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.

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

    Electoral politics require compromise. If AOC and other progressives were not in congress, then the second bill, advocating for 7 paid sick days, would not pass. If you want more, then we need more people like AOC.

            • 4zi [he/him, comrade/them]
              ·
              2 years ago

              How did you wander onto this site, this is a basic fact

              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.

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

                Social Democracies in the 1920s are different from the ones today. Back then, they were a conservative force attempting to suppress the growing communist movement.

                Today, because of the material conditions and dilapidated state of socialism, social democracies can act as a progressive force.

                • 4zi [he/him, comrade/them]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Social Democracies in the 1920s are different from the ones today.

                  Wrong.

                  Back then, they were a conservative force attempting to suppress the growing communist movement.

                  Still are.

                  Today, because of the material conditions and dilapidated state of socialism, social democracies can act as a progressive force.

                  Social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism. Social democracies are propped up by the untold oceans of blood and sweat from the third world. They can not be progressive forces if they are actively being oppressive imperialist projects. You are a liberal if you disagree with this.

                  Name one AES country born from the conditions of a social democracy.

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

                    Social democracy is still capitalism, it’s just easier to organise in a social democracy than under fascism.

                    • 4zi [he/him, comrade/them]
                      ·
                      2 years ago

                      Name one AES country born from the conditions of a social democracy.

                      Also social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism

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

                        I feel like we’re just going around in circles. Do consider reading some other comments where I’ve addressed these points.

        • Bnova [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          You keep saying this, but when asked to present evidence of this you resort to vibes. But what if I told you vibes could be off?

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

            The only evidence I can present is logic, given there hasn’t been socialism in a developed country in peace time. If you disagree, then feel free to tell me how.

            • Bnova [he/him]
              ·
              2 years ago

              :galaxy-brain:

              AES has almost exclusively occurred in either former colonies (Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, China) or countries that had experienced fascism first hand (Yugoslavia) or was a monarchy (Russia). None of these were Social Democracies, in fact they were all societies in which the class contradictions were most pronounced, which is antithetical to Social Democracy, which seeks to hide these contradictions. So yeah, show me the logic that Social Democracy will lead to Socialism. And then show me how American capitalists will let social democracy happen.

              • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
                ·
                2 years ago

                The material conditions of imperial core countries today are far different from those that preceeded any AES state. Even Imperial Russia had far different material conditions than its contemporary imperial near-peers.

                So why would we expect socialism in today's imperial core to develop along the lines of prior AES states? The past does not encompass all that is possible. We have to consider that the next major socialist movement might not follow the course taken by the USSR, the PRC, Cuba, etc.

                • Bnova [he/him]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Yes, I don't see a problem with what you've stated, each revolution has its own conditions and moment. But that's different from stating that "Socialism is easier to get from social democracy than anything else because LOGIC". If you're going to make the claim that Social Democracy is the most likely to result in socialism have some reasoning behind your statement because it's historically inaccurate.

                  • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    Do you see the contradiction in agreeing that each socialist movement will develop uniquely due to its unique conditions, but then rejecting as historically inaccurate a unique idea about how socialism might develop in the U.S.?

                    And from a skim through the thread they aren't just saying "LOGIC" and leaving it at that. For instance, they mention that unionization is easier under social democracy than fascism. Who's to say that mass unionization can't be a path to socialism in the U.S.? Wouldn't mass unionization be a big help to any successful socialist movement imaginable, even if it isn't that movement itself?

                    • Bnova [he/him]
                      ·
                      2 years ago

                      Do you see the contradiction in agreeing that each socialist movement will develop uniquely due to its unique conditions, but then rejecting as historically inaccurate a unique idea about how socialism might develop in the U.S.?

                      No, because they're not contradictory. Each revolution is unique, but it is historically inaccurate to assert that a social democracy is more likely to develop into socialism because that historically has not happened. It doesn't mean that it cannot happen, but to assert that it is the most likely method for socialism is absurd when socialism has arisen from every other way.

                      Wouldn’t mass unionization be a big help to any successful socialist movement imaginable, even if it isn’t that movement itself?

                      Yes, that would probably help, but rather than being theoretical we can just look at social democracies across the globe. When you look at European Social Democracies they're not becoming socialist governments, in fact they've mostly been regressing since their conception in the early 60's because again social democracy is not sustainable.

                      So again, if we are going to view this '"logically" the social democracies historically and contemporarily do not result in socialism. You can argue that they're better prepared for it, but there simply isn't evidence for that.

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

                So is your argument that socialism cannot happen in the US or other western countries? What?

                What do you even advocate for then?

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

                    That’s…so defeatist and anti-solidarity.

                    Oh, the “Global South” who we’ve exploited and colonized for centuries will bring about socialism, we cannot do anything here.

                    NO. We need to bring socialism to the Western world precisely so we can stop the capitalist exploitation of the Global South that is making socialism there exponentially harder! You don’t get to fucking sit on your ass just because your in the heart of the empire. Fucking stab it from the inside!

                        • Bnova [he/him]
                          ·
                          2 years ago

                          I'll be real with you. Social Democracy in the United States is not happening. It's 1. Not sustainable, capitalists love to heighten them contradictions. And 2. The US is the global capitalist hegemon they will put Social Democrats in camps before they let them raise taxes.

                            • Bnova [he/him]
                              ·
                              2 years ago

                              Shit will keep getting worse regardless of how hard your or I vote or how hard you or I decry accelerationism. I do not want things to get worse, but understanding socialism is to understand that YOU and I are not protagonists in history we are just people trying our best and the material conditions will do what they do regardless of your or my will upon them.

                              I have meaningful relationships with my friends and loved ones. I help out with the things that I can within my community and I've been working on organizing my workplace. These things will not create socialism, they'll just make this hellscape that we occupy a little bit better than they were before I got here.

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

                                That’s just so defeatist. I sympathise but I cannot agree. We have to prevent fascism. We have to achieve socialism. We just have to.