I think the best thing I’ve taken from the cushblogs is this: you cannot put most people into the all encompassing category of “Good” and “Bad”. This screams of wanting to put aoc in a box and write her off as “Bad”. Fucking dumb.
Amen. We can and should highlight where other folks on the left are wrong, but painting someone like AOC with a broad “bad” brush for one statement or even multiple statements is not good. And it seems like AOC is the only one here who gets this treatment. We seem to do a better job of calling out bad positions from folks like Bernie or Corbyn - both of whom are functionally social democrats as much as AOC is - without painting them as “bad”. But feels like AOC is our fun punching bag here.
It’s almost likes she an elected official who claims to be part of the left.
I guess my point is that her position isn’t much different from any other (mainstream) politician on the left.
I’m going to assume the political calculation of not supporting a two-state solution is simply not worth it. I mean, if it were up for a vote in Congress, which it never will be, I would be more interested in this position. But now its basically a litmus test for the media to decide if they should attack you for being anti-semitic. In mainstream discourse, being against Israel having its own state is the primary definition of anti-semitism.
Yeah let’s call AOC a social-fascist that’s reasonable
That makes a lot of sense
I’m sure all the good things she’s said and done were just PR, this shows her true face, she’s a fascist out to get us just like everyone else
I knew it all along, I knew nobody ever was good except for me and my 20 online friends
Leftism is calling out supposed “”“allies”“” for their bad takes and writing them off entirely, this is how the left will win
I shall crawl further and further into my echo chamber until I will have finally achieved socialism all by myself
Yeah let’s call AOC a social-fascist that’s reasonable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism
all the good things she’s said and done
nobody ever was good except for me and my 20 online friends
for their bad takes
“good…bad” = do you mean bourgeois or proletarian?
… A KPD resolution described the “social fascists” [social democrats] as the “main pillar of the dictatorship of Capital”.[7] In 1931, the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) referred to the Nazis as “working people’s comrades”. In Prussia, the largest state of Germany, the KPD united with the Nazis in unsuccessful attempt to bring down the state government of SPD by means of a Landtag referendum.[8] In 1931, the KPD, under the leadership of Ernst Thälmann, internally used the slogan “After Hitler, our turn!” since it strongly believed that a united front against Nazis was not needed and that the workers would change their opinion and recognize that Nazism, unlike communism, did not offer a true way out of Germany’s difficulties.[9][10]
After Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party came to power in Germany, the KPD was outlawed and thousands of its members were arrested, including Thälmann. Those events made the Comintern do a complete turn on the question of alliance with social democrats and the theory of social fascism was abandoned. At the Seventh Congress of the Comintern in 1935, Georgi Dimitrov outlined the new policy of the popular front in his address “For the Unity of the Working Class Against Fascism”.[11] The popular front did not stop the conclusion of the German–Soviet Non-aggression Pact.[citation needed] Theodore Draper argued that “the so-called theory of social fascism and the practice based on it constituted one of the chief factors contributing to the victory of German fascism in January 1933”.[12][13]
This is a pile of historically bad takes. You’re fighting on the losing side of a battle that was lost and rejected 80 years ago.
Yes, social democrats are liberals, but this strikes me as people climbing a ladder and knocking the ladder away so no one else can climb.
The Comintern abandoned the term in the interwar period essentially to beg for alliances with the Social-Democrats and calling them “Social-Fascists” was completely antagonistic to Soviet foreign policy during that period
And what happened? Did the Social-Democrats force their governments to ally with the Soviets?
No, we saw Chamberlain collude with Hitler to try and turn the Nazi army east, we saw Daladier do the exact same.
France, under so-called “Socialist” Daladier, ratfucked Czechoslovakia by not activating the defence treaty that France and the Soviet Union had signed. (France and USSR signed a treaty with Czechoslovakia to come to her defence. However due to the anticommunism of the period the Czech President said that the Soviet Union could only defend Czechoslovakia if France came first to her defence. The reason he did this was because he suspected if only the Soviets came to his defence the capitalist pigs in France/UK would ally with the fascists and display this as “Communist aggression” and wage war on the Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union.) Instead France allowed Czechoslovakia to be carved up because they thought they were playing 5d chess to get Hitler to go east into the Soviet Union.
Social democratic parties all over Europe collaborated with Hitler.
Take Hungary, Hungarys Succdem party was never even banned under Hitlerite occupation so instep with fascism they were
Let’s not beat about the bush - It was correct Soviet foreign policy once the Nazis had risen in 1933 to stop calling SuccDems Social-Fascists but doesn’t make it any less true
This is all ironic of course on a page where we are discussing a Social-Democrat that supports fascism “over there”.
“Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.”
J. V. STALIN, from , “Concerning the International Situation,” 1924.
I shall crawl further and further into my echo chamber until I will have finally achieved socialism all by myself
Social-democracy is capitalism. Social-democrats are not socialists
Lenin/Stalin/Mao and Castro did not go “we need to work with capitalists” lol. They conquered them and in some instances shot them.
:ak47: :ak47: :ak47: :mao-aggro-shining: :stalin-shining:
To build up industry did Lenin work with capitalists? Or was the communist party in control of the industry and the economy?
Dengs a revisionist so not sure what your point is
Correct. Stalin never made deals with Fascists. He historically never invaded Poland alongside Hitler in 1939
I mean Mao worked with the “Nationalist Bourgeoise” or whatever right? Granted they were subordinate to the party and the circumstances in feudal china and capitalist usa are different.
China was not an imperialist country though
In fact the exact opposite - they were a colonial country held in shackles by the imperial powers /Japan/uk/France and USA
So China was a communist revolution and a national liberation struggle against capitalist imperialism described in Lenins Right Of Nations To Self Determination
The equivalent item (if we’re trying to find one) is the Communist Party of China working with Uncle Tom Chinese that collaborated with the foreigners
They didn’t…they shot them
You’re absolutely right. Stalin would never ally with capitalists like Churchill, and Mao would never consider forming a United Front with a capitalist like Chang Kai-shek. The history understander has logged on.
Yes thats absolutely comparable
Having conquered political power in their own countries and made concessions against super powers in foreign policy is the same as lining up behind a succdem in the imperial core
There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Palestinian families whose most prized possession is the key to the house in which they lived in before being forced out by bulldozers and bayonet to make way for the foundations of Israeli settlements. It is the dream of all those whose families were forced out by the Nabka (and other ethnic cleansing campaigns) to someday leave the open air concentration camps in which they are imprisoned, and return home.
Entire Villages were destroyed, and totally erased from the land
I mention that anecdote because it might help explain why when people on the left criticize SocDems such as AOC for their insufficient support for the Palestinian cause. We don’t do it because we are a bunch of children unsatisfied with anybody who minorly disagrees with us, but rather because the wretched state of Apartheid that plagues Palestinians today is so painful to be aware of, and it’s extremely disappointing when representatives who ostensibly care about “justice” refuse to extend their support to ending an ongoing genocide.
the wretched state of Apartheid that plagues Palestinians today
The article does not explicitly claim that Israeli forces taught American police to kneel on a person’s neck at the conference.
“Two state solution” isn’t a petty piece of word play. It feels like a declaration that Palestine won’t get justice for the awful shit Israel has done on behalf of foreign powers and, recently America, since WW2. As if we live in a reality that Israel is the community that needs protecting and not the rural, indigenous people in Palestine who were thrust into a position to play politics in the longest running hotbed of cold war proxy and curious intelligence agencies of the modern era. I write off every other politician that does all that whacky shit like giving teachers a contract with a condition about not supporting BDS, or conflating anti-Israel rhetoric with anti-semitism (shout out to Corbyn). Right now, “what happens to Israel after people get justice?” sounds to me like “what about the small business owners after the revolution?” Like even if you could make the case, and sometimes you probably could, it’s just not a priority for me and people like me. There are people suffering tragic loss and dying - more dramatically outside of the imperial core. I feel like AOC has a track record of not extending the kind of kindness I’d like to see a representative extend to people outside the US. It makes me nervous and sad because she is a wonderful advocate for women and a spearhead of necessary and just domestic policy.
I would hope the label social fascist would be a damnation of American foreign policy rather than decrying AOC as an irredeemable other. Israel is no good, folks.
Is AOC’s position on Israel / Palestine materially different from that of Corbyn?
I don’t know, honestly - I hope someone who knows better could field this question. A quick Google search says that he’s in favor of the two state solution.
Someone else in this thread makes note of Rashid Talib talking about Israel’s right to exist and she probably has the best take I would want to hear from a politician in the US/UK. I only hear about Corbyn from memes and headlines, but I believe some of the anti-semitism claims come from him speaking of Palestinian rights similar to Talib. I don’t know that for sure, so I wouldn’t want to declare it so.___
How dare she, why isn’t she out on the campaign trail shouting “Death to Israel” :angery: :angery: :angery:
Is it really so much to ask that she listen to the “lived experiences” of her fellow squad members: Rashida Tlaib, and Ilham Omar, rather than deferring to the liberal wing of AIPAC, and throwing them under the bus?
There’s a reason why conservative Zionists defend AOC.
None of the people you named would ever suggest that Israel shouldn’t exist.
She has implied that Omar was casuing pain and being antisemetic by suggesting in a tweet that AIPAC money influences Congressional representatives.
Also unlike AOC Rashida Tlaib knows that the phrase “Israel has a right to exist” by itself is a euphemism for right to occupy/destroy Palestine, which is why when Tlaib was asked if she believes Israel has a right to exist said:
“Of course… but just like Palestinians have a right to exist, Palestinians also have a right to human rights. We can’t say one or the other. We have to say it in the same breath or we’re not going to actually have a peaceful resolution.”
AOC should be capable of saying that at least
What the people who say “Israel has a right to exist” mean by a Two State solution is this
Nice straw-man.
Arguing for a two state solution, that is politically impossible at this point is the same as arguing for the status quo, which is the continued genocide of Palestinians, and as a self proclaimed progressive she should know better.
It’s embarrassing how the left will ignore or excuse progressives arguing for continued war and imperialism.
Holy fuck, I’m like skeptical of AOC in that I don’t think she will accomplish much in congress as it is a capitalist institution, but this is just blatantly starting shit. Bernie said the same thing. Jeremy Corbyn said the same thing. Ilhan Omar said the same thing. This is what every politician has said. It needs to change, but calling people social-fascists does not work.
