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.

      • 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.