this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2022
1 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13535 readers
57 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 4zi@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Babe wake up, new LiberalSocialist session just dropped

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] 4zi@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Why are you replying to literally everyone in the thread with this, idc about electoralism

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It’s important. It proves I was right.

[–] 4zi@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago

MODS!!! MODS!!!! FLAG ON THE PLAY!!! I WAS RIGHT!!!!!! MODS!!!!

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] 4zi@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] betelgeuse@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

"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:

[–] 4zi@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

But have you considered :vote: ???

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Please read what I’m writing and trying to say rather than just memeing and dunking. This is important.

[–] 4zi@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

Nah I’m good

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] betelgeuse@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Re-read what you just wrote and think about it for a minute.

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] GenderIsOpSec@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

a social democratic congress is much better and conducive to socialism than one that’s not.

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.

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GenderIsOpSec@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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:

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GenderIsOpSec@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

that’s just accelerationism.

[–] GenderIsOpSec@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

: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?

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] 4zi@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

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

[–] Dawn_Beveridge@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

> going to bed

> sees post

> sees content

> sees LiberalSocialist

:joker-dancing: Hexbear time

<3 you comrade
Edit: No for real though I :meow-hug: you comrade. You really look like you've a big heart and a fair mind, and you're honestly not wrong on most of your points.
People here will give you a hard time, but that's cause we've been here for years. We've had this whole thing 'figured out' for a while, and here you are, you've joined less than two months ago and now you're expected to have learned the exact Hexbear mantra since.

I am glad you haven't left this site, you're a kind of energy I can really appreciate.

K tho I did say I was going to bed. :sleepi:

[–] corgiwithalaptop@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

Sleep tight comrade I'm about to read theory and then pass out.

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You cannot vote in socialism.

Red Fash tankies confirmed.

On a serious note, AOC, Bernie, and the Squad have time and time again proven themselves to be social imperialists. I'll stop criticizing them when they stop trying to murder the Global South.

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago

Well gee, if first world labor aristocrats who already make more in an hour than hundreds of millions of people make in a week get their sick days, all is well in the world.

[–] booty@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You know, I've decided I'm not even going to finish reading this one. Your open liberalism is getting old. Commit to communism or go away.

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I am a communist. I am an anarchist. I am a Marxist. I am a socialist. My disagreements are based purely on those terms.

[–] EndOfHerstory@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago

New site tagline just dropped.

[–] ilyenkov@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago

Okay, now I'm finally convinced this is a bit account.

[–] betelgeuse@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

Cuomo is a hexbear user?

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

FIFA guy be like

[–] bbnh69420@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Allow me to be the first to say:

Username checks out

Thank you

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] bbnh69420@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Provide evidence for the following claim:

“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.“

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well, we’ve never had socialism in a developed country so there’s no direct evidence for it.

But it makes sense. A country with a social democratic government and institutions is closer to socialism. It’s a smaller jump from one to the other, than it would be under any other government.

[–] bbnh69420@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

Vibes based path to socialism is not convincing me to ease up on the Democratic Party

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

There goes my last lonely sliver of doubt that you're not just fucking around :PIGPOOPBALLS:

[–] corgiwithalaptop@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

To the person reading this, I love you

[–] Flinch@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago
[–] Sen_Jen@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism :stalin-approval:

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago
[–] wombat@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism

[–] TheaJo@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

User makes worst take of all time, asked to leave own struggle session

[–] a_fanonist_hexagon@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We will not distract them with such empty questions as who will be elected from which political party. All political parties, as things stand, will support the power complex. Any individual elected will either be a supporter of the established politics — or an “individual.” What would help us, in fact, is to allow as many right-wing elements as possible to assume “political” power. The warnings that “our thrusts toward self-determination will bring on fascism” are irresponsible—or better, unrealistic. The fascists already have power. The point is that some way must be found to expose them and combat them. An electoral choice of ten different fascists is like choosing which way one wishes to die. The holder of so-called high public office is always merely an extension of the hated ruling corporate class. It is to our benefit that this person be openly hostile, despotic, unreasoning.

George Jackson, Blood in my Eye

[–] LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

That’s just wrong and and this kind of rhetoric only hurts the most marginalised amongst us. The Democrats are not the ones passing anti-trans and anti-abortion bills.

There is a different between Democrats and Republicans and the only people who benefit from hiding that fact are the Republicans.