and this, kids, is why reformism doesn't work. you can't dismantle a corrupt system from within because you'll mess up your career. you can't challenge objectively evil power structures because you won't get your committee placements. by participating in the system, you are forced to abandon both radical policy and tactics.
tactics in the war of position are frequently symbolic, yes, but the refusal to fight is still a retreat. she cannot actually win policy - the structure of the government prevents that from being possible without severe external pressure from the lower classes. if that pressure exists, she's irrelevant - policy will pass or not depending on how threatened the ruling class feels and her vote remains fungible. in the absence of that pressure, she can only fight within the war of position for symbolic wins.
my point was that the nature of the government makes the tactical retreat necessary in order for the small position she's staked out to remain tenable but this same retreat makes her worse at the only thing she can actually accomplish.
as has been said to death, you cannot dismantle the master's house with the master's tools.
Avoiding any tactical retreat is suicide (and it's also a very fascist ethic, read Umberto Eco on how). Any politics involves working with people you disagree with to achieve your goals, there are enough alliances to make to achieve policies goals of decarceration, against the drug war, labor rights, etc. Policies that empower the working class. Without coordinating with outside pressure from said labor groups and other organizations, such aims within the system are indeed impossible, but she has the potential to do far more than just symbolic gestures.
every group you named is happily incorporated within the system. the pressure I'm talking about is like the week of insurrection prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act or what we saw earlier this year. there's a reason every reformist policy since the CRA has failed to pass: the pols aren't the people who get it done, the revolutionary segment of the class are. the most AOC can hope to accomplish are tepid reforms that challenge no one and help very few people.
you'd have more of a point if congress were capable of passing anything more contentious than symbolic gestures right now but the only way they can do that is on matters of importance to the whole of a very divided bourgeoisie. as few items make that list - fewer every day as gulf between them grows - the NPIC, "labor" groups (really another part of the NPIC at best, entrenched business interests at worst), etc are no more capable of getting bills passed than AOC is - indeed, they've been failing to do so since the 90s.
and this, kids, is why reformism doesn't work. you can't dismantle a corrupt system from within because you'll mess up your career. you can't challenge objectively evil power structures because you won't get your committee placements. by participating in the system, you are forced to abandon both radical policy and tactics.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Is she abandoning radical policies here? Or are you confusing symbolism with policy here?
tactics in the war of position are frequently symbolic, yes, but the refusal to fight is still a retreat. she cannot actually win policy - the structure of the government prevents that from being possible without severe external pressure from the lower classes. if that pressure exists, she's irrelevant - policy will pass or not depending on how threatened the ruling class feels and her vote remains fungible. in the absence of that pressure, she can only fight within the war of position for symbolic wins.
my point was that the nature of the government makes the tactical retreat necessary in order for the small position she's staked out to remain tenable but this same retreat makes her worse at the only thing she can actually accomplish.
as has been said to death, you cannot dismantle the master's house with the master's tools.
Avoiding any tactical retreat is suicide (and it's also a very fascist ethic, read Umberto Eco on how). Any politics involves working with people you disagree with to achieve your goals, there are enough alliances to make to achieve policies goals of decarceration, against the drug war, labor rights, etc. Policies that empower the working class. Without coordinating with outside pressure from said labor groups and other organizations, such aims within the system are indeed impossible, but she has the potential to do far more than just symbolic gestures.
every group you named is happily incorporated within the system. the pressure I'm talking about is like the week of insurrection prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act or what we saw earlier this year. there's a reason every reformist policy since the CRA has failed to pass: the pols aren't the people who get it done, the revolutionary segment of the class are. the most AOC can hope to accomplish are tepid reforms that challenge no one and help very few people.
you'd have more of a point if congress were capable of passing anything more contentious than symbolic gestures right now but the only way they can do that is on matters of importance to the whole of a very divided bourgeoisie. as few items make that list - fewer every day as gulf between them grows - the NPIC, "labor" groups (really another part of the NPIC at best, entrenched business interests at worst), etc are no more capable of getting bills passed than AOC is - indeed, they've been failing to do so since the 90s.