Permanently Deleted
is among us really that bad? its very fun with a good lobby
league bad though
I’ve even seen ML’s critique her for this as well. I’m kinda confused at what they want her to do in an institution they say you can’t change much in.
I hope they are building a movement to counteract this problem that they are necessarily wrong about.
Accelerationism isn’t a thing, and while it would be great if government were helping its own people, improving the material conditions of people is important.
You’re right in your last bit - don’t ignore suffering. The whole point of leftist thought stems from improving conditions for those who need it.
Additional though - creating mutual aid networks and removing complete dependence on a failed government by creating local networks is a net good. Without these kinds of parallel support networks everyone I dont think there can be resilience for us during a big political change.
Exactly. I think it’s a safe assumption the they’re social democrats at best, and if you make it then you must also realize there are severe limits to what they might organize. At that point you can decide to stop paying them mind, or judge them based on the role they have taken on. Personally, I think raising money for aid outside of electoral campaigns is just about the best use of her national profile within those bounds, because not only is she a succdem but she’s s succdem in a completely hostile legislative house.
Actually, it’s bad when elected officials do good things on their own time and how dare AOC
What do these people want AOC to do?
Anything that improves the aesthetics of the Democractic party without actually improving the material conditions of anyone.
It would be cool if, seeing as AOC is a congresswoman and all, she did more things to help make the American public less reliant on charities to cover their basic needs but I guess that is too much to expect or request. I don’t know, seems like a valid criticism to me.
What, though? As one individual (first-term) representative your power is pretty limited.
If she’s the deciding vote on something and comes down the wrong way, then yeah, criticize the hell out of her for it. But when something passes ovwrwhelmingly and however she votes makes zero difference, what’s she supposed to do differently?
The way to maximize the power of her office given the politics of everyone else in Congress is to push mainstream political discourse left. She seems to be doing a decent job of that.
Call me unrealistic but I try to envision a future with some semblance of a centralized welfare state because I believe in my heart that it is possible. I also believe it is AOCs responsibility to stay true to the ideals she campaigned on by doing anything in her power to make that happen. Whatever this is is not that. Obviously money that can go towards helping people is good, but I’d be much more excited to see her using her power as a member of congress to exert serious pressure on Pelosi over stimulus checks that impact every single American than raise money in a one-off celebrity popularity contest that does zero to address the systemic issues causing these problems any day.
AOC’s influence is basically a tightrope right now. Of course we’d all love to see her go off against Pelosi everyday, but it would turn the already hostile DNC apparatus against her. I’m not making a moral judgement here, I’m stating facts. Should she expend all her political capital on doing what Bernie’s doing? If it worked, it might be worth it.
But she is only one member of Congress. Also this is one of many strategies, look into her mutual aid after COVID struck. But if she turned every elected democrat against her without an alternative funding network, she might realistically lose her next election. Which is the inherent contradiction in bourgeoisie parliamentarianism. You can only do so much working within the system, so I just don’t see why raising $200,000 is a bad thing?
