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
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