Get asked an obvious trap question by a pro-capitalist journalist who's at least flirted with the CIA
Give an answer obviously intended to soften Americans' rabid opposition to even the word "socialism"
Get ripped by online leftists for not going full "Stalin committed zero crimes," which we all know to be the most effective way to move CNN-watching libs left
You're operating under the false assumption that Social-Democrats are in any way shape or form allies of socialism instead of the imperialist capitalist classcollaborators and enemies within they have consistently been since they were forced to abandon Marxism due to the success of 1917
Give an answer obviously intended to soften Americans’ rabid opposition to even the word “socialism”
If "softening" the word socialism to the point it means capitalism with a welfare state I'd rather she didn't attempt to soften and coopt socialism and remove its revolutionary content
Get ripped by online leftists for not going full “Stalin committed zero crimes,” which we all know to be the most effective way to move CNN-watching libs left
Firstly, Stalin did commit crimes (not shooting Kruschev, taking the moral high ground in 1925 when Kamenev and Zinoviev wanted to assassinate Trotsky etc.), secondly "moving left" is infantile. AOCs politics wouldn't be out of step with most of post-war Labour party in UK.
And they ran the British empire just as well as the tories and why AOC capitulates on imperialism exactly the same
You’re operating under the false assumption that Social-Democrats are in any way shape or form allies of socialism
They self-identify as democratic socialists, not social democrats, a distinction Bernie made a point to draw. Coupled with credible opposition to capitalism, and with the necessity of not writing off everyone but my five True Leftist friends, they're certainly worth counting as allies, at least for the moment.
“moving left” is infantile
Moving people left is literally the only way we're going to get enough leftists to do anything. The vast majority of people aren't going to wake up one day and decide to be a communist. The vast majority of Americans -- steeped from birth in hardcore anticommunism -- won't even decide to be a communist as soon as they read communist literature. the vast majority of Americans won't even consider reading communist literature to begin with. We have to walk people down the path. That means getting them to take one step left, then another, then another. Each step helps.
AOC capitulates on imperialism
AOC has had zero meaningful interaction with U.S. imperialism, and has had exactly zero real opportunity to stop any part of it. She's a first-term representative who doesn't even sit on any foreign policy committees. Criticizing her over something she's had no power to change is needlessly pessimistic, and is not the way we should be treating the very few people who are moving in the right direction.
Exactly, they are entirely unaware of the contradictions within Social Democracy, do not see why it's insufficient, and are not prepared to make any sacrifices to bring about Socialism, as they think you can do it via ballot. What now?
So we're assuming M4A has been passed in this scenario? Then the working class is significantly more powerful as workers are no longer chained to their employer's health plans, we've increased the baseline level of care we think all people are deserving of, there's an enormous skin on the wall for whatever leftist movement pushed M4A through, and people have more faith in their ability to change their government for the better (because they just did).
It's far easier to challenge American imperialism in this situation than in the current one, and that's assuming the American left (which already is shot full of anti-imperialist sentiment, concern for immigrants, and opposition to the U.S. war machine) just flat-out ignored foreign policy for a decade.
No, I said that half the country thinks Socialism is Social Democracy and it's good. You somehow believe that what half the country wants has literally anything to do with what legislation is passed.
Look, I can't turn your chicken shit hypothetical into a chicken salad hypothetical. You started with an unrealistic scenario, then implied people would be thinking deeply about Social Democracy despite not having even one basic part of it (again, unrealistic), then went and congratulated yourself when I tried to make some sense of your jibberish.
My point is that misleading people about what Socialism is is not going to lead them or us to Socialism, it will teach people that they can vote for Democrats to do it and that it will not involve any sacrifice or hard decisions. We all get free healthcare, don't ask how.
Extrapolating "I want people to think of countries they like when they hear socialism" to this is a stretch at best. It's assuming the worst intentions and worst possible outcomes. That's needlessly pessimistic -- we're getting nowhere if that's how we criticize people who actually go out and try to move us left.
It's a pattern. Obama endorsing her, meeting with those Bolivian coup supporters, deferring to party leadership on Venezuela, sanctioning China. At worst she's an active anti-Communist and at best she's a Social Democrat who is learning to operate Democratic Party machinery and being changed by it.
Again, this is reading the worst possible intentions into small (and mostly symbolic, if meaningful at all) actions, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. We will fail if we treat each other like this.
Stalin and Mao’s popularity has risen in recent years in tandem with the rising popularity of socialism. It’s obvious you don’t need to throw the prime examples of socialism under the bus to spread class consciousness, so why alienate actual communists and third-word leftists for seemingly no benefit?
Stalin and Mao’s popularity has risen in recent years
This is an extremely online take. The amount of people who will even say "you know, Stalin and Mao were good on balance" is small -- even here, you'll find some opposition to that. This isn't throwing anyone under the bus, either; it's sidestepping the subject of actual existing socialist countries altogether.
why alienate actual communists and third-word leftists for seemingly no benefit?
The benefit is getting significant numbers of people to soften their opposition to leftist ideas, and that's absolutely crucial because we're going nowhere unless we get tens of millions of more Americans to become leftists. American communists are already alienated from AOC -- look around this thread -- so there's no real cost to this, either. Similarly, third-world leftists, being outside the country, aren't going to be able to help bring socialism to the United States.
It’s not just AOC that’s alienating us, it’s people like you who defend her. You are creating a synthetic American “left” that is anti-communist and detached from the global proletarian movement.
How well did that work the last 50 times you yanks tried it? When will you learn solidarity?
How high bar. They aren’t as anti-communist as the arch anti-communist. Real high aspirations here. Plus, the radlibs were not as viscerally “anti-tankie” and anti-China just a couple years ago. Jacobin state department socialists are as deeply embedded into the synthetic American left as ever before.
If you're going to write off a generational openness towards communism as insufficient, have fun starting your protracted people's war with your five True Leftist friends. That's where you're headed if you shit on anything short of ideal.
How is there any openness to communism displayed here? How does AOC shitting on communism create openness to communism? It does the opposite. It’s a filter, a sheepdog.
That’s what you just said. It’s an “obvious trap” to say anything positive about real socialism whatsoever, so obviously AOC did the right thing by dodging the trap and shitting on socialism! - you the big brain socialist
I said Anderson Cooper asking a loaded question on national TV is a trap. That's not anywhere close to "no one can ever say anything good about socialism."
It may seem loaded to you because you are ashamed of the USSR and Cuba and Venezuela, but any principled communist would have affirmed their support and given reasoning why in a convincing snippet of rhetoric.
Instead the real big brain smart move is to denounce socialism and align yourself with bourgeois monarchies and look weak
you are ashamed of the USSR and Cuba and Venezuela
If you're going to tell me what I think just type out both ends of the conversation and save me some time.
Look, I know you want AOC to get up there and say Stalin committed zero crimes, and even then you'll attack her for not singlehandedly ending the Cuban embargo or something. It'll never be enough. But I can believe that's a terrible fucking idea that would be grossly counterproductive and still have no problem going out and talking to people about socialism myself. The optimal communication strategy for Some Guy On The Internet is a lot different than that of an elected representative.
What are you even talking about? A one-line redirection of a loaded question isn't anything approaching that.
Socialist ideas aren't fragile. Whatever slight you're perceiving here is far, far offset by stuff like making it acceptable to call yourself a socialist in American politics.
Well she shouldn’t say things in an inflammatory and obtuse way, but there are ways to frame things better. Think to yourself how Richard Wolff would have answered this question. It still appeals to libs and it still defends socialism without distorting what socialism is.
She is part of a long tradition of social-chauvinism that will be coopted into the Democratic Imperialist party and accomplish nothing, like all her predecessors before her, because she is fundamentally compromised and not linked to the global proletariat movement
The least she could do is not spew imperialist and anti-communist propaganda from her pulpit, but even that is too much to ask.
Great man idealism. People aren’t becoming socialists because of Bernie. Bernie was popular for the same reason socialism in general is becoming more popular, deteriorating material conditions and economic collapses. Bernie is riding a wave, he is not creating it, and suggesting otherwise is idealism.
Your implication from this is the only way “socialists” (read: left liberals) can gain power is through electoral means. You baked your failure into your own assumptions.
You're operating under the false assumption that Social-Democrats are in any way shape or form allies of socialism instead of the imperialist capitalist classcollaborators and enemies within they have consistently been since they were forced to abandon Marxism due to the success of 1917
If "softening" the word socialism to the point it means capitalism with a welfare state I'd rather she didn't attempt to soften and coopt socialism and remove its revolutionary content
Firstly, Stalin did commit crimes (not shooting Kruschev, taking the moral high ground in 1925 when Kamenev and Zinoviev wanted to assassinate Trotsky etc.), secondly "moving left" is infantile. AOCs politics wouldn't be out of step with most of post-war Labour party in UK.
And they ran the British empire just as well as the tories and why AOC capitulates on imperialism exactly the same
They self-identify as democratic socialists, not social democrats, a distinction Bernie made a point to draw. Coupled with credible opposition to capitalism, and with the necessity of not writing off everyone but my five True Leftist friends, they're certainly worth counting as allies, at least for the moment.
Moving people left is literally the only way we're going to get enough leftists to do anything. The vast majority of people aren't going to wake up one day and decide to be a communist. The vast majority of Americans -- steeped from birth in hardcore anticommunism -- won't even decide to be a communist as soon as they read communist literature. the vast majority of Americans won't even consider reading communist literature to begin with. We have to walk people down the path. That means getting them to take one step left, then another, then another. Each step helps.
AOC has had zero meaningful interaction with U.S. imperialism, and has had exactly zero real opportunity to stop any part of it. She's a first-term representative who doesn't even sit on any foreign policy committees. Criticizing her over something she's had no power to change is needlessly pessimistic, and is not the way we should be treating the very few people who are moving in the right direction.
If AOC is a Democratic Socialist, why didn't she point to Chile instead of these dogshit imperialist nations?
The year is 2030. Half the US believes that Socialism is when you make third world countries pay for your healthcare. What now?
That's not a realistic scenario. For starters, it would mean acknowledging the realities of how capitalism exploits the third world.
Exactly, they are entirely unaware of the contradictions within Social Democracy, do not see why it's insufficient, and are not prepared to make any sacrifices to bring about Socialism, as they think you can do it via ballot. What now?
So we're assuming M4A has been passed in this scenario? Then the working class is significantly more powerful as workers are no longer chained to their employer's health plans, we've increased the baseline level of care we think all people are deserving of, there's an enormous skin on the wall for whatever leftist movement pushed M4A through, and people have more faith in their ability to change their government for the better (because they just did).
It's far easier to challenge American imperialism in this situation than in the current one, and that's assuming the American left (which already is shot full of anti-imperialist sentiment, concern for immigrants, and opposition to the U.S. war machine) just flat-out ignored foreign policy for a decade.
Hahah yeah man we live in a Democracy where what people want matters. We're definitely gonna get M4A, just keep waiting!
You gave the hypothetical you fucking goof
No, I said that half the country thinks Socialism is Social Democracy and it's good. You somehow believe that what half the country wants has literally anything to do with what legislation is passed.
Look, I can't turn your chicken shit hypothetical into a chicken salad hypothetical. You started with an unrealistic scenario, then implied people would be thinking deeply about Social Democracy despite not having even one basic part of it (again, unrealistic), then went and congratulated yourself when I tried to make some sense of your jibberish.
What the fuck even is your point?
My point is that misleading people about what Socialism is is not going to lead them or us to Socialism, it will teach people that they can vote for Democrats to do it and that it will not involve any sacrifice or hard decisions. We all get free healthcare, don't ask how.
Extrapolating "I want people to think of countries they like when they hear socialism" to this is a stretch at best. It's assuming the worst intentions and worst possible outcomes. That's needlessly pessimistic -- we're getting nowhere if that's how we criticize people who actually go out and try to move us left.
It's a pattern. Obama endorsing her, meeting with those Bolivian coup supporters, deferring to party leadership on Venezuela, sanctioning China. At worst she's an active anti-Communist and at best she's a Social Democrat who is learning to operate Democratic Party machinery and being changed by it.
Again, this is reading the worst possible intentions into small (and mostly symbolic, if meaningful at all) actions, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. We will fail if we treat each other like this.
Stalin and Mao’s popularity has risen in recent years in tandem with the rising popularity of socialism. It’s obvious you don’t need to throw the prime examples of socialism under the bus to spread class consciousness, so why alienate actual communists and third-word leftists for seemingly no benefit?
This is an extremely online take. The amount of people who will even say "you know, Stalin and Mao were good on balance" is small -- even here, you'll find some opposition to that. This isn't throwing anyone under the bus, either; it's sidestepping the subject of actual existing socialist countries altogether.
The benefit is getting significant numbers of people to soften their opposition to leftist ideas, and that's absolutely crucial because we're going nowhere unless we get tens of millions of more Americans to become leftists. American communists are already alienated from AOC -- look around this thread -- so there's no real cost to this, either. Similarly, third-world leftists, being outside the country, aren't going to be able to help bring socialism to the United States.
It’s not just AOC that’s alienating us, it’s people like you who defend her. You are creating a synthetic American “left” that is anti-communist and detached from the global proletarian movement.
How well did that work the last 50 times you yanks tried it? When will you learn solidarity?
The American left today is as communist-friendly as it's been since McCarthyism.
How high bar. They aren’t as anti-communist as the arch anti-communist. Real high aspirations here. Plus, the radlibs were not as viscerally “anti-tankie” and anti-China just a couple years ago. Jacobin state department socialists are as deeply embedded into the synthetic American left as ever before.
If you're going to write off a generational openness towards communism as insufficient, have fun starting your protracted people's war with your five True Leftist friends. That's where you're headed if you shit on anything short of ideal.
How is there any openness to communism displayed here? How does AOC shitting on communism create openness to communism? It does the opposite. It’s a filter, a sheepdog.
Sidestepping an obvious trap question =/= shitting on communism.
And the openness to communism exists independent of AOC, anyway. For example, she's endorsed by the DSA, and the DSA has plenty of communist caucuses.
Imagine thinking that endorsing communism is a trap and then pretending you are a communist. Just admit you are a liberal already. Stop the charade.
AOC isn't a communist. Anderson fucking Cooper asking "so you're socialist, right?" is obviously intended as a trap.
I’m talking about you. You believe that saying anything good about socialism is a trap. That’s saying a lot about your beliefs.
lmao not remotely, keep guessing
That’s what you just said. It’s an “obvious trap” to say anything positive about real socialism whatsoever, so obviously AOC did the right thing by dodging the trap and shitting on socialism! - you the big brain socialist
I said Anderson Cooper asking a loaded question on national TV is a trap. That's not anywhere close to "no one can ever say anything good about socialism."
It may seem loaded to you because you are ashamed of the USSR and Cuba and Venezuela, but any principled communist would have affirmed their support and given reasoning why in a convincing snippet of rhetoric.
Instead the real big brain smart move is to denounce socialism and align yourself with bourgeois monarchies and look weak
If you're going to tell me what I think just type out both ends of the conversation and save me some time.
Look, I know you want AOC to get up there and say Stalin committed zero crimes, and even then you'll attack her for not singlehandedly ending the Cuban embargo or something. It'll never be enough. But I can believe that's a terrible fucking idea that would be grossly counterproductive and still have no problem going out and talking to people about socialism myself. The optimal communication strategy for Some Guy On The Internet is a lot different than that of an elected representative.
The absolute bare minimum is don’t throw the entire projects under the bus and denounce them as wholly unconnected to you. Got it?
What are you even talking about? A one-line redirection of a loaded question isn't anything approaching that.
Socialist ideas aren't fragile. Whatever slight you're perceiving here is far, far offset by stuff like making it acceptable to call yourself a socialist in American politics.
deleted by creator
Well she shouldn’t say things in an inflammatory and obtuse way, but there are ways to frame things better. Think to yourself how Richard Wolff would have answered this question. It still appeals to libs and it still defends socialism without distorting what socialism is.
deleted by creator
She is part of a long tradition of social-chauvinism that will be coopted into the Democratic Imperialist party and accomplish nothing, like all her predecessors before her, because she is fundamentally compromised and not linked to the global proletariat movement
The least she could do is not spew imperialist and anti-communist propaganda from her pulpit, but even that is too much to ask.
deleted by creator
Great man idealism. People aren’t becoming socialists because of Bernie. Bernie was popular for the same reason socialism in general is becoming more popular, deteriorating material conditions and economic collapses. Bernie is riding a wave, he is not creating it, and suggesting otherwise is idealism.
Your implication from this is the only way “socialists” (read: left liberals) can gain power is through electoral means. You baked your failure into your own assumptions.
deleted by creator