I think the mistake that critiques of AOC run into is that they ascribe intent or maliciousness to her failings.
The problem is that a) intent is unknowable, and
b) intent is irrelevant
If we assume the best of intents from AOC, and everything I've seen implies that she does have good intents, the results would still be the same. I feel like the much more effective and resonant critique is showing how electoralism is a dead end, and how our institutions are designed to work against us and blunt any capacity for change through the ballot box. Either she sold out incredibly quickly, or her hands are legitimately tied, the end result is the same. Electing representatives to our institutions as they currently exist is an incredibly ineffective way to win concessions from the ruling class. A few weeks of rioting over the summer was able to get much more done in a much shorter amount of time.
If we assume the best of intents from AOC, and everything I’ve seen implies that she does have good intents,
OK
“I think it’s real bougie to grow up with a defined political ideology,” she adds. “You need to have college-educated parents for that, with a political lexicon. My mother doesn’t even have an English lexicon! When people say I’m not Socialist enough, I find that very classist. It’s like, ‘What — I didn’t read enough books for you, buddy?’ ” - AOC
The College educated liberal is now going to lecture the working class on being "bourgeois" for reading books and for having a defined ideology. For reference most of the communists I know did not have University education due to the cost and do not come from well to do families.
So the only time she ever used "bougie/bourgeois" was to punch left at socialists.
I feel like the much more effective and resonant critique is showing how electoralism is a dead end, and how our institutions are designed to work against us and blunt any capacity for change through the ballot box. Either she sold out incredibly quickly, or her hands are legitimately tied, the end result is the same.
This is the actual answer. The Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie is not up for discussion even those with the best of intent. Socialists who enter electoral politics inevitably water down their content until it represents something like Keynsian liberalism (Corbyn and Left labour/AOC and left Dem).
The only use AOC has at this historic juncture is proving quite demonstrably that politics in the US was bought and paid for long before most of us were born and the only time countries gifted out things like free healthcare (in Western Europe for eg.) was when those countries had strong militant Communist parties threatening revolution and when the USSR existed and had done away with for profit healthcare.
The Left Labourites that like to wax lyrical about how Labour can "become working class again" and how Labour "gave the UK the NHS" forgetting that conservative parties all over Europe brought in universal healthcare all over Europe at the same time as a tactical compromise with the worldwide and local communist movement
I think the mistake that critiques of AOC run into is that they ascribe intent or maliciousness to her failings.
The problem is that a) intent is unknowable, and b) intent is irrelevant
If we assume the best of intents from AOC, and everything I've seen implies that she does have good intents, the results would still be the same. I feel like the much more effective and resonant critique is showing how electoralism is a dead end, and how our institutions are designed to work against us and blunt any capacity for change through the ballot box. Either she sold out incredibly quickly, or her hands are legitimately tied, the end result is the same. Electing representatives to our institutions as they currently exist is an incredibly ineffective way to win concessions from the ruling class. A few weeks of rioting over the summer was able to get much more done in a much shorter amount of time.
OK
The College educated liberal is now going to lecture the working class on being "bourgeois" for reading books and for having a defined ideology. For reference most of the communists I know did not have University education due to the cost and do not come from well to do families.
So the only time she ever used "bougie/bourgeois" was to punch left at socialists.
This is the actual answer. The Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie is not up for discussion even those with the best of intent. Socialists who enter electoral politics inevitably water down their content until it represents something like Keynsian liberalism (Corbyn and Left labour/AOC and left Dem).
The only use AOC has at this historic juncture is proving quite demonstrably that politics in the US was bought and paid for long before most of us were born and the only time countries gifted out things like free healthcare (in Western Europe for eg.) was when those countries had strong militant Communist parties threatening revolution and when the USSR existed and had done away with for profit healthcare.
The Left Labourites that like to wax lyrical about how Labour can "become working class again" and how Labour "gave the UK the NHS" forgetting that conservative parties all over Europe brought in universal healthcare all over Europe at the same time as a tactical compromise with the worldwide and local communist movement