21 votes

The US establishment thinks Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is too radical – with an impending climate disaster, the worry is she isn't radical enough

14 comments

  1. StellarTabi
    Link
    I like democratic socialists because if we don't democratically solve climate change, healthcare, poverty, etc. as a democratic nation, then the rich will isolate themselves further into gated...

    I like democratic socialists because if we don't democratically solve climate change, healthcare, poverty, etc. as a democratic nation, then the rich will isolate themselves further into gated communities, income inequality will continue to skyrocket, slums will form and economic unrest may cause a 1917 type event in the USA. I'm not scared of the event itself, I'm scared of the Capitalist dystopia that leads up to it, and more so, the 50% chance of Stalin 2.0 that follows.

    13 votes
  2. [5]
    BuckeyeSundae
    Link
    No, Corbyn's problem with antisemitism is specific to him and his use of social media. It is both well documented and fairly disconnected from his political affiliation. It has otherwise continued...

    Till recently, the label “antisemitism” was used against any critique of the State of Israel and the way it deals with Palestinians; now, it is more and more mobilised to disqualify the left perceived as “too radical”, from Corbyn in the UK to Ocasio-Cortez in the US.

    No, Corbyn's problem with antisemitism is specific to him and his use of social media. It is both well documented and fairly disconnected from his political affiliation. It has otherwise continued to be used to silence criticism of the state of Israel, particularly its treatment of Palestinians. But sometimes it isn't a dogwhistle, like seems to be the case with Corbyn specifically.

    I mean, obviously this is an opinion piece and therefore comes with a bunch of claims, most of which are barely sourced (such as this idea that the American establishment--hardly a monolith itself, especially these days--is wholly against Ocasio-Cortez because she's "too radical"). That does not excuse Zizek from papering over the controversy in the UK. Anyone who's familiar with Zizek would of course expect him to argue for an even more radical approach to address political challenges than the mainstream options seem to allow, but for him to suggest that Corbyn's notorious antisemitism scandal is an attempt to discredit his politics is wholly disingenuous.

    4 votes
    1. [4]
      pleure
      Link Parent
      Can you elaborate on Corbyn's alleged antisemitism? The only examples I've ever seen have always been related to criticism of the Israeli regime. I disagree that the American establishment isn't...

      Can you elaborate on Corbyn's alleged antisemitism? The only examples I've ever seen have always been related to criticism of the Israeli regime.

      such as this idea that the American establishment--hardly a monolith itself, especially these days--is wholly against Ocasio-Cortez because she's "too radical"

      I disagree that the American establishment isn't monolithically pro-capitalist, and thus opposed to an anti-capitalist.

      3 votes
      1. [3]
        BuckeyeSundae
        Link Parent
        I gave a Wikipedia link that lists the several different stories that came out about Corbyn’s various controversies involving this basic theme. I would highly suggest giving it a thorough read...

        I gave a Wikipedia link that lists the several different stories that came out about Corbyn’s various controversies involving this basic theme. I would highly suggest giving it a thorough read through. The ones that stick out to me involve the private social media groups.

        1. [2]
          pleure
          Link Parent
          I looked at the page but it's quiet long and I didn't find anything that was a real smoking gun. Merely being an edgy facebook group and supporting a mural that (at least to my possibly naive...

          I looked at the page but it's quiet long and I didn't find anything that was a real smoking gun. Merely being an edgy facebook group and supporting a mural that (at least to my possibly naive eyes) doesn't appear openly antisemitic isn't really evidence of anything imo. On the other hand there seems to be a lot of effort to paint him as antisemitic because he criticizes Israel and supports Palestine.

          If there's an obvious example of antisemitism please share it, I certainly don't want to support anyone who actually meets the description.

          1 vote
          1. BuckeyeSundae
            Link Parent
            I get why you might not want to read through a collection of stories about Antisemitism in the Labour party which doesn’t always deal with Corbyn. And as I’m doing all this from my phone, please...

            I get why you might not want to read through a collection of stories about Antisemitism in the Labour party which doesn’t always deal with Corbyn. And as I’m doing all this from my phone, please forgive some of the sloppy references.

            I weigh pretty heavily what someone says when they think no one is watching. Then you add to those private edgy groups as you call them the fact that he considered Hamas and Hezbollah as organizations to be “friends,” even if he also says he disagrees with them a bunch, and this mural business in March. It is at the very least plausible that by his own actions he appears antisemitic, rather than any particular advocated policy toward Israel and Palestinine.

            But wait, I hear you say. I just linked characterizing Hamas and Hezbollah as friends to Antisemitism. Yes, because both organizations are notoriously antisemitic in policy goals and tactics.

  3. [3]
    Fin
    (edited )
    Link
    Okay. This might seem like a troll but it really isn't. I wanted to vote for Bernie last election cycle. I liked his ideas but like other people have said it would raise taxes. I would gladly pay...

    Okay. This might seem like a troll but it really isn't. I wanted to vote for Bernie last election cycle. I liked his ideas but like other people have said it would raise taxes. I would gladly pay more taxes if it helps (me) or other people pay for college because that is my only barrier right now.

    Can somebody tell me why democratic socialism is bad? Or how is it different from regular democrat? We already have socialist programs. I grew up with public education.

    4 votes
    1. Elishah
      Link Parent
      Your confusion is understandable, because our vocabulary for this is wretched. Trying to disambiguate at least three notions--socialism, social democracy, democratic socialism--that are vaguely...

      Your confusion is understandable, because our vocabulary for this is wretched. Trying to disambiguate at least three notions--socialism, social democracy, democratic socialism--that are vaguely defined, partially overlapping, and nearly identically named continually sets us up for misunderstandings.

      The purest definition of socialism is shared ownership of the means of production. This is pretty straightforward if you're talking about a factory that churns out widgets: instead of one person (who doesn't actually do the work) owning it and getting all the profits, the people who actually do the work receive the benefit of it. But it does kind of skimp out on resolving the questions of who gets to decide which work gets done, and it gets much murkier when applied to situations like information economies rather than material ones.

      The whole other side of the coin, which roughly corresponds to "social democracy" is more like shared ownership of the means of consumption. So for example, the government may not own or run the hospitals, but the government (and thus, the people collectively) is their sole customer.

      This has two notable benefits: it distributes the cost of this product smoothly across all members of society, and across time; and it gives collective bargaining power, rather than expecting unrealistically for each individual to shop around and negotiate prices while they're in the ambulance on the way to the ER.

      I suppose I'm failing at your request to explain why any of this is bad, because I don't generally think that it is. But we definitely lack good tools for talking about it.

      5 votes
    2. pleure
      Link Parent
      Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, which are the tools people use to do work (in contrast, capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production). There's a lot of...

      Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, which are the tools people use to do work (in contrast, capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production). There's a lot of contradictory terminology, ie, if "socialism" means "transitory state between now and communism (which lacks several other things such as a state, money, commodity production, etc)" which was started by Lenin or if it's just a synonym for communism like how Marx used it. But the gist is that it's the abolition of the capitalist class, ie, the ones who own the means of production.

      Now, there are two broad classes of socialism: revolutionary socialism and democratic socialism. Revolutionary socialism wants to destroy the current institutions, ie, the state. Democratic socialism on the other hand wants to reform the state from within. You can argue back and forth on the merits of both positions, many feel that real fundamental change from within is impossible because the state is an inherited capitalist construction and it will not allow itself to be dismantled. Others say that trying to smash the state will inevitably result in tyranny, so we must reform rather than destroy. This is controversial, some feel that democratic socialists aren't real socialists at all but are just liberals in disguise (liberal in this context means something like "capitalist but also valuing things like freedom and opportunity).

      why democratic socialism is bad?

      Depends on what you views are, right-wing types generally think capitalism itself is a good and moral system, so they would be opposed to any attempts to get rid of it. You have people who think that any leftist politics will inevitably mean Stalin 2.0. You have people who don't really understand what socialism means and think that the government will come and seize their toothbrush. You have economic arguments that insist capitalism is just more efficient than socialism could possibly be (The great failing of liberalism imo is an overemphasis on metrics like the employment rate while ignoring things like "do people hate their jobs / lives?", like the economic analysis aren't wrong per se but I reject the idea that they're good indicators of how society is doing). Of course the people who profit under capitalism and stand to lose some of their power or wealth are also against it, and so will try to sway public opinion in their favor.

      Or how is it different from regular democrat?

      Mainstream democrats are all capitalists, even the progressive ones like Elizabeth Warren say they support capitalism.

      We already have socialist programs.

      Not really! Welfare isn't socialist (in fact a lot of leftists hate welfare because they think it's a way of pacifying the people and stopping them from demanding real change, a starving man will revolt, a man who has just enough to get by won't). The confusion is understandable though, the right in America has a habit of conflating the government doing anything with "socialism", and accusing people who are very much capitalists like Obama and Clinton of being communists.

      2 votes
  4. pleure
    Link

    Problems begin when we raise the simple question: what do democratic socialists effectively want? The rightist reproach against them is that, beneath their innocent-sounding concrete proposals to raise taxes, make healthcare better, etc, there is a dark project to destroy capitalism and its freedoms. My fear is exactly the opposite one: that beneath their concrete welfare state proposals there is nothing, no great project, just a vague idea of more social justice. The idea is simply that, through electoral pressure, the centre of gravity will move back to the left.

    But is, in the (not so) long term, this enough? Do the challenges that we face, from global warming to refugees, from digital control to biogenetic manipulations, not require nothing less than a global reorganisation of our societies? Whichever way this will happen, two things are sure: it will not be enacted by some new version of a Leninist Communist party, but it will also not happen as part of our parliamentary democracy. It will not be just a political party winning more votes and enacting social democratic measures.

    This brings us to the fatal limitation of democratic socialists. Back in 1985, Felix Guattari and Toni Negri published a short book in French Les nouveaux espaces de liberte whose title was changed for the English translation into Communists Like Us – the implicit message of this change was the same as that of democratic socialists: “Don’t be afraid, we are ordinary guys like you, we don’t pose any threat, life will just go on when we will win...” This, unfortunately, is not the option. Radical changes are needed for our survival, and life will NOT go on as usual; we will have to change even in our innermost life.

    3 votes
  5. Tenar
    Link
    Hmm, I mean the central bit (we need even more radical solutions to the massive issues we're facing) I agree with, but why single her out for it? First, like @BuckeyeSundae said, there's the...

    Hmm, I mean the central bit (we need even more radical solutions to the massive issues we're facing) I agree with, but why single her out for it? First, like @BuckeyeSundae said, there's the unfounded claims, but at least she's somewhat trying, pushing people (and the overton window) towards the first steps needed?

    2 votes
  6. [2]
    nacho
    Link
    Really? If the DSA isn't radical enough for you, what is? Last year the DSA national convention voted to end their affiliation with Socialist International because of their "neoliberal views"...

    the worry is she isn't radical enough

    Really? If the DSA isn't radical enough for you, what is?

    Last year the DSA national convention voted to end their affiliation with Socialist International because of their "neoliberal views" saying among other things "In many countries, they [SI] have helped to lead the attack on the welfare state and on the rights of workers and unions.”

    When the SPD, Parti socialiste, PRI and PASOK are your actual examples of parties that are too "neoliberal" in your self-described aims towards economic democracy, post-nation state global justice, and social redistribution (i.e. massive confiscation of existing property through legislation/nationalization), to me then you're basically advocating revolution of some sort. The changes require so substantial constitutional changes you can say that revolution happens legislatively if you wish.


    I don't think the DSA convention delegates can possibly be so uninformed about what other SI members have done when they've actually been in positions of democratic power to say that the group is "neoliberal" unless their beliefs actually amount to revolution in practice.

    DSA leaving SI happens concurrently with the socially democratic parties in the nation states today that seem to emulate the views the DSA formally espouse in their where we stand document most closely have left SI in favor of the Progressive Alliance in the last five years due to SI allowing so many undemocratic parties to join.


    there is no surprise in the wide scope of reactions to the fact the term “democratic socialism” has gained (limited) acceptability in one of the two US main parties.

    This isn't really true either. Candidates like Cynthia Nixon are blatantly misusing the term "democratic socialist" when they actually mean "social democrat" in the modern European sense.

    two things are sure: it [a global reorganisation of our societies] will not be enacted by some new version of a Leninist Communist party, but it will also not happen as part of our parliamentary democracy.

    Then you shouldn't be supporting an essentially Leninist vision:

    • It's difficult not to read Zizek's "hundreds of thousands of ordinary people, registering and articulating their dissatisfaction." as the start of a Vanguard party.
    • If democracy won't cut it, don't you have the idea of some form of working-class dictatorship?

    Oh. So it is Leninism then, but saying the phrase shows how batshit crazy all this is.

    I'm not even sure the DSA is close to Zizek's views he's so far out there.

    2 votes
    1. musicotic
      Link Parent
      Her views on the Palestine/Israel issues are worrying, and she's essentially a social democrat. The SPD is very very close to CDU/CSU, and has essentially been neoliberal for years. That's not...

      Really? If the DSA isn't radical enough for you, what is?

      Her views on the Palestine/Israel issues are worrying, and she's essentially a social democrat.

      When the SPD, Parti socialiste, PRI and PASOK

      The SPD is very very close to CDU/CSU, and has essentially been neoliberal for years. That's not controversial. They are nowhere near socialist, and not even a social democrat party

      The Parti Socialiste has implemented policies strongly unpopular among leftists for the last few times they had the presidency. They literally have a "pro-business" wing, and have for years. This is why leftists have splintered off of the party multiple times

      Everyone knows that the PRI is centrist and has been for nearly 3 decades. The leftists left in 1989 after the party started implementing right-wing reforms.

      Don't know about PASOK to comment

      The DSA is a heterogenous group of people that includes liberals, anarchists, social democrats, democratic socialists (the actual kind), Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, etc.

      I don't think the DSA convention delegates can possibly be so uninformed about what other SI members have done when they've actually been in positions of democratic power to say that the group is "neoliberal" unless their beliefs actually amount to revolution in practice.

      They really aren't that uninformed, they recognize that SI isn't socialist in any sense of the word. The members are overwhelmingly social democrat, often neoliberal/centrist, and work against socialist goals.

      1 vote
  7. annadane
    Link
    And putting people in jail for marijuana or piracy isn't radical?

    And putting people in jail for marijuana or piracy isn't radical?

    2 votes