's idea of annihilating the "inferior races" in order to gain "living space" was just them copying manifest destiny. The US is what Europe would look like had the Nazis won basically. This country is not, and has never been, any better than the Nazis, Franco, the Italian fascists or anyone else.

                  • LiberalSocialist [any,they/them]
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    Thank you for the comment. It answers some of my questions.

                    One thing to clarify: in your analysis, social democracy is a form of fascism that focuses on reform rather than violence to pacify the working class. Do you think it’s more accurate to say social democracy, like fascism, is instead a form of capitalism. Capitalism transforms itself into fascism or social democracy depending on the power of the working class. So, social democracy is the left flank of capitalism, while fascism is its right flank.

                    • ilyenkov [she/her, they/them]
                      ·
                      2 years ago

                      Yeah, I think that is a reasonable way to put it. Then I think there is the third "face" of capitalism, maybe you could call it "neoliberalism," the one where, with the threat defused, capital rolls back all the reforms and cannibalizes everything (which will eventually lead to another crisis, and so on).

                      This is sort of a "functional" account of fascism I guess. Then there are also those people who advocate for the more violent forms, who will actually call themselves fascists or whatever, in a place where that isn't really "necessary." I think these people are basically those that get that they would be those who benefit under this kind of regime. Like, there are white people who would benefit if poc had it worse, if we went back to jim crow or worse. There are men who would benefit if women's rights were rolled back. Small bourgeois who would benefit if worker's rights worsened, etc. These are the kind of people who are the base of what we normally would think of as fascist groups. The big bourgeoisie are actually against these when reform and neocolonialism are working and things are relatively stable, so they will suppress them somewhat. But they never fully crack down, because they are more than happy to unleash these people when the situation calls for it. So even in stable social democracies or whatever, you get "fascist" groups, they are usually just fairly irrelevant until shit gets real.