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.
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 As is having a social media presence when many opponents have none and use outdated means to reach people.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 29,778 100.0
A 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 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.
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.
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.
Also, they did invest more resources against her in her second (?) election, if I recall correctly.
That is true.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
A 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?
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Where do you think I say that? Do you think that literally all lower level elections of the US are completely decided?
Where do you get that from my text?
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.
Damn dude, that seems like an overreaction to a pretty well-thought out response
They rage deleted lol.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator