Ocasio-Cortez Loses the Democratic Socialists’ Endorsement Over Israel
nytimes.com
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.”
If you're getting angry at Bernie and AOC, you're probably on the wrong side of an issue
I may be dumb, but I actually trust those two, unlike every other politician, I feel like if they are making strange decisions they must know something we don't...
They've certainly built up the benefit of the doubt, especially Bernie.
Their conduct behooves anyone to look into and fully understand what they're doing before decrying them for a single act they instinctually might disagree with.
Especially a criticism like "haven't done enough".
I can't imagine any "haven't done enough" that overturns all of the very important work either of them have done or are doing.
They know how to play the long game and pick their battles.
From what I know, it seems Bernie has had the the stance on most thing since he was fighting against the vietnam war.
Fuck that, AOC voted to protect the rail corporations from the unions striking.
I'm just surprised that wasn't the reason she has lost the support of the DSA.
The DSA are actually fucking brain dead. They have been on the wrong side of everything for at least a decade. They simped for all the dictators, tyrannical regimes, and terrorist groups. They've gone out of their way to hurt the Democrats in elections, while stimulations helping the Republicans. They've always adopted brain dead stances for domestic issues and endorsed disgusting ideologies that makes them repulsive to most people. They're a tumor to the left that needs to be removed.
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.
Yeah they chose quite the time to make the perfect the enemy of the good
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.
I mean he was basically right. The social democrats took 30% and the Nazis got 0% in the next election
In 1949 after Germany's defeat in WWII.
Gottem
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.
Just reading about it:
Not sure if it is analogous to America, since the KPD in Weimar Germany was more prominent politically than the DSA is in America. It was definitely a bad position in hindsight.
Wasn't it the SPD that appointed Hitler Chancellor? Sounds like in hindsight, they were right.
Hindenburg did.
And Hindenburg wasn't the candidate of the SPD. He was the candidate of a coalition of parties (the Reichsblock) spearheaded by the openly antidemocratic conservative-liberal German Peoples Party (DVP).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1925_German_presidential_election
It's good to know that on top of Marxism being a failure from the very start, it also has a long history of paving the way for fascists to get into power. Some things never change.
Is that why Trump and fascism are about to be re-elected, because of the failure of Marxism?
No Marxism is a failure for a lot more than that, it's one of the most evil failed ideology in human history. It's just ironic how the people who helped get the Nazis in power are the same people doing the same now. The far left has always been the greatest indirect ally of the of the far right, and they say the horseshoe theory is not real.
So, the Marxists, who have no participating party in American elections, with no elected representatives in the federal government, are the real reason fascism is happening in America?
That’s certainly an opinion.
like in definition of insanity: making the same mistake over and over expecting different outcomes? Yeah by that definition US left is insane.
Well, apart from the literal assassination attempt.............
The right has so much infighting that it's dirty to even call them 'the right' as if it's a single group. If the US weren't using a FPTP system with the threat of vote spoiling, it would be much clearer just how split all political factions really are. Neo-Nazis have been calling Trump "Zion Don" for the past ten years and crying about all his links to da jooz and blags, the Libertarians disagree so much that about 2 million of them voted their own party instead of Rep or Dem in 2020. There's even PACs like the Lincoln Project.
The reason it's important to recognize this is that it's important to know their weaknesses. They're not all one homogeneous group, and many of them literally want to kill each other.
fighting or not they have all lined up behind POTUS45 even if previously they criticized him etc. At the time when left is dilly-dallying and builds up "resistance centers". Look, all the pro-Gazan declarations with conditional support for Biden is a waste of air as as soon as POTUS45 will grab his POTUS47 title it's game over and they will have no recourse, and more likely than not public protests will get slowly outlawed. Look North of the border for examples of how it's done (Alberta, Canada)... so no matter what they do nothing is going to change now the only differentiator is that Biden may listen whereas POTUS45 absolutely will not.
It’s much more difficult to build something than it is to tear it down.
That's why we should have Ranked Choice voting. people could give their preference a chance, while still counting their vote against those they don't want in office.
It's because they always get angry and start pointing fingers when things get tough.
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 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.
Well, yeah, they're socialists. Why shouldn't they want to abolish capitalism and establish socialism? There's nothing vile about that.
The dissolution of the state of Israel. Their worldview understands it as a settler-colonial ethnostate, just like former apartheid South Africa was. Jews, Christians, Muslims and others co-existed in Palestine before the Zionist state of Israel was established, the two-state situation is segregation caused by the establishment of a Zionist regime.
That is a perfectly-appropriate time to rally support. They are pro-Palestinian and wanted to make it clear that people believed the resistance was supported, regardless of whether they are critical of the methods. The mass media gets to have its voice immediately, so rallies should not wait either.
Yes. Democratic socialists are not capitalists and would not consider liberal democracy (especially the US version!) a working form of democracy, and don't consider social capitalist parties within it to be effective because they must work within a broken system. Social democracy is a false hope to them.
Most socialists will understand the US as a settler-colonial imperialist state from day 1, so yes, their interests are ultimately that the US (as we know it) should stop being imperial terrorists that most of the world (including state allies) hate. But to call that being "nothing more than assets of our foreign adversaries" is ignorant of the very real and growing discontent with the US's own borders. A lot of US citizens hate the US governments and how they work, and to blame that on foreign adversaries will ultimately prevent them from being solved and prevent their numbers growing.
"A vote for Bart is a vote for anarchy!"
Heh, it's poetry.
No, that in itself is vile. The reason why neo Nazis are despised is because they subscribe to a hateful, idealist, and tyrannical ideology that ended up failing every time it was tried and has killed tens of millions of people. There's another idealist ideology that also got popular around the same time, but had the same fate of failure, tyranny, and resulted in the deaths of tens of millions... what was that ideology again? Oh that's right, it's Marxist socialism. You're not morally superior to fascists, you're just as trash as them. If Marxist socialists had a similar movement in size and influence to Trump and MAGA and were in a position to win, the sane majority would be just as terrified, and rightfully so.
"We stand against genocide!!! ...but not that one, that one is okay"
This is the type of ignorance that I expect from Marxists. Israel and Palestine are both artificial states created around the same time. There has literally never been a moment in human history where a sovereign state called Palestine existed. Before the current states Israel and Palestine, there was the British Mandate that was arbitrarily drawn... just like the British and French did with the rest of the region. Before that, it was the Turkish Ottoman Empire, and they had completely different divisions of the region. Before that, it was the Egyptian Malmuk Empire, and they also had their own divisions of the region. The same thing goes for the Ayyubid Caliphate, the Abbasid Caliphate, and the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem... but at that point we've gone back 1000 years. This narrative that you cling to is not true.
Ukraine just got invaded, quick, hold a pro-Russian rally. What? ISIS just massacred a Yezidi village? I guess it's a perfectly appropriate time to hold a pro ISIS rally. Hmm, Al Qaeda appears to have launched planes into buildings in New York, I guess it'll be wise to stand solidarity with the islamist resistence.
Because why be principled and stand with victims against senseless violence when we can be a brain dead ideologue who's pro terrorism and genocide when it suits your ideological goals and anti terrorism and genocide when it doesn't? If you ever wondered why the far left never seems to get a foothold anywhere, this is why.
What kind of a heartless ghoul do you have to be to support the Oct 7th terrorist attacks against innocent civilians?
Of course, of course. I mean why would you ever support a pragmatic ideology that has consciously proven to be a success to those who have tried it and has resulted in the freest, most democratic, and most prosperous societies in human history when you can support a failed tyrannical ideology that has killed tens of millions? Clearly, with the power of hindsight at our disposal, we can clearly see the latter is a better choice than the former /s.
That's literally the origin of every single country in history. What alternate reality do you live in?
So let me get this straight, you unironically think that America is an illegitimate terrorist state and you're openly working against American interests, and you expect Americans to support you? How dumb do you have to be to think that Americans in America would cheer on for idiots that think their country is evil, illegitimate, and should be destroyed? Not only are these claims false, but you're not really driving home that your ideology is not the result of foreign adversaries.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. When you cheer on for America's adversaries, when you interests are openly against the country, when you conveniently align with foreign adversaries on most things, when you employ tactics like revisionism, propaganda, and double standards to demonize the US but justify, excuse, and downplay America's adversaries doing questionable shit... then your movement is probably a foreign assest.
There are real problems within the country that need to be addressed, however, you're not an alternative or a part of the solution. The far left is a part of the problem. There will never be a day in this country where you will see power, and hopefully the same exact thing is true for the far right. Extremists belong in secluded online echo chambers, not in positions of power.
Imagine defending capitalism and Israel with what's been in the news lately. Boomer mentality.
Marxists: "Here is misinformation to justify destroying Israel and implement a failed tyrannical ideology that killed tens of million of people"
Normal people: "No, can criticize and condemn the actions of the Israeli government while also acknowledging reality and working for a resolution where both Israelis and Palestinians get to coexist peacefully. We can also criticize our economic system and call for actions to improve it with stronger regulations"
You: "What are you? A boomer?"
Israelis and Palestinians can't coexist peacefully while Israel exists in its current state, as an ethnostate focused on settler colonialism. That's like saying normal people want black and whites to get along and also apartheid South Africa should still exist. They can't at the same time, it's fundamentally impossible. Once again, tearing down Israel as it exists doesn't mean hurting any of the people in it (unlike what Israel is doing to the Palestinians). States are just political constructs. You could easily create a new state in that area making up Palestine and Israel called Palestine II: Electric Boogaloo with a new Constitution not based on religion and equal protection under the law, and it would be purely an improvement for everyone who lives there, and yet you're saying that's a bad thing?
Also, Marxism isn't a failed political ideology. There's plenty of states based off it that exist today. Also, capitalism has killed way more than tens of millions of people if you want to base it off every death even slightly in the orbit of a country like that (which is what those huge, ballooned figures usually do). Hell, it's caused the destabilizing of almost every country in the global south, so I'd say it's got an even worse track record of "failed states". It's only held up through imperialism, wars, and coups. For every bad thing you point at one of those countries, an equally bad event can be pointed at a capitalist country, too. Also, it's also still a good framework for analyzing domestic policies and events as well, especially with all the enshittification happening. It's evolved, like any science, but still extremely predictive.
The question one has to ask, if someone is as committed to burying the truth as you, what kind of duck does that make you? A bigot duck?
What truth is buried? You just sound mad because I openly criticize the far left for how shitty they are since you are probably one.
How dare you call me a lefty, take it back now!
You know Stalinism isn't the only type of socialism, right?
The reason the DSA's predecessors added "democratic" to their name was to explicitly say that they're not Stalinists.
That every nation-state is built on a foundation of blood is a fairly common belief among socialists. You are not making the point you think you are. This is particularly blatant in some countries; some don't just have to deal with the effects of a colonialist past, but have a colonialist present. This is why socialists focus so much on the USA and Israel.
Furthermore, the USA's imperialism is the reason it has so many enemies. You treat them as evil demons out to get your country. Many are. But consider for a moment why they became this way. Why do people keep becoming terrorists? Why does reactionary populism hold so much sway over the people of these foreign adversaries?
Social democracy hides the flaws of capitalism under the rug, rather than solving them. The corporations of Sweden treat their workers at home well, it is true. But what of the workers abroad? The Swedish designer gets to sit in a comfy office and earn a great salary designing clothing after going through college for free. The Singaporean sweatshop worker that makes the clothing earns pennies. Under capitalism, one cannot exist without the other. Attempts to implement social democracy in a poor country that relies on plantations and sweatshops seldom go well. You mentioned one example yourself: Venezuela.
I will not excuse the bad takes the DSA have on foreign policy, nor the idealized past where Palestine was a land of perfect harmony that the other guy imagines, because you have a point there. You do not have a point about socialism overall. These people are trying to achieve a better future: one where people truly govern themselves, rather than taking orders from a greedy board of directors or a power-hungry politburo. I don't like their love of electoralism or their position on Ukraine, but they're actually striving for a future we can be proud of. They're not conjuring the vengeful spirit of McCarthy, who sees foreign agents everywhere, nor are they channeling Fukuyama and saying that what we have now is the best there is and the best there ever will be. Can you say the same?
Marxist socialism isn't idealist. In fact, it's one of the few ideologies which isn't idealist. It's based on an scientific economic analysis of capitalism. Contrast this against our current system, liberalism, which is the failed idealization of liberty. Liberalism neglectfully kills hundreds of millions even in developed and politically-stable countries, but it's just normal at this point.
Morality is idealism.
Oh no, they're going to improve life expectancy and stop billionaires wasting all our hard work! The terror!
If anything, you, SleezyDizasta, should want Marxists to be in a position which threatens the ruling parties, because them being threatened is the only way you will ever get any of that big list of reforms you posted, bargaining to try and deradicalize the masses away from unrest. We saw this happen in Western bloc countries near the USSR such as the Nordic countries, considered the most progressive but gradually sinking back in line with the rest of Europe now.
Dissolution doesn't even suggest killing, at all. I don't think you know what words mean.
I was referring to Palestine. Perhaps I should have specifically said 'the region of Palestine' but I didn't want to be condescending by stating the obvious.
How dumb do you have to be to think that most Americans like their governments?
[skipped over a lot of obvious bad-faith bullshit lol]
Marxism:
A scientific analysis that gets basic facts about the structure of property rights in the capitalist system wrong, and uses value theory to critique a property system
Moral arguments can help make people class conscious and recognize their oppression. Morality can motivate people to act, gives them a coherent structure for guiding action, and give direction. Morality is an important tool that enables people to coordinate without authority
@politics
For my own learning (not trying to argue), can you list some of those basic facts of property rights?
Agreed. I wasn't saying morality is pointless or worthless or anything. Even myself, I often 'do the right thing' on impulse rather than reason. I'm pointing out that morality is an idealistic structure, referencing the ironic appeal to morality from someone who was trying to critique Marxism for being an "idealist ideology". Morality is so subjective and unquantifiable it wasn't even worth arguing against their silly comparison.
It is a powerful tool, although I must admit I have serious issues with the most common frameworks of morality I see today, being framed as absolute rules a vacuum. And like you said, moral arguments can have excellent rhetorical power, and moral righteousness is a powerful motivator. The bottom line is, what anti-capitalists try to do fits into most moral frameworks as clearly good, and that's great!
Marx incorrectly cites private property as capitalist appropriation's basis. The employment contract is what enables the employer to appropriate the entire positive and negative result of production. Now, capital ownership does play a role in increasing bargain power to get favorable terms during contract negotiations. By emphasizing value, he missed out on a critique based on property rights. In property terms, the employer gets 100%
Morality can be analyzed in less idealist ways @politics
Holy shit, the democratic socialists of america are socialists
Choose love, not hate:
Yeah, there's pretty big damn difference between MLK fighting for equality during segregation in 1964 and the DSA simping for dictators and helping fascist MAGA win.
Also for the record, NONE of the Scandinavian countries are democratic socialist. Every single one is a capitalist liberal democracy. This idea that any of the Scandinavian countries are anywhere near socialist is misinformation spread by Bernie during his campaigns. The Danish PM at the time even had to address this publicly:
Source: https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist
The word you were looking for is social market economy, you are welcome.
No, the Nordic countries are not socialist of course but with Americans you don't want to get into specifics of socialism because their compass is way off there.
All of these terms apply. The Nordic countries are indeed capitalist, liberal, and democracies. Their version of capitalism is social market economy where capitalism is well regulated and there is a social safety net in place. So you're right, but Bernie calling Denmark democratic socialist was not.
Man I was with you until you suggested abolishing capitalism was a bad thing. Why is that a bad thing?
This person has swallowed so much red scare nonsense it’s impossible to actually engage with them on this topic.
Let me ask you this, why can't we regulate capitalism to work for us? Just think of what we can do:
These are not radical ideas and they're not new, these are all already in place in capitalist societies all around the world. We know they work and we know capitalism works, so why not make it better? Capitalism doesn't have to be this dystopian reality where corporations own everything and everybody else lives in poverty struggling to make ends meet. It could also be this great system that is centered around humanity and works to the benefit of the people. A system where the value of a person matters more than a dollar amount. These ideas aren't antithetical to capitalism. Capitalism is just tool, it's a flexible one too, there's nothing stopping us from shaping it to serve us and our values. Why not pursue that instead of trying to pursue some an ideology that has literally failed? After so many attempts, so many failures, so many people killed, when is it time to move on? Marxist socialism isn't the way forward, it's a way of the past.
Because Warren Buffet wasn't joking when he said:
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
He also wasn't attempting to raise awareness of the issue as evidenced by his disowning his granddaughter when she did try to raise awareness of the issue by being interviewed for the documentary The 1% by one of the Johnson kids.
They won't allow us to regulate them, and have each killed hundreds of millions of us so far. I believe the phrase is believe someone when they tell you who they are, these people are unrepentant murderers, thieves, and environmental terrorists at an unprecedented level. They woke up and chose violence, we can only choose self defense at this point.
Because all that is absolute and total fantasy. Capitalism does not allow for any of it. And even if you can succeed temporarily and installing any of it capitalism will find the crack and destroy it. You're trying to fight against the nature of a thing. The absolute core tenant capitalism is the exploitation and enslavement of the working class. The only incentive, only, is more short-term profit. That's it. Anyone who thinks you can do anything else is dreaming. Capitalism is incapable of surviving in a pluralistic society. Capital is incapable of adjusting to the needs of a society as a whole. Capitalism is incapable of taking into account the needs of the many versus the needs of the single. You cannot fight against that, that's its purpose.
There is a reason that capitalism tends to lead to fascism.
Making life less shitty through policy is an act of solidarity.
How does the laundry list not include the prerequisite to achieving all that: the people seizing the means of producing and distributing media. The medium holds us captive.
Because the employing class and their political power won't let us.
Capitalism denies people their humanity and treats people like things. For example, 1 test for whether a system recognizes people's humanity is whether or not it holds them responsible for the positive and/or negative results of their action. Capitalism fails there because it holds the employer solely legally responsible for workers' joint de facto actions in the workplace.
Marxism is not the only alternative @politics
That sure is a lot of claims without one single source for any of them.
Everything I said can be found either on their own website or their wiki page:
https://www.dsausa.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America
Go on hexbear and ask them
Why do y'all hate
evidenceso much?Lmao bro just found out about leftist politics and is PISSED
No, the far left has always been vile, but the DSA is especially annoying because they actively hurt the Democrats and help the Republicans.
Reactionary.
Because Democrats are not leftists, they routinely sell-out their leftist constituents and their policy goals in favor of maintaining the status-quo (e.g. reactionary - see
's comment)
Any genuine socialist/leftist can recognize the democratic party is adversarial - of course they are going to be antagonistic toward them. That they recognize or support any democratic representatives is amazing, frankly.
None of the things you mentioned are why they withdrew the endorsement of AOC. Your entire comment is strawmen of why you don't like them. They compromised with AOC on all the points you stated above... and then AOC went on to support literal Genocide and Apartheid.
Yeah supporting Genocide to advance in politics like a real "pragmatic moderate" liberal. Imagine praising this level of snakery.
This is such a disingenuous argument.
A socialist endorsing the only candidate capable of defeating a fascist in November is not "endorsing genocide" just because the candid she endorsed in weak on Israel.
If there was another candidate she could endorse that both had a chance of beating Trump and was sufficiently anti-Israel, I too would be critical of her choice to endorse Biden, but he is literally the only acceptable option she has available.
Trump has promised to provide more support to Israel with fewer restrictions on how they can use the weapons we give them, so if you're earnestly trying to minimize damage to the Palestinian people, your primary goal has to be to keep Trump out of the White House.
If you care more about getting the perfect progressive candidate, and are willing to go scorched earth over it and let Trump win just to send a message, you can drop the act about caring about progressive things, because Israel will completely flatten Gaza without opposition, and we're probably going to start genociding homeless and queer people here at home too.
So remember that, after the election is over, we will remember who voted for and against Fascism, and l "not voting for Trump" isn't going to be enough to protect you.
AOC fully supported the Genocide for multiple months under the classic "israel has the right to defend itself", only started turning around when it was time for her elections.
She recently invited ADL ZIonists on her live stream to push AIPAC propaganda and agreed with them, which is what is stated as the final straw that broke the camel's back.
Now she advocates for Genocide Joe for no apparent reason when even the establishment Democrats are trying to push him out for another candidate.
"This is such a disingenuous argument." btw.
I'm an AOC supporter, here's the thing: She demonstrates a separation of Jewish people and Israel government. I support that. In addition, I noticed that Israelis can't seem to tell attacks on Israel from uninvolved people is more directed at government. I always knew attacks on US were directed at government in Bush era.
Plenty of Jewish people can tell apart attacks on the Israel government are not attacks on Jewish people.
Yes, I know. In my experience, it is usually assumed that attacks on Israel means the non-government entities are targeted too. I had to explain to them about about separation, and hell, I even separate leadership of IDF from lower ranks.
I'm pointing out why the DSA is a shitty organization and movement, them turning on AOC is merely another example.
Also, you're not principled, and neither are they. They unironically support genocide against Israel and against Ukraine, they're just picking and choosing which genocides to support. Not to mention, that AOC has the most reasonable stance on the war imaginable. She condemns the actions of the Israeli government, she condemns the actions of the Palestinian groups, and she wants them to work towards of a ceasefire and a hostage release for the benefit of the people.
You can go live in your delusional world where Trump is elected and is giving the Netanyahu his full support for Israel to fully annex the West Bank and Gaza, but hey at least you stuck it to the Democrats and stood by your anti-pragmatic politics. As for the rest of us? We're still grounded in reality where Trump is still the biggest threat to our democracy.
I see that your knowledge of DSA is liberal propaganda talking points. Creating strawmen and ad-hominems out of thin air is a skill to behold.
"Everything I don't like is liberal propaganda"
Nah, lying is propaganda. You are making shit up. They don't believe in a genocide against Israel or Ukraine.
AOC's national endorsement was (and still is) preventing DSA from working on solidarity with Palestinian liberation organizations across the country. I get that to a lot of people, AOC is the ideal reformist Democrat, but that's really just a condemnation of how bad even the 'good' Democrats are.
From DSA's statement on the issue:
"However, members have raised their concerns regarding a number of her votes, including a vote in favor of H.Res.888, conflating opposition to Israel’s “right to exist” with antisemitism. AOC also co-signed a press release on April 20, 2024, that “support[s] strengthening the Iron Dome and other defense systems”
Finally, AOC recently hosted a public panel with leaders from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, lobbyists for the IHRA definition of antisemitism. On this panel, anti-Zionism and antisemitism were conflated and boycotting Zionist institutions was condemned. This sponsorship is a deep betrayal to all those who’ve risked their welfare to fight Israeli apartheid and genocide through political and direct action in recent months, and in decades past."
Of course that behavior got her unendorsed. It's fine if you, random Lemmy users, like her, but I'm glad that explicit workers-owning-the-means-of-production socialists are holding their endorsed electeds accountable. That shit shouldn't fly.
I suspect she's going to get reelected in spite of losing their endorsement
She already won three weeks ago before they dropped her so it's going to be a while until the next one.
She's still a great asset for progressives. I'm genuinely surprised that she's being criticized for not supporting Palestine enough, simply because I expected the exact opposite.
Still. Hold her accountable. Hold everyone accountable until we get direct voting.
It looks like it comes down to the fact she endorses Biden. She supports Palestine, but I guess you aren't allowed to endorse the only legitimate option for president.
The “single issue” voting thing is so stupid, because on the right it means “I like guns” so they will vote for who the fuck ever the NRA tells them to, and then on the flip side you have AOC, who is one of the most progressive people in the Democratic Party supporting Biden because he’s the only option to stop trump and people go “what about Palestine though?” As if not voting for Biden, putting Trump in power will somehow make it better, after knowing that his and his new VP pick’s policies are both 100% pro Israeli genocide against the Palestinians. So the right wins because they can just say “guns” on stage, and the left loses because someone can say “Palestine” in the crowd
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.
I'm not with the tankies, but I do think you have a misunderstanding of how gerrymandering works, so I wanted to try explaining it.
Part of gerrymandering is packing:
The committee packs as many voters of the party they want to discriminate against, in as few districts as possible. This creates a lot of wasted votes in those packed (now safe) districts, which will benefit the other party in other more contested districts. So yes, the gerrymandering benefits the republican party when looking at ALL districts, but democrats within the packed districts have very safe general elections.
AOC is elected in one of those safe packed districts, so in that way she "benefitted" from the gerrymandering. I'm not going to hold that against her though, she didn't make the map and the fpp voting system isn't her fault either.
This picture shows it best imo: in one of the disproportiate examples there's a majority of blue voters, but thanks to 2 packed blue districts, there are more yellow representatives. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#/media/File%3ADifferingApportionment.svg
Yeah that’s what the efficiency gap measures: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_gap
Although I’m getting different numbers for the NY efficiency gap. It could be D leaning but other places calculate it as R.
The statewide efficiency gap is when you look at wasted votes across all districts of that state, it is not applicable to any single district. It is not correct to state that aoc was elected despite a state efficiency gap, because that gap is not applicable to the single district that she was elected in.
Court rules N.Y. Democrats gerrymandered congressional map: The judges ruled that the 2022 map “was drawn to discourage competition and favor Democrats.”
Regardless, NY-14 is a D+40 seat. Hard pressed to name a seat anywhere in the country that's safer.
I don't understand the DSA's purpose if it is just to funnel people into the Dem party. Their views will never line up with the corporate party.
They're there to undermine progressives by pretending to be them. It's a way of taking over and deflecting the movement.
An example would be when Shontel Brown beat Nina Turner in Ohio. Brown took money from Republican donors and corporations, yet she got endorsed by "progressive" groups to help her against Turner, who is an actual grass-roots funded progressive.
Same with Mondaire Jones backstabbing Jamaal Bowman (who had defended Jones in the past when he was under attack by the establishment).
This is how Democrats try to co-opt what they can't control, and why it's critically important that voters make it a habit to monitor their candidates funding. The money will always tell the true story.
(Opensecrets.org is a great resource for tracking what groups politicians get their money from)
This is the contradiction of capitalist reformation. While we organize, it’s purpose is to assert socialist interests into mainstream politics, while gauging support for socialist ideas.
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.
The epitome of a black and white outlook of the universe. Reality is messy.
But a Blue and Red outlook is a-okay?
Well that's the spectrum for American politics so I guess so? You're not saying anything profound lil man.
For some Genocide and Apartheid is a red line.
If you believe that is a radical statement for the left it might be time to reconsider the definition of left.
For some, it’s a red line letting full-strength Hitler style genocidal authoritarian fascism take over the most powerful country in the world, and resisting it is a better idea than pointless gestures of token resistance to somewhat more minor world power misbehavior, which ultimately benefit literally nobody at all
But everybody’s different
And for others Biden is already that Hitler style Genocidal authoritarian.
Demanding to not support Genocide is not a big ask. If Democrats are not even willing to abide by that they don't believe in that 2025 talk as much as they claim.
Your definition of Hitler is clearly very different from my definition of Hitler
When I think of the bad things Hitler did it was the Genocide that bothered me more than his dictatorship.
I will say, the instant Biden puts 6 million civilians to death and starts a war that kills 70 million people I'm definitely planning not to vote for him.
Or!
I know, when people write books about fascism they write about all the weapons Hitler sold to other countries and how that was the real problem and what those other countries did with the weapons. Everyone knows such a thing was un heard of before Hitler, and now under Biden, it's coming again. There are whole museums devoted to Hitler's weapons sales.
Or!
I know... some of the holocaust survivors who were alive in 2016 had these sort of chilling interviews where they talked about the eerie similarities between Biden and Hitler and how they really hoped people would realize how important it was not to vote for Biden. They didn't really put a lot of attention into who his opponent was, because they said that's not the point.
Take your pick, this one is a choose your own adventure
Wheres your red line between directly causing 6 million deaths and heavily funding and even sending airplanes to people who have killed 20k women and children. Because if one thinks its only genocide if you're directly ordering the death of 6 million, you're going to miss a lot of genocides that are clearly happening.
How about Russia and Ukraine? By the tone of your comment Id asusme that wouldn't qualify to you either. So how far is to far? Or it is literally anything less than 6 million isn't it?
Russia is currently committing genocide in Ukraine.
China is supporting Russia's war in Ukraine, but that does not make them genocidaires themselves. It means they bear some guilt by proxy for continuing to support Russia despite its genocidal behavior, but that is distinctly not the same as being genocidaires themselves (on the issue of Ukraine, I mean, obvious the Uyghur Genocide is ongoing by the CCP). They bear guilt for supplying genocidaires.
Likewise, Israel is currently committing genocide in Palestine. The US is supporting Israel's war in Palestine, which is inexcusable and a black mark on the souls of everyone who has endorsed it and will remain a shame for the rest of our existence, but are not genocidaires ourselves (on the issue of Palestine). We bear guilt for supplying genocidaires.
I can understand the distinction you're making and by no means do I think a US citizen somehow bears more responsibility than IDF of their leaders. But at the end of the day actual money and value I spent my labor to create is being used to materially support the artillery of a nation I consider to be engaged in genocide or at least ethnic cleansing and no part of that will ever sit right with me. I understand Trump is worse, I understand this is how the US has treated Palestine since forever, but to me that means there's no reason for me to pledge and signal that I'm gonna vote Biden no matter what. I want them to know that if they get my vote it will be just barely and something they need to earn every damn election. It's literally the least I can do while I'm partially funding a genocide. I will stay undecided until the ballots in the damn scanner.
And at the end of the day I don't even live in a swing state. So even if my little way of protest has no impact, it's likely because my vote had no impact in the first place. At least my senators know Im pissed at them. Resent the letters I sent when the Sheikh Jara incident happened and said if they had at least tried to hold Israel accountable they wouldn't be so emboldened to indiscriminately kill.
Oh, okay, and the Ukrainians that are going to be subjected to genocide when Trump gets into office? Do they get the 'literal least you can do', or is it only Palestinians which get that, and Ukrainians need to 'earn' your vote for Biden too?
What we're doing is horrible. Regardless of guilt, however, there is no realistic situation in which a Dem ticket in November losing is anything but catastrophic for everyone, Palestinians included. There's not a question of 'earning' anything. It's not a game, Biden is not a player or a stripper. It's a question of what will happen after one of the two options get into office - supplying Israel while wagging our finger impotently; or giving Israel everything they ask for, Ukraine being genocided, and American minorities being subjected to horrific conditions, very likely including our very own genocide?
If you're undecided at all between those two outcomes... I have nothing I can say to you, except that you had better fucking not ever claim you 'support' democracy, the rights of minorities in the US, or the right of a people to resist genocide again. All you oppose is feeling bad about your government's budget, and want to absolve yourself of the responsibility that comes with being a citizen in a somewhat democratic polity.
The Ukrainians are being subjected to genocide now, they don't need to wait for Trump. You said that yourself. They also have Tanks, Planes, and working Hospitals. Does Palestine? The types of genocide aren't even the same, Russias kidnapping and Russifying, Israel is killing and clearing land. Seems tough to compare to me.
It’s actually a really good question. I think every iteration of US foreign policy I’ve been alive for has been horrific. I think a good way is, once it’s reduced to a choice between 2 options, pick the one that’s less bad if there is a massive visible difference (as there is in this election). And then, also, exercise pressure to push the less-bad option to be better (the uncommitted vote, calling and opposing aid for Israel, pushing in future primaries for candidates that are less bad).
Trying to push for better than Biden’s current standard I think is a great idea. The only part I object to is risking letting things get 10 times worse because of a pointless grandstanding gesture, while pretending that you’re helping.
Ukraine I definitely think we should send help to also, yes, and more than we have.
It’s not a matter of “this is where my line for something being bad,” it’s just that once it’s down to 2 options, you can pick the one that’s less bad and will save a bunch of lives instead of waiting for the US government to start having an enlightened foreign policy all of a sudden by magic, and then getting involved.
I don't think an organization as small and relatively insignificant as DSA has the luxury of being so idealistic. What strategic benefit comes from alienating your minimally influential organization from one of its most high profile political supporters? By all means, draw a red line, but you might find that you're pretty lonely behind it.
Seeing as the elections are coming down to having to scrape every small party to get over the line the DSA suddenly becomes quite significant. As is the uncommitted movement in Michigan which Biden has ignored.
Look I truly hate that this is the situation we are in, but, If you want to have an absolutist point of view about Israel then your carbon footprint better be negative. Like home steader, grow your own food, no kids, no car, hunt for meat, no online shopping, etc.
Because if not, youre indirectly but actively contributing to the suffering of millions of innocent and exploited people in underdeveloped nations. Not to mention millions of animals and plants.
Innocent people will suffer famine, drought, and natural disasters. They will die by the hundreds of thousands in the coming decades. These victims will be people who did not participate in the modern consumerist economy by buying products from companies who actively deceive the public, practice regulatory capture, as well as bribing and corruption scandals all in the name of short term shareholder gains.
It's Absolutely hypocritical to condemn people who want to prevent a second trump term and thus recognize a need to vote for an imperfect Biden when there's no way you meet the threshold required to have clean hands in regards to the climate crisis.
The gut instinct is to say "well what can I possibly do about climate change" and that's exactly my point. All you can do is limit the impact.
You can't reconcile excusing yourself from your part in climate change, however minor it may be, if you're trying to uphold such a strict standard against Biden and Biden voters. why? because you already know the consequences if Biden fails to retain the presidency. You know what trump victory means for minorities, lgbtq, the climate, etc. and with project 2025 it likely will be way worse this time.
You don't get to look back and say you weren't at fault if Trump wins because your ballot didn't say trump. You know a vote for 3rd party or a no vote is a vote for Trump in the current system. That makes you complicit if he wins. Believe me, I went through that in 2016. I regret it.
This is an extreme metaphor to help you see that sometimes you have to acknowledge that terrible things are happening but limiting the damage might be all you can do.
You can vote for Biden in November and still criticize him and Democrats the entire time. That's not being a hypocrite.
Letting trump win and pretending you didn't contribute to all the additional damage that follows is.
Literally, yes.
The problem is people are too fucking stupid to understand that they are flirting with forever losing the ability to improve society in the United States because they want to be obtuse and claim some moral high ground over Israel.
All while allowing violence against women, minorities, and lgbtq domestically by helping trump win. It's so hypocritical.
Well said
Almost as if there is a cunning and self-serving reason why genocide in Gaza is an absolutist red line, but the existential threat of climate change, genocide in Ukraine or China, mass deportations in the US, political violence and the collapse of democracy in the US, or Trump’s vocal and full throated support for genocide in Gaza among many other places, are not “red lines” for a decision about what would be best to do in this election.
It's insane.
I truly regret voting 3rd party in 2016. I thought I was really doing something by "punishing" the DNC for conspiring against Bernie.
I have some empathy in that sense, but the difference is that I truly didn't think it would be as bad as it was. That's the only defense I have for my vote then. That ignorance is gone. We all know exactly what will happen because w have 4 years of data and that's the BEST case. Selling state secrets, gutting crucial organizations like the EPA, tax cuts for wealthy corporate friends, extorting Ukraine for dirt on Biden, packing the supreme Court with justices literally unfit to sit on the bench....and on and on.
That's the BEST CASE.
then read project 2025 and find out just how serious and insane the people who are trying to run the show for him this time actually are.....Jesus.
You aren't allowed to have morals/ red-lines according to the political "wisdom" of lemmy.world.
You must compromise with them, but they don’t have to compromise with you.
This entire discussion is about how compromise is necessary you fucking moron.
Try compromising with the emotion called anger.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, they did lose, but then they did essentially the exact same thing in 2020 and won, so I remain unconvinced. I'll concede that idealistic candidates can win some elections, but I don't think it's nearly as many as you're claiming.
Letting good be the enemy of great.
Yeah bruh, I’m a pragmatist. Israel sucks, but even more Palestinians will die unless we keep trump and the republican traitor filth out of office.
How will this allow trump and Republican party filth into office?
The official answer to that is "shut up."
EDIT: Sorry. "Shut up and pretend you're happy."
DSA: "hey, Biden sucks because he lets genocide happen"
Rational person: "well, I don't like genocide... who's the alternative?"
Dem party: ...... Biden is our candidate ....
Rep party: Trump Trump Trump!!!!
What they don't tell you is that most American Jews on the super religious part of the spectrum love trump because he explicitly endorses Israel as well, and Bibi is the same friend of right wing extremists/dictators that Trump is.
Personally, I'm not pro Palestine. I'm anti Hamas AND anti Bibi... Just Pro peace and both govts don't want that for different reasons.
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.
What does tankie mean to you in this context? Actually curious, because I don't get it.. it's starting to become like "woke" in my mind.
ok, so people who pretend like the Russians and/or Chinese being communists and justifying their fascistic imperialist actions, while going on about American imperialism as the literal sole antagonist of the universe are by definition tankies.
and the DCA are tankies, you can find it in a lot of their publications if you read them, for example, the basis for supporting the free Palestine students movement isn't to support the Palestinian people in the creation of their own state, as a principle right of any group of peoples, but rather because they believe it would hemm in American imperialist power in the Middle East
I’m pretty confident that DCA is not tankie. The DSA has social democratic caucuses which I have linked, here.
Not OP but I think the groupthink here is just using tankie as a catch all whereas their main gripe is accelerationism.
Accelerationism is the new Nihilism for the disenfranchised. It doesn't take much to grasp and requires little to no input from its supporters in this phase.
Accelerationism is not the answer. I am old enough to see what the traditional tactics have bought us. That doesn't mean I am willing to watch the world burn so the soil is enriched.
Which sucks because nihilism wasn't a doomer outlook
https://www.openculture.com/2017/10/the-philosophy-of-optimistic-nihilism-or-how-to-find-purpose-in-a-meaningless-universe.html
Yes and no. As with most things, it's more complicated than that. While it's true that not many philosophers would claim to be "pure" nihilists, instead opting to qualify their position, there are nihilists who do have a very doomer outlook so to speak.
This is why in the article you linked, nihilism is qualified as "optimistic". This kind of nihilism is often associated with Nietzsche and later as your article mentioned, Sartre. Though I'm not sure Sartre would say he was a nihilist; Sartre was a huge figure for the existentialists. However, the two movements have a lot in common and one could argue that optimistic nihilism and existentialism are close enough to be considered the same thing. I am aware of some scholars who consider, for example, Nietzsche to be an early existentialist. It must be noted, however, that the optimistic qualification is of utmost importance. Nihilism says flatly that there is no meaning, existentialism says that we are able to decide what is meaningful.
Anyway, this is all to say that Nihilism (with a capital N) is a pretty pessimistic and "doomer" idea to have. Nietzsche himself argued that the solution to nihilism was to destroy all interpretations of the world so that we can start from zero and hopefully realize some actual meaning. Perhaps my understanding of doomer is wrong, but from where I'm standing, nihilism and doomerism are pretty much the same thing. Different flavours of nihilism will produce different conclusions about this connection.
"Tankie" is absolutely the chronically online moderate Democrat's version of woke.
I laughed reading all the responses below.. you're the most correct just based on that alone.
It's like The People's Front of Judeah sketch playing out in real time. Tribalism and the need for absolutism in uncertainty.
They’re not all “tankies:”
Red Star isn’t even a large faction.
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.
The DSA aren’t all tankies, the socialist majority caucus within the DSA, a majority caucus, is very lenient on their position concerning Israel:
I’m posting this significant portion because many don’t have time to read the whole position. I would encourage you to expand your opinion of what the DSA represents and its capabilities.
If you disagree with them, fine, but don’t misrepresent their positions.
Damn. I had no idea the opposite of endorsing genocide was totalitarianism. Seems obvious now that you've pointed that out, thank you.
Typical neoliberal. Still using homophobic insults. But surely you’re not a bad person.
That's not a homophobic insult. It's a more vulgar way of saying they're in bed with them, which also isn't homophobic. It just means they're very close.
Maybe take the time to read the DSA statement on this endorsement before reading this comment chain and forming opinions.
Yes. This wasn’t a knee jerk snap decision. It happened after much discussion and deliberation. And the NY chapter, the most prominent, continues to endorse her.
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.
That's a good way to describe how the DSA views political power.
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?
Serious replies:
Developing alternate forms of power to 'vote once every four years'. Now, I realize it's probably not the answer you're looking for as obviously that won't just happen in time for this election, but it's necessary to understand the material power we hold as workers in society, unless you're actually happy with whatever candidates the Democrats run with. There have been times where worker action hindered genocidal regimes and wars by cutting off supply and pressuring our governments into pulling support.
Pressuring the Democrats away from running certain candidates
Somehow making a third-party popular enough to threaten your local seat [probably not feasible for most seats?]
Somehow abolishing the broken FPTP voting system
[probably not feasible?]right but couldn't you vote for the democrats and also do those things? it's not really a one or the other kind of situation
Definitely, and for most people (there are rare exceptions, like seats which aren't just Dem vs. Rep as the only viable candidates) I'd assume it's the pragmatic choice for now given the broken system.
Not feasible? Then why do Alaska and Maine use something other then First Past The Post voting?
How we vote is controlled at the state level, we can push through reform one state at a time!
My mistake, I heard about those but assumed it only applied for state-level politicians, not federal politicians they elect. Thanks for letting me know!
Ranked. Choice. Voting.
Join the DSA?
Green party and Cornel West.
"Genocide is bad, but we have other things to worry about." - Me, and the US offering vast amounts of Lend-Lease in WW2 to the Soviet Union despite their vast campaigns of ethnic cleansing.
Apparently, by contrast, your position is "Genocide is bad, so we should do everything we can to lose to the Nazis, who will genocide far more people than the Soviet Union. That will really show the fascists! They'll be SO mad when they herd us into the gas chambers lol!"
What does this mean?
Typical leftist purity test infighting that makes the rights job easier.
Not at all. There are at least 10 caucuses in the DSA. This decision is the compromise, ya know, democracy. The NY chapter still endorses her.
When did foreign policy become a core position for DSA?
Doesn’t all foreign policy start domestically?
But DSA has a mission and core positions that are domestic and focus on economics, democracy, and equality. If you have a prominent member that represents those things, why are you kicking her out for something not defined in your core position and objective on a flimsy basis?
Not since 2017:
But is that a core position where the dsa will revoke endorsements of members? Presumably members can have argument and debate about positions. Also, it's questionable to suggest AOC is somehow strongly pro Israel. So why is there such a dumb headline stance on discussing anti semitism because some folks are afraid it might come off as pro Israel?
I wonder if some of them maybe hang out on social media where certain very vocal people they’ve never met tend to create a general picture of an overall narrative and what priorities seem important and what politicians are disappointing when seen in the light of that narrative
So she loses endorsement by some insignificant group, am I reading this right?
Depends on what you call insignificant. Losing tens of thousands of voters doesn't seem to matter to Democrats so sure.
Democrats are projected to beat Trump by a landslide right?
AOC is running for president? Wow, I had no idea!
Sadly she can't, she misses the minimum requirements by like a few months to a year.
Total votes don't count, if they did Trump would've never been president. Losing tens of thousands of voters literally might not matter if they're all in blue states.
Remember, guys, "left" wing in the US is further right than far right in Europe.
Maybe not the best decision in the world.
HOWEVER:
Many DSA folks (at least in my local branch) are not happy with many of national's decisions lately.
Fuck you if you're looking down your nose at the DSA while the extent of your political involvement is only just voting every once in a while.
This was a tactical misstep, sure. But my local DSA is still out there showing up for protests and strikes and unions. They're getting bills passed in through the city council and getting open socialists elected. If the DSA is the only leftist group near you and you let this blunder stop you from doing any real activism, you're guilty of the exact same purity testing bullshit.
100 percent this. My local DSA chapter is often the only group showing up to school board meetings to pressure a vote that would protect LGBTQ+ kids from discriminatory and harmful legislation. We do mutual aid regularly to serve our homeless community. We organize rallies in support of unions, Palestinian liberation, healthcare access, etc. We network with other local non profits and engage in events that directly benefit the community like creating care packages for women (and girls) seeking abortion access. We have working groups for environmental restoration work. The list goes on.
We have other political action groups in the area for both major parties. Wanna guess how involved they are with the most marginalized and underserved communities in the area?
People need to log off social media once in awhile and actually work in their community before posting empty platitudes to an echo chamber.
Thank you for your service.
Really? She's not supportive enough of Palestine? I'm definitely out of the loop, but I kind of assumed this to be the opposite.
She is a massive disappointment.
The bar is lower than ever for progressives and she still failed.
I've decided I'm not re-joining the DSA.
Maybe you’d like the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
The anti-Ukraine tankies?
Fuck you. Anyone who opposes resisting fascism shouldn't call themselves either of those things.
Seems like the Socialist Alternative is what you’re looking for. 👀
I'm not voting 3rd party this election, and I can find my own to join when it's advantageous to do so.
Being a socialist is not necessarily progressive. What a distraction
This is the best summary I could come up with:
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.
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.”
The congresswoman retains the support of the socialist group’s chapter in New York City, where she is expected to easily win a fourth term this fall in a heavily Democratic district.
In its statement, the committee wrote that the congresswoman had taken “many courageous positions on Palestine.” But it said it had voted in June to renew its endorsement only on the condition that she “demonstrate a higher level of commitment to Palestinian liberation, self-determination and the immediate end to the heinous genocide in Gaza.”
That, Democratic Socialists said, “conflated anti-Zionism with antisemitism and condemned boycotting Zionist institutions.” The group also objected to her appearing alongside Amy Spitalnick, the leader of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
“This sponsorship is a deep betrayal to all those who’ve risked their welfare to fight Israeli apartheid and genocide through political and direct action in recent months, and in decades past,” the socialists’ leaders wrote.
The original article contains 785 words, the summary contains 221 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
It's all religious Zealots behind the scenes in politics. They all think the issue is protecting cites mentioned in the bible. They think that's the basis for Western Civilization rather than the French and American revolutions and the Dutch or Westminster system of law.
Why haven't most Western nations had atheist leaders? Why don't they ALWAYS have atheist leaders?
This preference for superstition over rationality holds us back as a species.
Classic linkerbaan L post
Then downvote and ignore, or better yet, post your own worldview.
United States of Israel.
The Nazis I'm worried about aren't the troglodytes carrying Swastika flags to epically piss off the freaking libs. It's the ones in non-descript clothing chanting "from the river to the sea" and getting angry at AOC for not hating Jews enough that seem far more of a concern.
Idk why this is getting downvoted. Some things that these protesters say/do are vile and reprehensible. I have seen them call for that as well as intifada, which is disgusting.
Intifada? If I didn’t know what that means I’d be very upset. 😠
Yes, I know what it means, and that is pretty borderline to me especially when considering it in the results of previous ones in that region. Especially when the word “global” is often positioned before it (I should have probably mentioned that tbf).
Edit: https://www.npr.org/2024/06/04/nx-s1-4958278/intifada-chants-pro-palestinian-protests-israel
Now you have 2 comments in 1 year, glad I could help.
I was using mastodon instead and commenting on lemmy posts from there.
This just makes me like AOC even more