https://archive.md/OyhZl
This is quite a bit reductive and ignores the process of assimilation within parliamentary parties. It also is a bit essentialist.
That the democratic party tries to influence its members is also obvious, every party does that. From that alone little follows.
On the other hand to think that all elections are controlled "allowed to beat" is giving the party too much credit. The question would be why the party didn't invest more resources against her which would lead to a more interesting analysis.
The democratic party isn't so "stable" cause it controls everything, it is so stable cause it can over years bring people into the acceptable ways.
The question would be why the party didn't invest more resources against her which would lead to a more interesting analysis.
Also, they did invest more resources against her in her second (?) election, if I recall correctly.
Libel bullshit is when you demand fellow communists to look into the matter of things. It doesn't have to be the 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Marx 1852, but looking at things instead of simplify the workings of the system to a cartoon is needed.
The party leadership placed her there
Do you mean the party leadership did speak to AOC before she started her studies or before she became active in the Sanders campaign? Both would be akin to crisis actor talk. She was born in that district and it is a good fit to contest established representatives there within the logic of parliamentary representatives.
However if it was the party leadership, who had what motive to create an AOC? Who did place her there, in the district in which she was born, that would favour her due to its socio-economics? Do you think the party that used "pied piper" strategies and excludes its "left" wing (as neoliberal bourgeosie parties do) is organized enough to create a light house figure for the (social democratic) left?
If so why do you think the established centrist would be willing to give DSA candidates more prominence if the party works in marginalizing the DSA and other left influences?
In any case the DNC is much more incompetent than you think in small matters and organizing is much stronger than you think it is. As is having a social media presence when many opponents have none and use outdated means to reach people.
Democratic primary results Party Candidate Votes %Democratic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 16,898 56.7
Democratic Joseph Crowley (incumbent) 12,880 43.3
Total votes 29,778 100.0A primary with so few people and most not integrated in the party apparatus (unlike in Germany for example) is vulnerable to contenders (much easier than to get 120k votes to win the general election), that is unless it gets pre emptive publicized and enough money is used against the contender (Crowley had 3 million $, AOC a bit over 2 million $ for the real election).
Idealist would be to think that people don't change due to their social relations and that their arguably false consciousness don't exist. AOC was not on the same position as Pelosi in 2018 before she won the election.
Not all democrats are the same, but that doesn't really matter for the structure and function that the democratic party serves. The ways how dissent gets co-opted and people assimilated is important to know, as similar influences will happen in any bigger organized group or socialist movement. When you think that all people within a party are the same you are not materialist. It is important to look at the ways a parliamentary party within the imperial core assimilates people - and if it does do so.
The question would be what is meant with "was nothing but a democrat". It ignores the DSA membership. It would be more an attack against the DSA than against the DNC. "nothing but a democrat" ignores too much.
In other words: How could you organize AOC after election in 2018 and before 2018 election within a socialist movement? Why do you think that is not possible? What does that mean for others low income people with parental migrant history? Are all people who finish their university degree democrats?
I can't believe that you believe American democracy is real
Where do you think I say that? Do you think that literally all lower level elections of the US are completely decided?
and that there are effective socialists in America.
Where do you get that from my text?
You must be a fool. I'm blocking you because this liberal bullshit is the opposite of interesting to me. Have fun with your make believe.
That is completely fine, it might be that I completely misread you, but I think more likely is that both of us misread each other.
I mean you are posting things that are very easily proved false and are upset when someone shatters your delusions. Democrats power doesn’t come from hypercompetent masterminds behind the scenes rigging everything and planting all the politicians. Besides that being impossible (and in AOCs case being verifiably false) it’s not necessary for democrats to get the outcome they want.
Marxism is a scientific understanding of the world. If you go off about conspiracies that don’t even make sense you make all leftists look bad.
It’s blatant reactionary crackkker behavior that should be called out and shamed.
Damn dude, that seems like an overreaction to a pretty well-thought out response
I agree with you generally and I am not sure where the motivation to act like dems don't have everything stitched up comes from. They have the money (power) and their hands are on the levers of the party and the media. That is literally all you need. This is a shitposting website, if you wanna get into the details or whatever then go for it but I found their comment kind of annoying too.
Any time I see anything about AOC, I just think of the time she and a couple others initially voted 'No' but then shifted to 'Present' on the final vote for sending weapons to Israel (for a vote that went 420-9 anyway lmao) because the only thing this fucked up country can agree on is blowing up minorities. It would have been a completely meaningless gesture even if they carried through on it. And she cried about it, wrote a letter to her constituents about it...
The time she could have actually made even the most milquetoast of stands, she fell over.
If Joe Biden wants some legislation passed that mandates reporting of people suspected of being illegal immigrants so they could be immediately deported, she'll make a stink about it for a month or two, then get whipped into line like everybody else.
She cried about it while giving the most baffling double-speak non answer I've ever heard IIRC. One of those things I tried to parse but just made my face give a sour expression.
https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/socialism_faq.md#whats-wrong-with-alexandria-ocasio-cortez
sorry, page*
Like the stuff about Gandhi: one of the sources is just wisdomquotes.com.
Same with Bernie, etc.
There's too many sources to check them all but a bunch of them lead to things which do not support the conclusions of the author.
Yes AOC sucks, but some of this is reaching.
You are quite right. I understand that it is left propaganda and of course critique would be good, but I have my trouble with gray and black propaganda. One bit was funny though:
Believes that Trump "betrays" US values.
Under the What is wrong with AOC column.
Some of that stuff is fair criticism, some is indistinguishable from right-wing hit pieces, and some is just sloppy.
We really need to learn that throwing everything you can possibly think of at someone is often a bad idea. The weak or inaccurate stuff that's mixed in discredits the whole bunch. You usually want to stick to criticisms that (1) are significant and (2) are airtight.
I do agree with you that this is the base from which to start, but I am completely fine in specific cases to extend truth, as truth doesn't win discursive conflicts. The problem in my eyes become more significant when within the left we use that as base to draw analysis from.
There is no objective truth anymore so what you believe boils down to who you trust. If an even slightly skeptical person finds out they can't trust what you're saying that can turn them away entirely.
And that’s why there is a difference between a Senator SAYING they will do something and DOING that thing.
Freddie is back? Hot damn. Hope he's doing well. His writing got me into leftism probably a decade ago.
If any DSA members campaign on her behalf in the next primary she has they're fucking idiots. If anything if I were the NYC chapter I'd threaten to unconditionally campaign on behalf of whoever her primary opponent is unless she actually starts to fight for workers in congress
I would disagree with unconditionally campaigning for any opponent she has considering any AOC primary opponent is not going to be coming from her left. AOC getting a more left challenger in a primary is a pipe dream.
yes, but here's the thing arguably there is some leverage to be gained by denying her canvasers from the left and doing so can be useful. supporting her against her "worse" opponent gives the left no leverage over her and therefore is largely a useless exersize
Denying her canvasers to pressure here absolutely I'm down for that. But actively supporting a worse opponent wouldnt help at all, not even to pressure her.
