Happy to say ive heard lots of great things from comrades who were there who include several NPC members.
https://twitter.com/NicolasMaduro/status/1411121788701052933
https://twitter.com/Gaius_Gracchus_/status/1411129317208244224
https://twitter.com/nicolasmaduro/status/1411150426049810434
:maduro-coffee:
This is from three days ago. Plenty of people are still beating the "social imperialist" drum.
There's plenty of room for criticism of the DSA, but that criticism shouldn't be selective or done in bad faith.
All I'm seeing is perfectly legitimate criticism of AOC
Good faith criticism doesn't zero in on the bad and frame it in the worst possible light. It places a bad statement/act in context of whatever else the person says/does on the topic, and it considers that some bad things may be due to ignorance or mistake instead of the person being shitty.
Take a look at some of AOC's other comments on imperialism, colonialism, and foreign policy. In that context, harping on her "deferred to caucus leadership" comment is blatantly misleading. It's the type of slant-by-omission you'd expect to see from someone running a smear campaign, not someone making a good-faith criticism. Clearly her views are more complicated than a blanket support of imperialism, and criticism should reflect that.
Yeah but that was specifically on her talking about Tibet. I get that she is generally better than that, but not every critique needs to be couched in caveats
If it had been limited to her comments on Tibet, I would agree with you. But it brought up Venezuela, too.
If someone brings up a vague statement on Venezuela, frames it as damning, and omits a half-dozen clearer, much better statements on the topic, that's bad-faith criticism.
Sure, amidst good faith and warranted critiques. If something about Venezuela slips through into that, then I think the larger problem is with how statements like the Tibet one feed conscious and unconscious assumptions about the org. It confirms a bad faith read on Venezuela, because that negativity was vindicated with Tibet. I dont have an answer for that, nor would I say it is good; but it certainly is a problem and I get why it happens
bourgeois transparency 👁️
You're never going to get labor aristocrat Karens to do historical materialism, that would require reckoning with their material reality and not their idealist delusions.
she glows in the dark, but the light is very complicated patterns!
That was some blatant bait, the Tibet thing was a while back no reason someone would repost it in earnest right now. But also AOC is not DSA. I wouldn't criticize people for praising this meeting and also condemning AOC for what she said. I would argue it would be bad faith to conflate criticism based on ignorance or essentializing the entire org with criticizing a specific statement/politician. Bafflement over DSA meeting with Maduro and disliking what AOC said are not mutually inclusive
AOC is easily the most high-profile member of the DSA. I get that she doesn't speak for the organization, but it's not hard to see the parallels between how she's viewed on the left and how the DSA is viewed.
100%, which is why it is fair to criticize comments like hers. If her views parallel those of DSA even just in public opinion, then those views that are bad are all the more important to oppose. Even then I don't think too many people would suggest in earnest that DSA broadly agrees with her on Tibet, but maybe that's putting too much faith in folks
User named after Marx is offended that people point out CIA imperialism manufacturing consent for genocide. Sounds about white!
radlib justifications https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/liberals/lectureporn-the-vulgar-art-of-liberal-narcissism/