Jill Stein can claim to not be a member of a party engage in genocide, can AOC say the same? 
So true, think of everything AOC has accomplished since being elected….. all that delectable tangible change
yep, she changed her public face to better line up with her values.
remember, her values havent changed.
She accomplished shepherding a bunch of baby leftists back into the demonrat fold.
She managed to get all the kids out of cages
They're in migrant overflow facilities now but like, good vibes just relax now.
If you want to see an actual compromise between "idealism and pragmatism", look at Nelson Mandela post 1990, when he was freed from prison and proceeded to become the first democratically elected president of South Africa. While many compromises had to be made for pragmatic reasons given the state of the world at the time, It is important to note that Mandela never abandoned his principles. He remained a staunch supporter of Palestine and Cuba, called out the US to their faces during interviews, and stuck to his values.
What AOC is doing is abandoning any values she had in the first place, if she ever had them. That is not "idealism vs pragmatism", that's just plain old opportunism and desire for power and/or influence.
To beltway ghouls, pragmatic policy isn't about accomplishing anything. It starts and ends with getting elected. So pragmatism is all about toeing the party line, sweet talking donors, and gerrymandering.
idealism vs. pragmatism
Cries in 150 years old "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" by Friedrich Engels
"The realistic thing is achieving meaningful change using the legal path and through the pre-existing institutions, as has never happened in history, as opposed to through worker organizing and revolutionary means!"
I saw this tweet that was something like “Marx didn’t consider x! *goes on to reinvent political tendency Marx spent essays railing against” and it’s proving to be pretty evergreen
Marx and Lenin dunked so hard on reformists that I can't help but be surprised that these "debates" still take place 150 years later (100 for Lenin)
Because actually reading Marx is impossible for them. They know that they'd have to actually argue against his points if they read his books so they didn't and instead try to imagine what he said.
pragmatism is when you adopt a 100% of your opponents principles.
When does this "pragmatism" pay off? When does it deliver results? This is the question these people never address. What is the purpose of being pragmatic?
I'm old enough to have been around for a fair few election cycles now and I'm not sure I've ever actually seen things meaningfully change for the positive. All of the change I've been seeing throughout my life is a worsening of conditions for the majority of people, except in China and perhaps the EU until the last 10 years or so.
Always makes me think of that James Baldwin quote where he says something about “you told my uncle to wait, my mother to wait, me to wait. How long do we have to wait for your progress?” Like people are suffering now. The constraints around fixing this stuff is entirely arbitrary, and asking people to just accept this shit in the name of “pragmatism” is absolutely infuriating to me
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Pragmatism is building power forever without ever actually using that power
Those don't require political power because both parties equally support them
"Pragmatic" is a weasel word that, in this context, means "supports the party line even for genocide".
When does this "pragmatism" pay off?
By 2032 when AOC has a real shot of becoming the president. This is also why AOC was so adamantly against Kamala Harris when they were attempting to force Biden off the electoral ticket, as it would mean delaying an AOC presidency by another 4 years.
I think the major difference here - according to AOC - is that Stein wanted to stick to her principles and as a result the growth of the Green Party movement will always remain stifled.
On the other hand, AOC learned how to play the Game of Thrones and buried herself deeply and convincingly into the Democratic Party apparatus (she has to fool all the senior party ranks or else they won’t let her run for president) so that she can have a real shot at a sit on the Iron Throne.
It’s idealism vs pragmatism. Real life is a television show, just like the Game of Thrones.
i dont know why you deleted this, i managed to read through it and thought it was thoughtful and insightful.
yeah i was just reading it and made it half through before i upvoted and it disappeared :(
i genuinely gave myself anxiety over the thought of leaving it up, but i appreciate the sentiment
AOC can't even say she hasn't actively supported the genocide by lending her wholehearted support to the people commiting genocide.
Then: staging a climate-change sit-in in Nancy Pelosi's office
Now: Endorsing the guy who approved even more public oil and gas leases than his predecessor seconds before he drops out of the race.Pragmatism rating: 💯
Power rating: 💯
"If you confuse 'change' with 'improvement' that's on you!"But really, I'm pretty sure that anyone who vociferously defended the Joe Biden campaign doesn't get to accuse people of running unserious and predatory campaigns...
It is very condescending for someone who is part of a party that ostensibly believes in the Democratic System. Voters are little unserious babies incapable of making their own decisions.They are being conned, etc. Like with this rhetoric from "one of the progressives", I can imagine in 10 years, Republicans will be running on reinstituting disenfranchisement on the Federal level and in 15, the Dems will be like, we can do that but better!
I can imagine in 10 years, Republicans will be running on reinstituting disenfranchisement on the Federal level and in 15, the Dems will be like, we can do that but better!
The Republicans want to disenfranchise all women and poc, but we only want to disenfranchise the poor ones!
Pragmatism is providing cover for a sham ceasefire negotiation that she knew damn well was bullshit to allieviate any pressure on Harris to change course.
The dems have steadily been lurching right along with the republicans. They ratified almost every disastrous idea that Trump did, such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem, the border wall and dropping the Iran nuclear deal entirely, and have gone further calling him a coward for not attacking Iran. Soon we will have the harm reduction and pragmatism be about only conducting 2 genocides instead of 3. You don't have to be good, you just have to be slightly less bad.
Unpopular opinion, maybe, but in the critique of Stein, AOC is not wrong.
Of course she could have made the case at any point in her political career but she just happened to point this out as polls are showing a 50-50 split between Harris and Stein amongst Muslim voters.
Locally, the Green Party has been successful here, but you’re not going to see Stein sharing a stage with down ticket candidates. In an off-year election, she won’t be going around the country building the party.
I feel bad for voters who see the Green Party as a legitimate third party. I’m sure at least some of them would like to have someone else as their nominee every four years.
But this is about getting a member of the squad to scold the progressives into voting blue no matter who.
AOC's claim: The green party is "not serious" and is "predatory"
For a "not serious" party, they've garnered more ballot access than any other option. I'd say AOC is worried precisely because the green party is serious. And "predatory"? That's big pot-kettle energy. The "predation" from the greens boils down to "gee, it sure sucks that the Democrats won't abandon literal genocide to earn your vote."
The critique AOC made against the Greens is just as valid against the Dems except the Dems are actually predatory since no one voting for the Greens actually believes they will win. This is the annoying part to me.
The present writer cannot ride up the Falls Road in his own motor car, the penny tram has to do him. But thank God, there are no fresh made graves in Flanders or the Dardanelles filled by the mangled corpses of men whom he coaxed or bullied into leaving their homes and families.
And that consolation counts more to the peace of his soul than would the possession of a motor car, or the companionship of grossly overfed boon companions of the bottlewasher – or of the bottle.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1915/08/wedevlin.htm
Pragmatic lawmaker means you actually accomplish something, like passing a bill into law, not just sponsoring or co-sponsoring bills that then die at the floor or Senate. An example of pragmatic lawmaker who saved countless lives is Ralph Nader, he got the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and seatbelt. Winning election without achieving anything doesn't count.
