I don't know or care if AOC is a socialist, and why would that mean I'm not allowed to support her when she wants to improve people's lives? What is this definition of "support" where it means you have to adopt someone's entire worldview and follow them to your dying breath
So are you just arguing for accelerationism then? I think it's good if people have housing and healthcare rather than dying, and maybe even some of those people, partially freed from some of the burdens of life under capitalism, will be more likely to develop a class consciousness.
edit: and when it comes to "siphoning revolutionary energy," I've seen plenty of cases of people who were brought into politics as social democrats by Bernie and AOC becoming full socialists, but not even one full socialist who was convinced by Bernie or AOC that actually we can just do reforms and that's fine.
I'm confused by what you're saying here. It's fine to want social reforms? That's all I'm saying, that social reforms are good and should be supported. Or do you mean it's only fine to want them after capitalism? In which case, that sounds like accelerationism to me, and besides after capitalism they'll mostly be irrelevant.
And of course, to be a socialist you have to want to dissolve capitalism. When I say socialists, I mean specifically people who do critique Bernie and AOC for their reformism; someone who doesn't critique social democracy for preserving capitalism is not a socialist. But, someone who is a socialist can work with and appreciate social democrats, without sharing their belief that a social democracy is sufficient.
it’s not necessary to support AOC’s brand of politics
It's not necessary to agree with it, it's not even necessary to support it, but I think it's a very good idea to give it (critical) support, if only because it has potential to alleviate a lot of suffering.
So yes, it is worth it, and no, it is not necessary
deleted by creator
How dare she try to make objectively good things happen
deleted by creator
There is simply no point in improving people's lives if it isn't in pursuit of socialism
deleted by creator
Those are all reasons not to limit ourselves to social reforms, none of them come close to saying that there's no point doing them in the first place
deleted by creator
She does do that
deleted by creator
Her politics are largely limited to social reforms. That is bad. The social reforms are good.
deleted by creator
I don't know or care if AOC is a socialist, and why would that mean I'm not allowed to support her when she wants to improve people's lives? What is this definition of "support" where it means you have to adopt someone's entire worldview and follow them to your dying breath
deleted by creator
So are you just arguing for accelerationism then? I think it's good if people have housing and healthcare rather than dying, and maybe even some of those people, partially freed from some of the burdens of life under capitalism, will be more likely to develop a class consciousness.
edit: and when it comes to "siphoning revolutionary energy," I've seen plenty of cases of people who were brought into politics as social democrats by Bernie and AOC becoming full socialists, but not even one full socialist who was convinced by Bernie or AOC that actually we can just do reforms and that's fine.
deleted by creator
I'm confused by what you're saying here. It's fine to want social reforms? That's all I'm saying, that social reforms are good and should be supported. Or do you mean it's only fine to want them after capitalism? In which case, that sounds like accelerationism to me, and besides after capitalism they'll mostly be irrelevant.
And of course, to be a socialist you have to want to dissolve capitalism. When I say socialists, I mean specifically people who do critique Bernie and AOC for their reformism; someone who doesn't critique social democracy for preserving capitalism is not a socialist. But, someone who is a socialist can work with and appreciate social democrats, without sharing their belief that a social democracy is sufficient.
deleted by creator
It's not necessary to agree with it, it's not even necessary to support it, but I think it's a very good idea to give it (critical) support, if only because it has potential to alleviate a lot of suffering.
So yes, it is worth it, and no, it is not necessary
I think she's a DemSoc who believes she's a socialist because of the reasons you mentioned
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
doesn't cold war propaganda say that socialism is when you are a slave to the government that has total control over your life?
deleted by creator
exactly, then add the two together, healthcare = socialisms = you are a slave therefore only slaves have free healthcare
She wants things that are good, who gives a shit if she's a "real socialist"?
deleted by creator
fucking THIS. so sick of leftist purity politics
Relevant username lmao