There is nothing progressive about denying progress.
  • VerbTheNoun95@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    121·
    1 year ago

    While I think it’s true that AOC represents one of the biggest steps in the progressive direction we’ve seen from US Congress recently, the use of the word “plenty” here makes this feel like we shouldn’t still expect more. I both appreciate the good that she has done while also hoping for more, and that’s really the best I can do.

  • Fredselfish @lemmy.ml
    116·
    1 year ago

    AOC is a sellout and will hurt our cause not help it. 20 years she will be no better than Nancy Pelosi. Who funny enough use to campaign for universal healthcare herself back in her days but then money got her.

    AOC let her fame go to her head and she caved on some pretty bad bills and instead of voting No she voted present. That to me is cowardly.

    She cares more for furthering her career than helping the progressive cause.

    • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      22·
      1 year ago

      When they ultimately fail to contain the class struggle they will side with the fascists and turn their guns on the working class like they did in both world wars.

      Uhhhhh what? WWI was pre-fascist, WWII had social democrats on the same side as liberals and communists against the fascists.

        • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          11·
          1 year ago

          Both of those examples are from shortly after WWI. And both involve attempts by armed communist groups to seize control of the state, which for good or ill is not something we’re going to be dealing with in the US for the foreseeable future.

            • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
              11·
              1 year ago

              Is there anywhere in particular you’re referring to? The US at least doesn’t really have a social democratic party, and the closest thing we do have, the Democrats, certainly don’t have any level of institutional control of the country’s labor unions.

                • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  What I mean about the US not having a social democratic party is that the Democrats are to the right of what we’d usually refer to as social democrats - at best a hybrid between a social democratic party and a liberal party. Classic European social democratic parties were born as socialist parties aiming at a gradual parliamentary transition to socialism, which through a combination of moderating themselves and being defeated electorally never actually managed to get there. DSA does have a lot in common with that earlier version of social democracy, though in the present day they’re more aligned with the further left parties like die linke or podemos than the official still existing social democrats.

                  As for the union issue, you’re not distinguishing between unions being a major constituency of the Democratic Party and their being controlled by it. Democrats are obviously not as consistently pro-union as we’d like, but they for the most part accept them as a valuable part of their coalition who they need to keep happy, as opposed to Republicans who want to bathe in their blood.