EDIT: AOC is doing what the unions wanted her to do.
https://hexbear.net/post/236928/comment/3033122
DISCLAIMER: Before you jump on me, the below post is to show how much of a dead end electoral politics is. You cannot vote in socialism.
But you should still vote in socialists. The more, the better. Building up the organisations needed to actually bring in socialism is much easier under a more left-adjacent government.
AOC and the other progressive Democrats did not vote for the anti-strike legislation because they’re liberals or hate workers or anything. Their vote was necessary to pass the 7 paid sick days bill. That was the agreement between the progressive and conservative Democrats.
But this nuance is fucking lost on people here. When you play the electoral game, you have to compromise. Every elected official will do so. AOC, Bernie Sanders etc. are not betraying the working class when they support such bills. They’re doing the best they can.
But it’s as if the people here don’t want the best. They just want empty gestures. And when people like AOC do the smart thing that would at least benefit some people, they act as if AOC is the same as Nancy Pelosi.
Guess who wants you to believe that? Guess who benefits from that? The Republicans. It’s grifters like Jimmy Dore and Infrared and Glenn Greenwald that push this rhetoric all to drive more leftists to either apathy or direct support for people like Tucker Carlson and DeSantis who are the “true” populists.
The vote passed by like over a hundred votes. The handful of progressive congresspersons couldn’t have stopped it. But what they could do, was get the other bill with the paid sick leave passed in exchange for a vote that was already going to pass. I mean, it’s like people are forgetting that the latter vote barely passed. Almost no Republican voted for it.
Why? Because the Republicans hate the working class more than the Democrats.
Please don’t forget that.
TLDR: AOC, even if it doesn’t seem like it at times, is better than most Democrats and all Republicans. A Congress and Senate filled with people like AOC will be exponentially more conducive to implementing socialism than any other. It will still not bring in socialism. Socialism can only be achieved by a revolution. But creating the conditions and the organisations and the class consciousness necessary for that revolution, is easier under a social democratic government than any other.
Do you disagree?
Yes. Electoralism is pointless. Because it’s pointless, elected “socialists” should act with reckless abandon to bring about workers concessions regardless of if their :vote: actually does so. Any attempt to legitimize electoralism by the elected official is just liberal nonsense.
What?
No, AOC is not going to bring about socialism. That’s my point. Expecting that of her, and being disappointed when she doesn’t deliver, is ludicrous. She’s not going to just go in and break things. She’ll get booted next term and be replaced by a neoliberal who’ll just make things worse. Her job is to do as much good for as many people as possible by working within the system.
"They can't do socialism because they'll be replaced. Therefore we have to support them in not doing socialism so they can stay there forever, not doing socialism but somehow making things better for people by not doing socialism"
:hesitation-1:
But have you considered :vote: ???
Please read what I’m writing and trying to say rather than just memeing and dunking. This is important.
Nah I’m good
The entire post is about how expecting elected officials to enact socialism is pointless. That happens outside of congress. But a social democratic congress is much better and conducive to socialism than one that’s not.
Re-read what you just wrote and think about it for a minute.
?
This is just not true. The revolutionary fervor is crushed by social democracy, not by the stick like in fascism, but by a steady stream of carrots which is then slowly shut down over time when the threat of class conciousness goes away. This is material reality and how it has happened thus far. Your vibes are off on this one.
I mean, yeah, social democracy is not socialism. It’s capitalism. It will not directly lead to socialism. But opposing carrots is objectively easier than sticks.
It...really isnt.
Just....what?
"It's easier to oppose treats than it is to oppose boot getting stuck on your throat."
Please just consider what you're writing before you write it. Alternatively a very good bit, you had me going there for a moment :marx-ok:
I mean, the analogy breaks down, so maybe I shouldn’t have carried on with it.
I meant organising unions and co-ops and parties is easier under social democracy than under fascism.
I can say with personal experience that under social democracy you have toothless fucking unions that are too scared to rock the boat.
I will concede that yes, it's easier to create the framework for unions under social democracy, but under fascism you would hopefully be creating actually militant organisations instead.
that’s just accelerationism.
:shrug-outta-hecks:
yugoslavian partisans created a socialist country. swedish unions created a social democracy that sells weapons to fascists.
if thats accelerationism then it just proves that it's more valid than social democracy.
end of the line is this, social democracy does not create conditions for socialism, it actually destroyes them. this is how it has been and continues to be. unless you can prove otherwise?
Accelerationism, that is, letting fascism run wild in the hopes of that building up a socialist alternative, is a ludicrous ideology that will only lead to millions of deaths.
If she says she’s pro worker and the votes against worker interests, then what is the point of having someone there. I never said she’s going to bring about socialism, but if she just votes in accordance with the ‘optics’ and ‘good political strategy’ rather than on a principal of defending workers interests, she is just another liberal that is pandering to the trap that is electoralism