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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Thank you.