AOC hasn’t “retreated” from socialist politics. She’s had to adapt and be pragmatic since getting elected to serve in federal office, unlike anyone in that so-called “liberation caucus”. They sound like a bunch of backseat drivers to me.
One person can’t just show up in congress and suddenly make socialist policies happen. That’s gonna require a majority in both chambers to pass. Expecting AOC to do all that by herself and accusing her of selling out when it doesn’t happen immediately, is asinine.
This is the problem on the left. We spend more time cannibalizing ourselves than we do actually working to get more socialists elected. The recent successes in the DSA have been in spite of the naysayers, not because of them.
So, for the record, the passage I quoted is not necessarily representative of my personal opinion. The person I responded to wrongly asserted that no one in DSA holds the position that AOC’s political engagement has, to one extent or another, been opportunistic.
I simply set about showing how that is not true, and that there are people in the org who very much do feel that way.
AOC hasn’t “retreated” from socialist politics. She’s had to adapt and be pragmatic since getting elected to serve in federal office, unlike anyone in that so-called “liberation caucus”. They sound like a bunch of backseat drivers to me
DSA has an internal system of caucuses, which are largely ideologically based, and act as political parties within the organization.
There’s Socialist Majority which is the big reformist caucus. Reform and Revolution is the Trotskyist caucus. Red Star is Marxist-Leninist, Libertarian Socialist Caucus is Anarchist, etc.
Liberation are the Maoist caucus, and so they largely reject electoral engagements with politics, preferring to organize the internally colonized sections of the American working class through labor and tenant organizing, and the like. They don’t think taking congressional seats, even if DSA were to win all of them, would make socialism happen.
But the reason I chose to quote them in particular, is because they represent what is probably the left-most position in DSA, regarding AOC. While much of the “DSA left” (left here being relative. Even the rightmost caucuses are to the left of mainstream American politics) holds a similar position, opposing an AOC presidential run, or otherwise being skeptical of her, they would likely frame it differently.
Reed Star, for instance, would frame their AOC criticism, less as overt opportunism, and more as being strategically flawed, as the org tailing an individual for her popularity, rather than putting forward a candidate with the intent to lead and educate/radicalize the masses.
Liberation are the Maoist caucus, and so they largely reject electoral engagements with politics
Then how are they considered to be democratic at all? I thought that was a requirement for DSA…
more as being strategically flawed, as the org tailing an individual for her popularity, rather than putting forward a candidate with the intent to lead and educate/radicalize the masses.
First of all, how is running a political candidate based on popularity strategically flawed? That’s literally the definition of being politically strategic.
Secondly, AOC is perfectly capable of leading and educating the masses; moreso than any delusional MLs lurking in the DSA without participating beyond complaining about every single candidate who actually runs…
Then how are they considered to be democratic at all? I thought that was a requirement for DSA…
Of you asked the vast majority of DSA members today, they would say that the “Democratic” part of the name refers to the internal processes of debate and mass democracy that the orh practices internally, rather than, say, a commitment to a reformist path to Socialism.
First of all, how is running a political candidate based on popularity strategically flawed? That’s literally the definition of being politically strategic.
Popularity can be important, but the key criticism here is tailing an individual. AOC’s relationship with DSA is complicated, and for many in the organization, that communicated relationship means that going all in on an AOC presidential bid would be putting the cart before the horse as it were.
If she were to win, there is neither the movement infrastructure, nor a significant or coherent enough Socialist bloc in Congress yet, for her to get much of anything done.
Further, given her previous votes for selling “Defensive weapons” to Israel, many on the DSA left believe, and I think rightfully, that when the institutional inertial of the military industrial complex inevitably drags the US into a conflict in some far flung corner of the world, that she won’t have the backing, nor the personal fortitude to stand up to something like that. I think such a thing would tear the whole Socialist project in this country apart, frankly.
Secondly, AOC is perfectly capable of leading and educating the masses;
I think a failed AOC run could be instructive, in ways similar to Bernie’s two runs. The Bernie campaigns failed, but they were successes insomuch as they brought back Socialism into the American political consciences, brought people into DSA in droves, and radicalized those new DSA members away from their former liberalism.
Perhaps a failed AOC presidential bid could do something similar at a larger scale. But I think that’s the extent of such a thing’s utility. I think those in the org who are diehards for an AOC presidency (namely Groundwork caucus) aren’t thinking as far ahead as they ought to.
moreso than any delusional MLs lurking in the DSA without participating beyond complaining about every single candidate who actually runs…
Red Star, the ML caucus, has 3 seats on the org’s National Political Committee, and occupies one of the national co-chair seats. Far from “Lurking” and “Complaining” in lieu of participating, they’re a very active and influential wing of the organization.
A lot of that seems valid. For the record, I personally don’t think she should run this cycle. I would love to see her as president, but I don’t think it’s her time. Even if she wins, she’d be walking into a shitshow and would have to spend precious years cleaning up this mess (while taking the blame for the mess to begin with) instead of focusing on implementing socialist policies and proving they work. Overall, would not be a good look for the first socialist president of the US.
Furthermore, it’s just too risky. Yeah there’s some good momentum going for progressives right now, but that’s far from a guarantee that a progressive latina woman will win the presidency in 2028. The stakes are too high. We can’t run another milquetoast centrist who will fail to mobilize the left, but we also need to be pragmatic. Even if that means running a white dude, like Beshear or Shapiro. Someone the right-wing pundits will have a really hard time slandering.
And like you said, there’s no guarantee we’ll have a Dem trifecta after 2028, let alone a socialist or progressive one. Let’s work with the momentum we’re gaining, flip some seats and build the influence of the DSA and the progressive caucus. Maybe by 2036 the situation will look way different than it does now and the time might be ripe for it. Or maybe 2040 or 2044, if the historical trend holds of the executive flipping parties every time there’s a new president.
But I have very little patience for leftists who spend more time attacking other leftists/progressives for not being extreme enough, instead of focusing on the issues that we’re all faced with
AOC hasn’t “retreated” from socialist politics. She’s had to adapt and be pragmatic since getting elected to serve in federal office, unlike anyone in that so-called “liberation caucus”. They sound like a bunch of backseat drivers to me.
One person can’t just show up in congress and suddenly make socialist policies happen. That’s gonna require a majority in both chambers to pass. Expecting AOC to do all that by herself and accusing her of selling out when it doesn’t happen immediately, is asinine.
This is the problem on the left. We spend more time cannibalizing ourselves than we do actually working to get more socialists elected. The recent successes in the DSA have been in spite of the naysayers, not because of them.
So, for the record, the passage I quoted is not necessarily representative of my personal opinion. The person I responded to wrongly asserted that no one in DSA holds the position that AOC’s political engagement has, to one extent or another, been opportunistic.
I simply set about showing how that is not true, and that there are people in the org who very much do feel that way.
DSA has an internal system of caucuses, which are largely ideologically based, and act as political parties within the organization.
There’s Socialist Majority which is the big reformist caucus. Reform and Revolution is the Trotskyist caucus. Red Star is Marxist-Leninist, Libertarian Socialist Caucus is Anarchist, etc.
Liberation are the Maoist caucus, and so they largely reject electoral engagements with politics, preferring to organize the internally colonized sections of the American working class through labor and tenant organizing, and the like. They don’t think taking congressional seats, even if DSA were to win all of them, would make socialism happen.
But the reason I chose to quote them in particular, is because they represent what is probably the left-most position in DSA, regarding AOC. While much of the “DSA left” (left here being relative. Even the rightmost caucuses are to the left of mainstream American politics) holds a similar position, opposing an AOC presidential run, or otherwise being skeptical of her, they would likely frame it differently.
Reed Star, for instance, would frame their AOC criticism, less as overt opportunism, and more as being strategically flawed, as the org tailing an individual for her popularity, rather than putting forward a candidate with the intent to lead and educate/radicalize the masses.
Then how are they considered to be democratic at all? I thought that was a requirement for DSA…
First of all, how is running a political candidate based on popularity strategically flawed? That’s literally the definition of being politically strategic.
Secondly, AOC is perfectly capable of leading and educating the masses; moreso than any delusional MLs lurking in the DSA without participating beyond complaining about every single candidate who actually runs…
Of you asked the vast majority of DSA members today, they would say that the “Democratic” part of the name refers to the internal processes of debate and mass democracy that the orh practices internally, rather than, say, a commitment to a reformist path to Socialism.
Popularity can be important, but the key criticism here is tailing an individual. AOC’s relationship with DSA is complicated, and for many in the organization, that communicated relationship means that going all in on an AOC presidential bid would be putting the cart before the horse as it were.
If she were to win, there is neither the movement infrastructure, nor a significant or coherent enough Socialist bloc in Congress yet, for her to get much of anything done.
Further, given her previous votes for selling “Defensive weapons” to Israel, many on the DSA left believe, and I think rightfully, that when the institutional inertial of the military industrial complex inevitably drags the US into a conflict in some far flung corner of the world, that she won’t have the backing, nor the personal fortitude to stand up to something like that. I think such a thing would tear the whole Socialist project in this country apart, frankly.
I think a failed AOC run could be instructive, in ways similar to Bernie’s two runs. The Bernie campaigns failed, but they were successes insomuch as they brought back Socialism into the American political consciences, brought people into DSA in droves, and radicalized those new DSA members away from their former liberalism.
Perhaps a failed AOC presidential bid could do something similar at a larger scale. But I think that’s the extent of such a thing’s utility. I think those in the org who are diehards for an AOC presidency (namely Groundwork caucus) aren’t thinking as far ahead as they ought to.
Red Star, the ML caucus, has 3 seats on the org’s National Political Committee, and occupies one of the national co-chair seats. Far from “Lurking” and “Complaining” in lieu of participating, they’re a very active and influential wing of the organization.
A lot of that seems valid. For the record, I personally don’t think she should run this cycle. I would love to see her as president, but I don’t think it’s her time. Even if she wins, she’d be walking into a shitshow and would have to spend precious years cleaning up this mess (while taking the blame for the mess to begin with) instead of focusing on implementing socialist policies and proving they work. Overall, would not be a good look for the first socialist president of the US.
Furthermore, it’s just too risky. Yeah there’s some good momentum going for progressives right now, but that’s far from a guarantee that a progressive latina woman will win the presidency in 2028. The stakes are too high. We can’t run another milquetoast centrist who will fail to mobilize the left, but we also need to be pragmatic. Even if that means running a white dude, like Beshear or Shapiro. Someone the right-wing pundits will have a really hard time slandering.
And like you said, there’s no guarantee we’ll have a Dem trifecta after 2028, let alone a socialist or progressive one. Let’s work with the momentum we’re gaining, flip some seats and build the influence of the DSA and the progressive caucus. Maybe by 2036 the situation will look way different than it does now and the time might be ripe for it. Or maybe 2040 or 2044, if the historical trend holds of the executive flipping parties every time there’s a new president.
But I have very little patience for leftists who spend more time attacking other leftists/progressives for not being extreme enough, instead of focusing on the issues that we’re all faced with