this isn’t surprising in the least. Like, only someone who’s been entirely blind to the reality of the DSA in the past 4 years would be surprised by this. But, also, anyone who sides with the DSA would likely also agree with AOC.
Social Democrats aren’t leftists, they’re pro-capitalists who think people deserve rights. If I had to share an hour with either a SocDem or an Anarchist, I’d choose the Anarchist, because at least we’d agree on some things.
Seriously, anyone who supports AOC or the DSA wing of the Democratic Party is either greatly misinformed about their dealings and opportunism, or purposefully ignoring how terrible the party is out of spite for the ‘true left’.
During the 2020 BLM protests, AOC made various tweets trying to control black rage. She tried to tell protesters how and when to use their rage, telling black people to ‘save it for the polls’. She begged and pleaded with protesters in D.C. to go home. That alone should prove to anyone on the fence about her that she doesn’t give a fuck about justice or rights, she just wants the power and fame of office. The entire DSA wing of the Democratic Party is filled with people just like her, they abuse leftist language to attract voters, then push hardline neoliberal positions. And now that they don’t have President Trump to push against, they’ve entirely dropped the “revolution” and “fight the establishment” talking points, instead instructing their supporters to blindly trust Biden - as well to defend Biden against political musing.
I honestly believe that if things went differently, figures like AOC - and perhaps even Bernie - would be seen as ‘American Trotsky’s’. They’re just opportunists who will quickly swing their positions around to maximize their opportunity, but will never actually use any of that opportunity to improve the lives of their supporters. If there was a real revolution of the proletariat in the US, these Social Democrats would flee to Canada and start writing counter-revolutionary bullshit about how the communists stole their cows, and whatnot.
I agree with you but I think you’re going a bit far when you say they don’t work to improve the lives of others. Bernie and AOC just believe that it can be done in a non confrontational way with neoliberals. Then they get lulled into a state of complacency because of their high salaries and bureaucratic complacency.
“No, you see, Biden changed literally everything! The concentration camps are now called influx shelters! He may even change the name of the FBI building!!”
Interesting article - the WSWS have moved left no?
I remember them being democratic socialist tailers also?
No, they’re Trots.
And trust me, they haven’t improved much.
I have such a low opinion of trots though the fact they aren’t tailing liberals like AOC impressed me
Oh damn
This article is literally a Trot using statements by a SocDem as an excuse to bash other Trots. It’s not worth reading or discussing.
I recommend reading the actual interview rather than this biased and incredibly skewed hitpiece that recontextualizes small snippets of what she was talking about.
https://www.dsausa.org/democratic-left/aoc/
Do I love AOC? No. But I think while I find her identitarian streak a bit misguided I do believe she has the right idea at heart. Whether she’ll allow herself to become co-opted by neoliberal and capitalist interests is another matter. But let’s at least give her the benefit of the doubt by acknowledging the nuances of her viewpoints rather than taking Eric London’s holier-than-thou purist academic socialist drivel as fact.
I feel its necessary to not just highlight an article of AOC selling herself as a candidate to the US interest-party for metropolitan labor, but what she actually does, and votes for.
I agree. I feel it’s also necessary to not pick and choose small snippets of what she’s talking about and re-contextualize them to fit a narrative you’re trying to push, which is what I feel the original article was doing.
I have no delusions about AOC’s future ability to actively engage in socialist policy-making, but I do believe she believes she has our best interests at heart for pushing for socialist change via the Democratic institution, and whether or not you agree with that belief is up to you to judge via viewing her actual words versus the tripe this article was pushing.
Of course it’s impossible to dissect her perceptions of herself, but we can at least observe her actions, and see that if she held any cognitive dissonance beforehand, she certainly isn’t anymore.
Her railing about “child concentration camps” has now become a defense of those same “influx facilities”, and her support of M4A, now becoming “it’s not the right time”, IMO are more than enough to expose her as a careerist / opportunist, and a dishonest person.
To an extent I agree. I feel she’s attempting to insert herself into the electoral system and feels the need to “play ball” in order to advance her agenda. Perhaps it is her belief an outsider will forever remain an outsider. Her support of Biden and Pelosi is very telling, and it makes clear to me she is not one to be trusted in actively advancing whatever leftist goals I may want to see advanced.
That being said I also see myself as a realist, and short of some major war I don’t know if Americans can be radicalized into true socialist reform. And if they could have been, the opposition has been well and truly snuffed out. One thing’s for sure: AOC is not the figurehead of a new movement–or at least a movement I see as being truly radical.
Power corrupts
She was always like this. Your comment implies she got corrupted after assuming office. Why do you think so?
Essentially the statement in the article where she says the Democrat Party has now been transformed into a workers party. What she was once heavily critical of she now defends once her party is in ruling power. It was reported yesterday her and her progressive allies are meeting with the President directly, and she’s no longer criticizing kids in cages. Power corrupts.
It’s not power that corrupts, it’s motives. AOC’s motive is the accumulation of cloat and the furthering of neoliberalism.
the Democrats only cared about the ICE tragedy - which was previously overseen by Obama, btw - because they could use it as a means of obtaining support against Trump. They’ve stopped talking about it, simply because it no longer benefits them to - in fact it hurts them. They can’t criticize the detainment of immigrants without also outing themselves as supporters of that detainment, so they’re just not going to.
You’re conflating the democratic party with AOC. AOC might just be a useful idiot here. Hanlon’s Razor.
I wouldn’t call AOC a neoliberal. I wouldn’t call her a socialist either.
I think after a certain point, it doesn’t matter a whole lot what her intentions are, when her actions are consistently in support of neoliberalism.
That’s a good point. She still seems to be useful in advocating for some pro -worker causes at the moment.
I’m not conflating her with the DNC, she’s a primary figurehead of the ‘DSA wing of the DNC’ along with ‘the squad’.
She’s very much neoliberal, and always has been.
hey just because her voting record screams neoliberal doesn’t mean she is a neoliberal. she said she is a socialist like those in the UK.
If she was in UK labour, she’d’ve been one of the opportunists who called Corbin an anti-semite.
She was using kids in cages as a rhetorical tool to make the case that Trump’s regime was an anomaly to the neoliberal capitalist system but now that Dems have majority she won’t push for any legislation against them. This doesn’t mean that she got corrupted upon assuming office. It’s just standard social fascist behaviour. Same thing with universal healthcare. She was harping about of before now she says this is not the right time to talk about it. A social fascist doing social fascist things.
Again, I think this is Hanlon’s Razor (never attribute malice to what can be adequately explained by stupidity.)
You may be right in your assessment but it’s unrealistic to me that AOC is being malicious in her goals or that she belongs to a group that identify as social fascists. I’m sure if you had a one on one coffee and genuine conversation with her she would come off as a useful idiot who believes in what she says rather than someone whose goal was to trick the left in the USA.
The left in the US will never achieve power if they think potential allies are enemies rather than idiots. Thinking your enemy is smarter than they actually are is often why we become confrontational.
I def recommend reading over this list to see why AOC is just an opportunist sheepdog for the democrats. The ultimate issue is that the US is a capitalist dictatorship, and anyone trying to “change the system from within” will end up in a collaborationist role.
You can’t convince the rich to vote away their wealth, and you can’t undo bourgeois democracy using bourgeois democracy. Any frank study of US history reveals this process play out hundreds of times in a row, and DSA relies on historical ignorance of that history in order to win people over to the controlled opposition.
Any frank study of US history reveals this process play out hundreds of times in a row, and DSA relies on historical
There should be a book about this. Not just for USA but for all over the world. I see a lot of hubris and “end of history” mindset from people my age while major events happening right now usually have something similar that has happened before from which we can learn. But try watching mainstream news instead and it feels every problem is happening for the first time in history.
My two fav US history books that highlight this process the most, are Settlers, and a people’s history of the US. Of course socdems / demsocs betraying workers is a thing that’s played out in every single country in the past 100 years, but I’ve only read articles, posts, and sections of books that show this for other countries. The most recent one I read was about “euro-communists”, and the soft-left “socialist” parties in western Europe. JFC Fuck those guys.
But ya I’d be interested in Marxist histories of other countries which would unavoidably highlight this process.
Great list, thanks!
No probs :)
what can be adequately explained by stupidity
I don’t see any stupidity here. (Unless it’s me being stupid.) She has some goals as a career politician and she is working towards achieving it.
She doesn’t even have power, but she’s already willing to sacrifice anything to keep it.
