*advancing her career
https://bsky.app/profile/aoc.bsky.social/post/3ldhxclo4wk2c
This is about AOC losing her bid for the Oversight committee to a geriatric Dem lifer. Sure she has systematically shredded any last bit of credibility with her triangulation, but hey, at least all the 5D polítical chess is paying off! She's changing the system from the inside! It's working this time!
Girl, you abandoned any pretense of doing working-class mass politics when you decided to do insider politics! Why are you tweeting like Bernie Sanders circa 2012? There's no we! There's no mass movement behind you! It's just NYC DSA and some Warren libs (but I repeat myself)
I mean this earnestly when I say that part of the problem you're having here, and will continue to have, is that you (like most liberals) have adopted a sort of gnosticism around politics and your theory of change that deals in intent, vague notions of 'overton windows', 'marketplaces of ideas', and even "her region of the idea sphere". It's abstraction that (conveniently for the systems that push it) can't be properly identified, quantified, and tested.
Meanwhile, you're trying to talk in these terms to a group of people who primarily come out of a discipline of materialist analysis. And because you so steadfastly refuse to point to concrete examples (facts, history, statistics, case studies, demonstrable social dynamics etc) even when repeatedly asked for them, it comes across as either deliberately evasive and bad faith, or like a mystic waving their arms in the air spouting rhetorical woo-woo claiming the opposite of demonstrable reality.
Does that make any sense to you? And if not, why not?
another scalpel of a comment that will be ignored by this high school debate wizard
and now they've responded, again completely obliquely while failing to engage with the points made
Sure, I can even respect the empirical aspects of the conversation. But what you're all missing is the non-material aspects and thinking I'm a liberal is coloring your responses. Let me try to spell it out to you in a different way:
I'm saying you're all assholes to a person who literally is very similar to you ideologically (worker owned means of production, strong safety net) and just trying to make her way in the world and is very likely a genuinely decent human being. One of the few we have. no one is perfect but dear god is she better than most, including many in this community. She's also fairly talented in the political world regardless of how you feel about her positions. its why she gets so much flak, and personally like bernie I'd like to keep her around as long as possible even though I disagree with her on things.
As for facts.... there are likely no 'facts' we'll agree on as clearly demonstrated on the rampant disregard for what AOC has actually done vs what you're all claiming shes done. Yes, I've repeatedly pointed out the false narrative you're all spinning about her. We just fundamentally don't agree here on the same information.
Lets take the rail strike for example, I'll gladly lampoon biden for that because he had agency in that vote, he had a duty to represent the country, and part of that is ensuring workers have agency and an environment in which to strike. AOC per her own reports (which I'm happy to admit are biased) was acting on literally behalf of the workers in her constituency. she literally did her job she was elected to do. represent her constituents. do I agree with her vote? no. but if they did ask her to vote yes, I cant fault her for doing so. Its not like they asked her to vote no on passing a national paid sick leave policy. Would I gladly work with her to solve my countries problems? abso fucking lutely. do I fault her for working to build common ground with liberals? kinda, but I get it, shes outnumbered and marginalized and in those situations you compromise and get as much as you can.
But for those of you here what she did is an absolute betrayal. we. just. don't. agree.
You want hard 'numbers' for metrics? I've literally cited sources for a couple of these and compared to china to highlight the absurdity. at the scale these countries operate you're talking about marginal differences based on priorities of the ruling classes. While I've done a few examples here I havent bothered writing you all a dissertation because frankly your opinions of my opinions (and vis versa) don't matter and the data is readily available and we've probably all looked at it. Why waste the time over nonsense numbers that are almost certainly doctored in various ways. Your responses? 'you changed the definition of the term! CIA doctored the information!' etc. See? waste of time to argue the numbers. they're essentially meaningless when you're going to waste time of the definition of the term 'literacy' I was literally using the most generous term and accepting china's numbers essentially at face value. I did pick the value from the WHO as at least thats marginally independent source.
The primary difference is i'm happy to lampoon both capitalists and communists systems; both systems have historical and modern examples absolutely atrocious outcomes for people due to their tendency to collapse into centralized power structures leading to monocultures which always collapse. These are facts of nature and systems. While you can argue with me all you want about it, history has proven this result over and over and over across every centralized governance model, and all centralized systems suffer the same fate in basically every domain, technological, physical, biological, political.
The simple fact is I don't have to prove these things to you, it will literally just happen. I suspect neither country will last the remainder of the century given current trajectories. Nor do I particular care if this group collectively pulls their heads out of their asses and recognizes a generally decent person when they see one. I'm simply enjoying my afternoon watching your entire community have a field day thinking 'ah ha! another one! got em!' plus you know, its nice to see that no new information has been missed due to my own information silos.
I'm not entirely sure you do, but ok, benefit of the doubt... Does it not strike you as strange that in a discussion around material political action and outcome it's a stretch for you to "even consider" empirical evidence? Why does demonstrable material analysis play second fiddle these ill-defined and vibes based rhetorical ideas for you? I'm not even making a criticism here, I'm genuinely asking.
We're not missing them (although people here are not a monolith), we've tried to explain that we do not see any value in them and why that is. Plenty of users have also tried to engage you on why these things matter, usually to a response of petulant insults.
As for thinking you're a liberal; however you choose to define yourself is immaterial here. My point is that you're trying to counter materialist analysis with rhetorical devices that both derived from and are relied upon by an ahistorical, immaterial strain of liberal idealism in order to defend a liberal politician in a liberal political party. You could call yourself a Stalinist for all I care; your frame of analysis, arguement, and purpose is entrenched in liberalism.
First of all, as brief aside, why is that you seem to continually run to insults, belittling people, misogyny, and misgendering people? Even when they're not being hostile, as I'm not. Is it a defense mechanism? Or if you genuinely think we're all idiots, assholes, and children then why are you so invested in this? But anyway, I digress...
The main point here is that you assert that our positions are very similar. They are fundamentally not. AOC is a capitalist politician who works to uphold and defend one of the most rampantly capitalist and reactionary states on the planet. She occasionally gestures in the direction of social democracy which, as others have attempted to explain to you and provided reading and sources for, is not socialism and is a release valve designed for the capital class to maintain the exploitative status quo against the threat of actual socialism / communism.
I suspect that your confusion around these definitions comes from simply absorbing the rhetoric of the American political two party spectrum rather than political theory.
Once again, people here aren't interested in her intent (even if we all believed the way she's presented). It's simply not of any material concern. Doubly so for the idea that she's "just making her way in the world". Even ignoring the fact that everyone is doing that, and not usually as a member of the government of a massive global superpower, why is that relevant? As I asked in another comment, I'm not sure why we should be concerned with the continued career prospects of a capitalist, liberal politician in general, never mind doing so above and beyond the material effects of her actions, which often lead to appalling outcomes, mass death, and the strengthening of a status quo and political system that we see as entirely illegitimate and needs to be destroyed.
It's this sort of stuff that makes many of your responses seem like simple 'I like her and you're all delusional assholes because you don't' parasocial stuff.
You don't know anyone in this community, have no idea what actions they've taken in life, and as many have pointed out, no, on the basis of harm caused by her actions, she's not. This, again, just feels like odd parasocial stan culture stuff so let's move on shall we?
First of all, it would appear not given her inability to extract meaningful change, secure the positions she aspires to, and the fact that you yourself have used her inability to do these things as a defense of her throughout this thread.
Secondly, given that we have established that AOC does not share my values, politics, or worldview, why exactly would I want her to be politically talented anyway? Why would I want an agent of a system I oppose to be good at it?
That's a very convenient way to sidestep the material concerns people have brought up all over this thread. People have repeatedly asked you in this thread for examples of the sort of positive achievements that you're insisting we should recognise as beneficial to our political viewpoint and you've continually dodged, hedged, and ignored them. You do at least bring up the rail strike as an example here though, and I give you credit for that, so we'll get to that in a moment.
Could you give any examples of what you mean by people here spinning false narratives or the things we're "all claiming she's done" which she has not? I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to here.
I'm going to try and take all of this together because I think it's another example talking at completely cross purposes.
As a communist I fundamentally don't care if she accurately or admirably represented her constituents or even the interests of a particular union. Why would I? She doesn't share my politics, and many of them won't either. Similarly to the way I don't care if some Texan evangelical accurately represents his constituents. You could argue there's a difference of degrees there, sure, but they're both working to uphold the same political system which is one I fundamentally oppose.
Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the point that has been made again and again by people here is that she has done more material harm than good. A handful of minor concessions gained, that also strengthen an illegitimate system, simply do not outweigh the impact of the her other actions.
As for hypothetical about whether I'd work with her to solve America's problems, that's completely immaterial because; a) I'd never be in a position to do so for a multitude of reasons, and b) America's construction as a state and by extension her role in it is the problem.
I'm not sure it is. I don't think most people here have this sort of parasocial attachment to AOC either way. Most of us understand that she acts in accordance with the fact that she's a liberal capitalist working to uphold the American system. We criticise her for that, because we oppose it, it's against our material interests and political philosophy.
If there are people here who take that emotional tack of betrayal, it's probably either because they were once a liberal who supported her positions before they became socialists.
For others I expect it's not betrayal, but disgust at liberal cooption of traditionally leftist language in order to hypocritaclly uphold the reactionary, oppressive system.
I tend to prefer empirical evidence and material analysis yes.
I assume you're referring to your discussion, such as it was, over literacy rates here? I'm not going to retread everything other commenters have said, instead I'd encourage you to engage further with them, but there too you either missed or deliberately sidestepped some important details.
Firstly, marginal differences matter, especially when you're talking about talking about a country with a population of almost 1.5 billion people.
Secondly, the relative starting positions and speed at which these gains happened is also relevant to the discussion if you're trying to contrast the relative merit of the two systems.
Thirdly, the direction of travel and progress also matters beyond just the snapshot of the numbers today. There's plenty of evidence that US literacy rates are declining and will likely continue to do so as the state deprioritises education and cuts funding. Meanwhile, literacy rates in China continue to climb and are expected to continue to do so.
(Continued in next comment)
A debate clubber is introduced to the debate club
Thanks!
Old reflexes die hard. And sometimes it's worth dusting them off (especially when the insomnia hits) to deconstruct reactionary lib nonsense in a format they prefer - as much for anyone else reading as for them.
See, here's where we get into a problem and why you've gotten so many responses treating you as either acting in bad faith or being fundamentally unserious.
Are the numbers meaningless or not?
It seems like you state assertions as being based on fact, people press you for examples or evidence, and you ignore or sidestep it. Then you do engage on a very select topic, that you even set the parameters for, and produce something in defense of your assertion. But when confronted with a statistical counterpoint you immediately retreated into western chauvinism and declared the evidence that contradicted your arguement as invalid on the basis of those countries being official enemies.
Of course, others then pointed out that many of the statistics and research for the various points they were refuting there and elsewhere also actually come from organisations actively hostile to these states (the CIA world factbook for example). At which point you seem to declare that all numbers are doctored, meaningless, and discussing the facts is pointless.
As for the accusations that everyone here claimed the same thing in reverse - "CIA doctored the information!" - the only user I've seen did that explicitly to point out how ridiculous you sounded reflexively stating that any supposedly 'pro-China or Russia' numbers are inherently fictitious. They also made that very clear, which means either you didn't properly read their reply or you're deliberately mischaracterising it in a poor bad faith attempt at deflection.
First of all, this isn't some sort of centrist comedy jam. And even if it was, if you think communists don't take the piss out of communist states or practices or tendancies then you've clearly spent close to zero time with communists or engaged most popular media they've produced from classic literature to contemporary video games.
More importantly, pointing to two diametrically opposed systems with radically different conditions and challenges and saying 'both sides bad' isn't any kind of material analysis. It's also, most here would argue, another convenient excuse to sidestep the issue entirely, because an honest analysis would demonstrate the fact that despite individual failures, the two systems produced drastically different material outcomes for their people.
As for your assertions about "all centralised systems", would you care to define that or give some examples? What are these vaguely gestured at "facts of nature and systems"?
I'd also point out that it's historically been the case that all societal systems go through phases of collapse and evolution. (Do you have any examples of 'decentralised' ones that don't?) The importance is in how and why these structures collapse, rebuild, and evolve. Something that given your next point, and your lack of engagement elsewhere, you oddly don't seem very interested in.
Wow, that's an awfully convenient bit of the gnostic belief I began this discussion by pointing out.
That would be an appropriate book end I suppose but...
That's a pretty bold prediction, that could be interesting if you presented some sort of material reasoning for it.
Aaaaand we're back to insults and weird parasocial, immaterial fandom stuff again.
How would you know, given that you've pretty much refused to engage with any reading or simple material evidence provided to you?
You've essentially walked in, called everyone idiots, and on the only points you've even been willing to define immediately stated that all the evidence provided is lies and nonsense, before crossing your arms and going
See, just as I thought, everyone here is an idiot.
ignorant condescension from someone so politically illiterate they confuse social democracy with socialism
LiberalSocialist banned 2023, Jatone thread-spanning smug lib posting 2024
Welcome back LiberalSocialist
This is what @MolotovHalfEmpty@hexbear.net was getting at. You're judging her (or at least you think we should judge her? Idk I just got here lol) based on the ideas she says she has in her head (assuming she ever said the words "worker-owned means of production" lol) and we are judging her based on her actual position and actions within the political system of the American empire, where she is tolerated by that system (until she's no longer convenient ofc) mainly cuz, like Bernie, she is incredible at getting libs like you to literally idolize her in your head and continue to engage with that system despite the fact that..... where have her principles and convictions been during anything that fucking mattered? Sure, she can introduce PROGRESSIVE bills into the US Congress that have 0 change of actually getting passed but she can't take even a rhetorical/vote-based stand against genocide or crushing rail strikes? I know her (and yours) argument if it ever even comes up is "political pragmatism" ("she couldn't vote like that because of the darn evil DNC which she has no power over whatsoever!!") but all pragmatism and no politics or exercising power is just opportunism lol. If you care at all about shit actually getting better I am begging you to raise your standards lol, otherwise if you're just here to tone-police us about hypocrisy or something uhhhh keep doing your civic duty and vote! But also shut the fuck up
too bad I can't respect you, liberal