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.
AOC is doing what the unions wanted her to do.
https://hexbear.net/post/236928/comment/3033122
Yes. Electoralism is pointless. Because it’s pointless, elected “socialists” should act with reckless abandon to bring about workers concessions regardless of if their :vote: actually does so. Any attempt to legitimize electoralism by the elected official is just liberal nonsense.
What?
No, AOC is not going to bring about socialism. That’s my point. Expecting that of her, and being disappointed when she doesn’t deliver, is ludicrous. She’s not going to just go in and break things. She’ll get booted next term and be replaced by a neoliberal who’ll just make things worse. Her job is to do as much good for as many people as possible by working within the system.
"They can't do socialism because they'll be replaced. Therefore we have to support them in not doing socialism so they can stay there forever, not doing socialism but somehow making things better for people by not doing socialism"
:hesitation-1:
Please read what I’m writing and trying to say rather than just memeing and dunking. This is important.
The entire post is about how expecting elected officials to enact socialism is pointless. That happens outside of congress. But a social democratic congress is much better and conducive to socialism than one that’s not.
a social democratic congress is much better and conducive to socialism than one that’s not.
This is just not true. The revolutionary fervor is crushed by social democracy, not by the stick like in fascism, but by a steady stream of carrots which is then slowly shut down over time when the threat of class conciousness goes away. This is material reality and how it has happened thus far. Your vibes are off on this one.
I mean, yeah, social democracy is not socialism. It’s capitalism. It will not directly lead to socialism. But opposing carrots is objectively easier than sticks.
It...really isnt.
Just....what?
"It's easier to oppose treats than it is to oppose boot getting stuck on your throat."
Please just consider what you're writing before you write it. Alternatively a very good bit, you had me going there for a moment :marx-ok:
I mean, the analogy breaks down, so maybe I shouldn’t have carried on with it.
I meant organising unions and co-ops and parties is easier under social democracy than under fascism.
I can say with personal experience that under social democracy you have toothless fucking unions that are too scared to rock the boat.
I will concede that yes, it's easier to create the framework for unions under social democracy, but under fascism you would hopefully be creating actually militant organisations instead.
:shrug-outta-hecks:
yugoslavian partisans created a socialist country. swedish unions created a social democracy that sells weapons to fascists.
if thats accelerationism then it just proves that it's more valid than social democracy.
end of the line is this, social democracy does not create conditions for socialism, it actually destroyes them. this is how it has been and continues to be. unless you can prove otherwise?
Accelerationism, that is, letting fascism run wild in the hopes of that building up a socialist alternative, is a ludicrous ideology that will only lead to millions of deaths.
im aware, yes.
social democracy isnt much better. the fascism just runs wild NOT IN YOUR COUNTRY while NOT GETTING YOU ANY CLOSER TO SOCIALISM.
emphasis on the capitalised bit.
AOC is doing what the unions wanted her to do.
https://hexbear.net/post/236928/comment/3033122
AOC is doing what the unions wanted her to do.
https://hexbear.net/post/236928/comment/3033122
If she says she’s pro worker and the votes against worker interests, then what is the point of having someone there. I never said she’s going to bring about socialism, but if she just votes in accordance with the ‘optics’ and ‘good political strategy’ rather than on a principal of defending workers interests, she is just another liberal that is pandering to the trap that is electoralism
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.
Revolution is more likely under social democrats than under fascists.
Social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism
PLEASE READ THEORY
That’s just wrong. Social Democracy is objectively not fascism? What?
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.
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.
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.
Social democracy is still capitalism, it’s just easier to organise in a social democracy than under fascism.
Name one AES country born from the conditions of a social democracy.
Also social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism
I feel like we’re just going around in circles. Do consider reading some other comments where I’ve addressed these points.
We’re not going around in circles. You are being a liberal and rejecting theory.
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?
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.
: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.
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?
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.
So is your argument that socialism cannot happen in the US or other western countries? What?
What do you even advocate for then?
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!
All of those things are easier to do under social democracy than fascism.
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.
Then what’s your solution? Accelerationism? Let the fascists take power?
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.
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.
AOC is doing what the unions wanted her to do.
https://hexbear.net/post/236928/comment/3033122
Why are you replying to literally everyone in the thread with this, idc about electoralism
MODS!!! MODS!!!! FLAG ON THE PLAY!!! I WAS RIGHT!!!!!! MODS!!!!
> going to bed
> sees post
> sees content
> sees LiberalSocialist
:joker-dancing: Hexbear time
<3 you comrade
Edit: No for real though I :meow-hug: you comrade. You really look like you've a big heart and a fair mind, and you're honestly not wrong on most of your points.
People here will give you a hard time, but that's cause we've been here for years. We've had this whole thing 'figured out' for a while, and here you are, you've joined less than two months ago and now you're expected to have learned the exact Hexbear mantra since.I am glad you haven't left this site, you're a kind of energy I can really appreciate.
K tho I did say I was going to bed. :sleepi:
AOC is doing what the unions wanted her to do.
https://hexbear.net/post/236928/comment/3033122
You know, I've decided I'm not even going to finish reading this one. Your open liberalism is getting old. Commit to communism or go away.
I am a communist. I am an anarchist. I am a Marxist. I am a socialist. My disagreements are based purely on those terms.
This is a left unity site. That’s one of the reasons I love this place so much.
I would hope that this wave of vaushites causes some anarchists outside of this place at least some discomfort.
Anarchists are anti state. Like…why the fuck do you expect them to simp for states?
No it’s precisely internet anarchist thing. Real anarchists are fighting the state they live in and helping people. Stop being sectarian.
I think a lot of anarchists from various strains of anarchism would take problems with some of the positions held by many of the users on this site. I myself dont have a problem with anarchists but some anarchists certainly would have a problem with some of the positions that I hold. ( I wouldnt even call myself an ML btw)
Left unity would mean you dont attack the enemy of your enemy - MLs and anarchists and all other socialists work together to defeat capitalism.
AOC is doing what the unions wanted her to do.
https://hexbear.net/post/236928/comment/3033122
You cannot vote in socialism.
Red Fash tankies confirmed.
On a serious note, AOC, Bernie, and the Squad have time and time again proven themselves to be social imperialists. I'll stop criticizing them when they stop trying to murder the Global South.
Allow me to be the first to say:
Username checks out
Thank you
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.“
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.
Vibes based path to socialism is not convincing me to ease up on the Democratic Party
Well, I hope you’re happy with the fascists taking power, then.
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
Marco Rubio is a lying sack of shit. Don’t fucking fall for it. LOOK AT THE VOTING RECORD. The Republicans are not populists or pro-working class!!!
Obviously nobody here believes that shit. But the difference is that we don’t take Joe Biden at face value when he says he’s a union man!
Joe Biden is not a union man in the way Bernie Sanders is but he is still better than Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis.
What?
Destiny is a capitalist, fascist, white nationalist.
No, I am not him nor follow him.
I am a simp for Hasan tho.
I have to apologize I thought it was a funny joke but you're right about this, asking if you're destiny is too mean.
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.
We need to vote in more progressive and socialist democrats.
Make it easier to get socialist building blocks like unions and co-ops. Plus, what’s the alternative? Let fascism come in full swing and hope accelerationism leads to something other than millions of deaths?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism :stalin-approval:
I was right about power dynamics and I’m right about this.
I want the Squad to arm themselves and stand with workers on the picket lines. I want them to secretly physically assault elderly ghouls in congress in order to bully their way into power. I want to be put on the wall by the People's Army led by chairperson AOC because I was doing a liberalism by suggesting we only kill billionaires and not their families too.
Why? Because the Republicans hate the working class more than the Democrats
Yeah before fucking 1970. We've time traveled. We're in a wonderful new world where you can download guns and the pope is a hologram. robocop is real and he's killing the homeless.
It’s not the Model UN. It’s politics. It’s dirty and messy and you need to negotiate and compromise to get anything done. The “fight for the knife” happens in the streets when you build unions and class consciousness, not in the halls of congress.
It needs to happen in the halls of congress. It's time to break some hips.
Plus there's precedent, the most important thing on earth to libs. They used to have cane fights in Congress.
User makes worst take of all time, asked to leave own struggle session
