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.
Okay, let's tell the social democrats that supporting Israel's apartheid state is extremely shitty, but I will refuse to call them social fascists or insist that they are just as bad as Hitler because objectively they weren't. That's something we can see in hindsight, just as the western states can now see that they were wrong about Hitler's ambitions in hindsight.
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:
Lenin p worked with capitalists, liberals and the bourgeoisie. Only in the process of layer stages of 1917 (not 1905!) would he switch to taking power directly, without a liberal revolution. Which made him deviate from orthodox Marxism and implement more central power.
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
Both Mao and Stalin absolutely and concretely did advocate working with the “progressive” bourgeoisie as part of the whole two-stage theory error.
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
I know, I am just being nitpicky. I'm not suggesting the situations are comparable.
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
Having conquered political power in their own countries
Do you know anything about Chinese history? Like, at all?
is the same as lining up behind a succdem in the imperial core
It's almost as if Stalin and Mao didn't live in the imperial core and aren't perfect examples for operating within it.
It’s almost as if Stalin and Mao didn’t live in the imperial core and aren’t perfect examples for operating within it.
Oh wow is Tsarist Russia not an imperial country?
history understander indeed
Is there not a difference between an imperial country and the imperial core? Imperial Japan was an imperial country but not part of the core, was it not?
It's a useless analysis as the "core" has changed over time and the "core" we now understand didn't exist prior to ww2
Tsarist Russia was an imperialist country
Japan was an imperialist country
Actually no for this analysis Lenin and Stalin not lining up with succdems (and instead ruthlessly exposing them) is what he did within the imperialist nation he lived in and so the material circumstances are basically the same
Hey, that's not fair - I have 9,010 online friends according the user count. I just don't talk to many of them very often...
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.
https://www.jta.org/2019/03/14/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-isnt-ilhan-omar-or-rashida-talib-especially-on-israel-and-anti-semitism
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
What the people who say “Israel has a right to exist” mean by a Two State solution is this
That's an obviously exaggerated interpretation of her opinion. But I thought that you made a good point overall, so I went and looked up the video. After the line that the tweet quoted, she goes on to stand by a tweet she made calling the killing of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers a massacre, stating that it would be no different if 60 civilians were killed in her district. Then the interviewer, who is an asshole, asks her what she meant by the phrase "the occupation of Palestine" and she specifically refers to the building of settlements and the humanitarian crisis.
I'll grant you, she doesn't come across as forceful or as certain of her position as Tlaib and she even hedges her bets by saying that she 'doesn't know enough about the situation', but this interview was in 2018, only weeks after she had been elected. It's a cherry-picked line, and it definitely doesn't reflect the views that the people in this thread are saying it does.
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.
Yeah, just like I said, she should be calling for the abolition of Israel which is just so much less "politically impossible" in US politics. Mhm.
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
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-israeli-secret-service-teach-floyd-police-to-kneel-on-neck
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.___
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.
Do we have to do this every day? This is like the "Girl you totally don't care about at all, bro. I swear."
Nah, she's just a succdem - kinder, gentler imperialism is completely compatible with the social democratic worldview, which is why (I hope) everyone here is not a social democrat, and is instead a socialist or communist (I know we're actually all liberals, but I'm tryna be aspirational). Plus she's a Democrat to boot, so no one should be surprised at some amount of toeing the line on Israel and imperialism more broadly - it's an inherent material limitation of trying to do entryism within that cursed party, which is why I'm somewhat sympathetic to the stance that it should be moved on from as a tactic.
You can reject social democracy without using credibility-destroying terms like social fascist.
Is it wrong to support social democrats in their electoral pursuits, though? Outside of leftist circles, nobody was really talking about things like M4A or labor rights before Bernie and AOC became household names.
I'm not suggesting we invest a ton of energy into any of these politicians, nor am I suggesting we avoid criticizing them on their bad takes - especially when it comes to foreign policy. I just think that until a viable leftist alternative exists, it is still worth offering token support in order to amplify the issues that matter to us.
In a vacuum I think it's fine. Bernie especially helped expand the political imagination in the US a great deal (it helps that his rhetoric was often implicitly steeped in terms of class war). There's definitely a case to be made that AOC and reformists like her are an actual path to the "harm reduction" the pro-Biden camp has been pitching - I tend not to be super dogmatic about tactics, and I do think there's some room for demsoc reformism.
That said, anecdotally speaking, I have witnessed the frustration organizers on the ground feel when they try to do work outside of the electoral sphere - in actual practice, in nominally socialist orgs with limited resources, I've gotten the sense that electoralism can genuinely funnel resources away from more other types of efforts, and back into the Democratic party. So it's a tricky question, and I certainly don't have the answers!
i just want the palestinians to get their houses back, live in a socialist republic with the israelis, smoke weed, and sing kumbaya
a just random nation state in the global south
I love Arabs so much I don't consider their hegemonic power to oppress or exploit.
I honestly don't know what is to be done. I'm an idiot, I'm not gonna have the solution to the conflict. A two state deal, even a two state deal with right to return and a better distribution of the territory I don't know would work. I feel like the tension between the two states would remain.
A one state deal where the country is pluralistic and the Palestinians are given back their homes and reparated sounds good, but like...but that sounds like a hard sell and who is to say there wouldn't be a civil war at some point?
I guess this is under the assumption of peace talks and an international agreement, the palestinians could just force demands on the israeli side, but idk how feesible some kind of huge campaign like that would be or how badly an attempt at something like that would hurt them as well as people in israel without accomplishing anything.
someone more knowledgable what is the best strategy?
While I agree that aoc could be better isolating the sentence into two factoids:
- the state of Israel has the right to exist (as long as states exist and without any declaration about any 'occupied terrories' aka Palestine
- the two state solution has support
And saying anyone who holds them combined, or even just holds 1 is social fascist etc. might be problematic.
Who talks about the conflict without harassing Hamas for their actions and counter revolutionary activity, who is silent about Puerto Rico, who is silent about catalonia, South Sudan, Rojava, who is willing to sacrifice LGBTQ for a 'revolutionary struggle', who is idealistic on the analysis of the history and the material conditions in the places is not actual consistent revolutionary, but a particularist.
Say that the Palestinians deserve to have their rights recognized.
Make that the narrative instead of propaganda for Israel.
I agree, that would be a much better position to take. But personally I'd prefer us all to take that attitude instead of painting AOC with a really broad "bad" brush when it's a position of lot of other politicians on the left take, too.
Which rights do Palestinians have? If you say human rights it wouldn't quite be socialist. If you don't talk about the individuals, but the collective of the Palestinians and say they are a people and as such have according to classical theory a right to self determination (that is of they are able to world power and form a state in their territory which currently isn't the case cause they can't military win) or according to Lenin's right to self determination and struggle for liberation there are two entry points for further talk. The first I will just deny, the second opens up the question if people deserve support in their liberation struggle when did the necessary critical support of the people of Israel's struggle switch from to be supported to being problematic?
If you say when there was a reactionary or semi fascist group that wielded violence I might ask if you talk about Hamas. If you say when Israel defended itself against multiple so called Arab nations I draw the support of liberation struggle. If you say after 1967 we can talk about the expansions over the borders of that point, but honestly I don't feel much in support of the collective of Palestinian people, but about the individuals that were and are hurt by war or occupation.
Materially Israel proper integrated 'Palestinian/Arab' Labour and people into their capitalist system. In occupied terrories and the special economic zones the integration is very different. The former are not experiencing apartheid, the latter experiences things that resemble elements of apartheid.
What we see within Israel is a strong support for two state solution and even in the left (as well as Jewish left) there isn't a call to abolish Israel. There is a minority, though idealisation of any actor might lead to non materialistic politics.
Any idealistic policy can be understood when Egypt is not mentioned, when Libanon isn't mentioned, when Syria isn't mentioned in the question of a Palestine and safe space for people read or declared Jewish, Palestinian, Arab.
The reasonable solution is a one-state solution, and that one state is called Palestine
So, not a socialist at all...
I'm really surprised she sold out in such little time.
She interned for Kerry, so 'sold out in such little time' is probably too generous.
True. I put her in the "Bernie was a compromise" category. She's still super Libby, but in the best we can hope for sort of way. I hate it here.
if there is a civil war, we need people like her to slowly push people to where leftist ideals are even remotely palatable before shit goes down, just having the current system not working isn't going to make people think the left is the way to go, fascists will also propose their ideas, and because the right has been grooming americans for decades they are much more likely to go with the fascists. Yes she's got a lot of major flaws but we need people like her to push people to a point where they can be further pushed left.
