The Democratic Socialists of America pulled its endorsement of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York this week, accusing the progressive congresswoman of being insufficiently supportive of the Palestinian cause and efforts to end the war in Gaza…
Her approach has increasingly strained her relationship with some of the left’s most strident critics of Israel. When she rallied last month in the Bronx with Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Jamaal Bowman, dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators angry over her endorsement of Mr. Biden chanted “You’re a fraud, A.O.C.”
Oh no the literal tankies are against her what will she do? These people are not Democratic socialists, they’re not even leftists. These people suck the dick of totalitarianism.
They’re not all “tankies:”
In 1956, a “Tankie” was someone who endorsed the Stalin’s tanks driving through Hungary to suppress a counter-revolution.
In 1989, a “Tankie” was someone who endorsed the Deng Xiaoping’s tanks driving through Tienanmen Square to suppress a student riot.
In 2024, a “Tankie” is someone who thinks Netanyahu’s tanks driving through Gaza to suppress the Al Aqsa Flood has gone too far.
If you’re getting angry at Bernie and AOC, you’re probably on the wrong side of an issue
Politics shouldnt be a matter of picking a team/ idol and supporting them blindly.
If a politician you formerly supported does something stupid, like how both Bernie and AOC have done recently, you aren’t obligated to support them. You can and should rescind your support if they do something you disagree with. Both Bernie and AOC could be much much stronger on Gaza, and frankly, especially AOC has basically backstabbed/ abandoned the movement that got her into power. She’s got “star power” at this point, where “cheer leaders” are just going to support her regardless of her policies or effectiveness. Its sad, but its how modern politics works. You start on the outside, work your way in, and then abandon those who put you into power initially.
There is no way the squad gets elected without Our Revolution/ Justice Democrats/ DSA, then venn diagram of which is pretty fucking overlapping. All of the squad minus Omar and Ro Khanna basically stopped taking any calls from progressives once we put Biden in office in 2020.
Both Bernie and AOC could be much much stronger on Gaza, and frankly, especially AOC has basically backstabbed/ abandoned the movement that got her into power
…
AOC and Bernie basically stopped going on progressive media post 2020.
Ro Khanna and Ilhan Omar still do. There is a wide chasm growing among progressives: Those who still need the grass roots and those who dont. Once AOC started playing ball (under Pelosi), she no longer had to be worried about getting primaried by the DCCC, which is the sword the DNC uses to kill grass-roots campaigns.
There has been a literal war against progressives within the DNC. AOC was neutered and is no longer a threat.
Common DSA L.
Fucking idiots. Pulling your endorsement of one of the top fucking 5% of most Pro-Palestinian Congresscritters for being INSUFFICIENTLY pro-Palestine.
AOC doesn’t get elected without DSA in 2018.
If you can’t pull back your endorsement as a political organization, you have no power.
The progressive revolution that genuinely found its footing in 2015 is over. The figureheads have been captured and its going to be a ‘rebuilding’/ ‘consolidation’ cycle while we weather the facist takeover.
If you can’t pull back your endorsement as a political organization, you have no power.
Cool. If you pull back your endorsement of someone who is already one of the most aligned representatives of the fucking country with your agenda because you want her to go even further, why the everloving fuck do you think anyone will ever choose to align with you? You’re an unreliable ally who punishes your supposed allies for getting nearer your position, and empowering people who are MUCH further away from your (very much non-majority and non-plurality) position. Do you really not see how fucking counterproductive that is?
But hey, since when have little concerns like “This is actually putting a corporate stooge in power” or even “This will lead to fascism winning” ever bothered Left purists? They aren’t the ones who suffer.
The progressive revolution that genuinely found its footing in 2015 is over. The figureheads have been captured and its going to be a ‘rebuilding’/ ‘consolidation’ cycle while we weather the facist takeover.
Jesus fucking Christ.
who is already one of the most aligned representatives of the fucking country with your agenda
Is she? Show me. Show me how she is working for and supporting the policies that DSA is working for.
Jesus fucking Christ.
You realize your opinions are just a long series of mistaken views that don’t predict future states of the world right? Like, you have this hyperbolic reaction to things that you’re views don’t align with, but your views don’t predict the future. We’ve covered this. You should consider that your political calculus is just bad and maybe you should open up your view.
You have fun doing your best to welcome fascism with open arms and assist corporate cronies into power. I forgot that your opposition to Biden wasn’t because you didn’t think he could win, it was because you’d oppose any Democrat actually on the ticket for being insufficiently pure.
You just can’t help yourself can you? A year of having a wildly mistaken understanding of the political calculus around Joe Biden and what it takes for Democrats to win, putting out a view point and a particular rhetoric that was objectively helping Trump to victory; then the most minor of admonitions on your part that you were wildly in the wrong. But obviously zero introspection on your part as to why you were in the wrong. Have you considered why you were so wildly in the wrong as long as you were, to the point of basically costing the Democrats the ability to win any house of power in 2024?
We’re talking about AOC and the DSA, and I’m making some specific points about how to wield political power and what it takes to stay “in” power when the “team” you are on would rather not have you. You, like some one who has no fucking clue what they are talking about, decide to make it personal and just go on the attack. Brother. You have the political calculus of a naked mole rat. Like, the beliefs you have around politics aren’t useful for predicting what will happen.
You and many others here seem have attached your identity to a specific political team. And when that team gets criticized, you imagine yourself to be personally under attack. You (and many others here) can’t separate your identities. Maybe its because you are older, and haven’t spent the time to self-actualize and have that independent identity; maybe you are younger and haven’t had the opportunity. Maybe you have no real experience in politics or campaigning or institution building. Maybe you’ve never read on or studied power, how it manifests, and how it is wielded to great or little effect. Regardless, you obviously have significant work to do to train your understanding of the world to the point where the beliefs and things you think predict future states of the world, which, in my personal belief system, is the entire point.
I put probably close to 3000 volunteer hours into squad/ squad adjacent campaigns. I’ve run political organizations, for years. I’ve worked directly with politicians as an outside organization. If you, as a political organization, can’t withhold your endorsement/ power: you have none. And when you are charged with managing/ growing/ building a movement; building power is your entire job. If AOC isn’t going to be on the right side of DSA, and they endorse her anyways, the DSA loses all power in the relationship and suffers (likely falls apart) as an organization.
This is a good example of why I left DSA. They are averse to pragmatism. They see the world in purely theoretical terms. They form their policies according to some hypothetical ideal, instead of reality.
There are plenty of political organizations for whom pragmatism* is their core political philosophy. Its not at all part of the philosophy of DSA. There is plenty of space for both. If you want an organization that is focused on pragmatism, there are plenty to align with. Specifically, organizations like DSA are explicitly idealistic, and the principals of socialism are also explicitly idealistic, which is effectively in opposition to pragmatism. If you are a pragmatist or one that espouses pragmatism in political philosophy, the fuck were you doing with the DSA? Its an intentionally and explicitly idealistic organization.
*I assume you know that pragmatism is a political philosophy and identity of its own.
Pragmatism isn’t only an ideology, it’s also a methodology or an approach to problem solving. In that regard, a pragmatic approach can be taken in furtherance of an ideological goal that is not necessarily capital ‘P’ Pragmatism.
I agree that DSA is an idealistic and not a pragmatic or practical organization, which is part of why I left. I didn’t feel that they really wanted to transform America into Democratic Socialist society, and instead they were content to virtue signal and bicker between themselves about theory.
Maybe you just don’t get the relationships or understand how philosophy maps to effectiveness, but to be clear, idealistic organizations can and have been highly effective at making political changes. The DSA/ Our revolution/ JD are great examples of this. I know you think you are making a distinction here, but like, you are not fully correct in this. The idea of taking idealistic stance is an effective way to get things done, I mean, its how the DSA got AOC elected in the first place. She used the uncompromising idealism as an argument that helped get her elected. It really works.
AOC could never have won her 2018 election as a pragmatist. Time will tell if this ends up being an effective strategy.
You are making the assumption that pragmatism is inherently better or more effective at capturing political power, which I’m disagreeing with. All of the major power shifts in the previous decade (say, 2015 forward) have resulted as a direct extension of embracing idealism. Specifically, we did see a shake up within the DNC with progressives in 2016, 18, and 20: progressives expressing a clear and distinct idealistic vision of something very differently than what we have/ had.
Likewise, you saw it on the right with Trump, and the rise of the alt-right, where voters flocked to candidates who were “uncompromising” in their views. They’ve built a huge political movement around that idealism, misplaced, distorted, scary, white nationalist idealism. But an idealism none-the-lessor.
For both parties, you can go even further back to the Tea party, and Obama’s 2008 campaign for more examples of how a commitment to idealism gets you into power: this is a great example, because where the tea party stayed committed to their idealism, they continued to grow in terms of power and getting their agenda done (see project 2025); Obama abandoned the idealism of his campaign for what I would call the best modern example of political pragmatism, Obama’s governing style for his first and second terms.
For Obamas pragmatism, he barely got heath-care done. For the Tea Parties idealism, they were effectively able to shift the entire political hegemony of the entire right-wing political apparatus of the country.
The data suggest to me that in an age of populism, idealism as both campaigning and governing political philosophy is far more effective. And if AOC is retreating from her former identity as idealist, this will cost her. She doesn’t get power from being a moderate/ pragmatist. She gets power through idealism.
I’m not really arguing for or against DSA, but they were important for AOC’s first run. Critical even. I am making an argument in favor of idealism; that pragmatism is not effective at gathering or wielding power in the currently political hegemony we find ourselves in.
You are making the assumption that pragmatism is inherently better or more effective at capturing political power
That’s not exactly what I said, I said pragmatism is a methodology that can be used to achieve a goal. There’s no reason why you couldn’t take a pragmatic approach to achieving an idealistic goal. It’s simply a matter of finding strategies that get you nearer to your goal and disregarding strategies that get you further from your goal. Several years ago, DSA was able to have a lot of success by putting forward an idealistic vision. Yes, I agree with that. However, since then the success of that strategy has waned significantly. Perhaps selling a kind of idealistic vision for America is still an effective strategy on the far right, but I think its effectiveness has declined dramatically among centrists and moderates, as well as progressives. Maybe it’s still an effective strategy in AOC’s district specifically (although, it seems she has become less idealistic and yet remains popular in her district, as far as I know), but that doesn’t mean idealism is an effective strategy in America, generally.
Yes, I agree with that. However, since then the success of that strategy has waned significantly.
I just don’t agree with this. The DNC has been waging a war against idealism and against progressives since it began in earnest in 2015. Idealism is the only thing that can save the Democrats right now, but core DNC, pro-business, neo-liberal Democrats don’t get their power from it, so they opposed it with more energy than they’ve ever been able to muster against the actual “right” in this country. This is them having “flipped” AOC from that which got her into power to that which gets them into power.
Bernie was polling at +15 to Trump in 2016. That was the power of idealism. Take this clip of Adam Smith from his recent CNN interview (timestamp 3:00). Adam Smith, one of the most corporate of the corporate Democrats making the point that they basically had to rat-fuck the primary to stop Bernie Sanders from winning. This is the quiet part outloud. Idealism works on the left. It takes the entire institution of the DNC working against an idealistic candidate to stop them.
Idealsim works and I see little to no evidence that middle path, pragmatic approaches to electoral-ism are effective on the left or the right ( for the period starting very early at 2008, getting its footing strongly in 2016, at least before 2024). Pragmatism is a weak political strategy in this political climate and I see no evidence to the contrary.
What you see from AOC is her capitulating to the party structure and internal party politics. This started in 2021 when she capitulated on internal party reform with Pelosi post DJT. AOC’s power has shifted from being primarily based in grass-roots organizing to being primarily based on the structure of the party. Any one who’s power extends from party structure is always going to tilt towards strategies that keep that structure in place. If you have data showing that moderation is winning elections (left or right), happy to discuss.
If you have data showing that moderation is winning elections (left or right), happy to discuss.
Well, there’s the fact that Clinton won the primaries in 2016, and that Biden won the primaries (over Bernie), and the general, in 2020. If Congress or state legislatures have become more progressive, I’m not aware of it.
Did you even click the link?
Adam Smith. On record basically stating that party insiders rigged the nomination against Bernie because he was clearly running away with it in 2020. 2016, we have a literal supreme court decision telling us that the DNC rigged the 2016 primary against Bernie, and that its ok for parties to rig their nominations. He was polling at +15 against DJT and the DNC chose “middle path” pragmatism to their loss. You put idealistic candidates out there and you win elections.
The burden of evidence is on you at this point.
Can I just say FUCK The Democratic Socialists of America, those scumbags can eat a bag of dicks.
Just look at their stances, views, and activities:
- They blame the US for the Russian invasion of Ukraine
- They want the US to pressure Ukraine to surrender to Russia under the guise “negotiations”
- They want the US to leave NATO
- They support the Venezuelan dictator, Maduro, so much that they literally sent a fucking delegation there to meet him
- They organized a tone deaf pro-Palestinian rally on Oct 8th right after the attacks when the world was still in shock
- They outright want the destruction of Israel. Not a two state solution, not coexistence, but the eradication of Israel
- They quite literally want open borders
- The organization is full of full blown vile Marxists who to “abolish capitalism” and establish socialism
- They condemn social democracy
- In 2016 they refused to endorse Hillary and spearheaded the movements that called for people to boycott voting Democrat, which led to Trump winning
- In 2020 they refused to endorse Biden and spearheaded the movements that called for people to boycott voting Democrat, which helped Trump make the election closer than it should’ve been
- In 2024 they’re doing the same exact thing by refusing to endorse Biden again
They have ALWAYS simped for all the dictators and authoritarian regimes. They have always had the most brain dead stances on foreign policy issues. They subscribe to a colossal failure of an ideology, and their interests are not with the US succeeding. They are nothing more than assets of our foreign adversaries.
The organization and movement at large is nothing more than the far left and the most whacko of Bernie Supporters that even he is uncomfortable with. I’m glad AOC went from being a fringe extremist politician to becoming more pragmatic and moderate. She has been winning me over more and more lately, and this just proves that she’s moving in the right direction. Once again, the DSA can get fucked.
That sure is a lot of claims without one single source for any of them.
Go on hexbear and ask them
Why do y’all hate
evidenceso much?
left wing is so busy ripping itself apart while right has fully consolidated, good luck winning elections. This is practically handing POTUS45 his POTUS47 title. US left wing always picks wrong timing to settle internal scores which is why it’s always flatfooted and toothless.
No, no, THIS time handing over power to fascists will DEFINITELY make the left in this country strong.
/s since that’s literally what’s being said by these fucking people who go on about how the
national rebirth‘reconstruction’ of the political environment under a Trump regime is how we get progressive victories.The communist leader in Germany before Hitler took over said that failure of the nazi government would help convince people to vote for communism in the next election; he was subsequently killed in a concentration camp.
If only they’d joined the SPD in voting for Hindenburg, the guy who won the election and appointed Hitler chancellor, then Hindenburg would’ve… won the election and appointed Hitler chancellor.
I suspect she’s going to get reelected in spite of losing their endorsement
She’s an incumbent in a heavily gerrymandered safe seat. Very little was going to pry her out shy of the kind of primary upset she used to take the seat in the first place.
But even as the ostensibly far-left flank of the party, she’s constantly pulling her punches in order to avoid getting censored and reprimanded within the Democrat’s caucus. Its not inconceivable that she could be thrown out, the same way George Santos was, if enough of her colleagues decide being Pro-Palestinian rises to the level of an expulsion-worthy ethics violation.
You can argue the DSA is unreasonable. And you can argue that Congress is so swarmed with AIPAC loyalists that not being censored is cause for alarm. But however you slice it, she’s putting her career ahead of any kind of personal conviction.
Do you mean New York is gerrymandered in the other direction? The 2022 map is +4% efficient gap for Republican. So she has her seat dispite the gerrymandering going the other direction.
Do you mean New York is gerrymandered in the other direction? The 2022 map is +4% efficient gap for Republican.
Regardless, NY-14 is a D+40 seat. Hard pressed to name a seat anywhere in the country that’s safer.
What does this mean?
Good. No compromise on genocide. Never again means never again.
This gives me some hope for the DSA.
And don’t come at me with “pragmatism”. The pragmatists supported the Nazis.
Never again means never again.
Apparently, to purists like you, “Never again” means “If it happens anywhere, we should help it happen everywhere we can.” But hey, who cares about minorities in the US, and Ukrainians in Ukraine? Fuck 'em, right?
“Ugh, genocide is bad, but we have other things to worry about right now.”
— You, and most Germans during World War II.
genuine question, what alternative is there to voting for whatever candidate the democrats run with?
Join the DSA?
