What's really the point of any of this? Force the vote, cush bomb nonsense, menaker movie rants.
What's really the point? Chapo at this point is just a grift. They offer no solutions just depression. Matt even admits in one of his cush logs that he'll be here to just keep gifting after the election.
Force our politicians to do anything why? Why should we bother. Clearly the left is just going to swirl down the drain of nihilism while the right invades capitals.
What's really the point of the left?
Any such win would be co-opted by the dems instantly. They would act like they always wanted it. Look at any past similar victory to know I am right. It would only give the shittiest democratic system on the planet more half-life, when it foes NOT deserve it.
Any energy spent dragging the dems kicking and screaming an inch to the left would be better spent organizing an alternative. And as Bernie has proven twice over now, that alternative can't come from inside that wretched decrepit corpse of a a party.
Engaging in the struggle for medicare 4 all is worthile in itself as a socialist. The struggle (whether you win it or lose it), is a valuable organising tool to build socialist organisations among the masses. If AOC and the rest of them would be real socialists interested in such a thing, they would use their position in parliament in such a way.
The value in that would be exclusively in recruiting a few disillusioned wonks as that struggle fails. It won't however activate anyone who has correctly realized neither party is gonna piss on them if they are on fire and has thus checked out of politics. That is the larger and easier audience to go for.
The important part here is: Build the parallel power first. Then have the parallel power agitate for change. It does not work the other way around and never has.
Parallel power comes from having organised structures which are capable of positively affecting humans lives like unions, cooperatives and so forth which are lead by socialists. How can you build those organisations if you're not engaged in campaigns to achieve material benefits for people such as M4A?
Uh..what? The parallel power agitates for the change, so you need to build it up, so that it can do so. You need a sturdy-ass movement that will keep demanding change and currently no such thing exists on a large enough scale.
The proposal here is the reverse. Somehow through a few dems asking for and failing to get M4A through congress, without any support from the press or anyone, we will get ahead. How is that supposed to work? Which Fox news level media organization will report on these attempts in a positive light for years on end to energize people, for one?
No, it's not the reverse. A good example is the way Kschama Sawant (I'm generally not very fond of tratskyst, but in the US she's the best example, unfortunatly) is used by socialist alternative. She uses her position as a megaphone for the broader movement, and that's an important part of both popularising demands and giving people hope that change is possible. Seattly won $15 minimum wage and a tax on large corporations and Sawant as the most famous propagator played a large part in that.
Yes, Sawant wouldn't be were she was without a movement, but the movement wouldn't be where it is without the elected socialist. They reinforce eachother, and that's exactly how socialists should use electoral politics.
If AOC and the rest of the squad would be comitted socialists, they'd use their position in a similar way. They're extremely popular figures so they could force the media to acknowledge what's happening, but also, they'd be able to communicate directly with the population trough their own channels.