251
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rejoins DSA after membership lapse of seven years (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
78 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The 36-year-old New York representative and one of the country’s most prominent democratic socialists renewed her membership in the group’s national organization after reports emerged earlier this month that it had lapsed. Ocasio-Cortez initially joined the group in 2018.

In a statement on Tuesday night, the DSA announced: “Democratic Socialists of America confirms Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member in good standing of our organization, having recently rejoined in August 2026,” according to a report in City & State New York.

It added: “Previously, the representative joined DSA in 2018 with a one-year membership, which DSA’s national leadership recently noticed had lapsed, in 2019. She has since renewed her membership as of this month.”

The DSA said it decided to disclose Ocasio-Cortez’s membership details amid reports that she could run for president in the next election cycle.

all 81 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 12 points 2 months ago

I don’t love her but other people do and she’s got a high profile. Doesn’t mean we can’t hold her to higher standards.

NO MORE BULLSHIT

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 64 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (21 children)

    I support AOC specifically and the DSA in a broad sense - but what made me cancel my membership is the DSA’s pants-on-head stupid and geopolitically naïve stance on the Ukraine war. The DSA leadership appears to not be capable of understanding that it was an expansionist war of conquest started and maintained by the Russian Federation, opposes US + other international military aid to Ukraine, opposes sanctions on the Russian federation in response to their grey-zone tactics and unprovoked military invasion of Ukraine, decries “NATO expansionism” (ignoring the fact that “NATO expansionism” is not only a very direct quote from the Kremlin, but also that the nations in question joined - and continue to join - as a direct and pointed response to Russian expansionism), and seems to think the problem can be solved by gathering around a campfire and singing kumbaya.

    I hope that we eventually actually live in a consensus-oriented world where grievances are solved exclusively through diplomatic means… but that’s not today’s world. To pretend that it is is not only geopolitically naive to the point of self delusion, but strategically dangerous as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I've seen members of the DSA speak against Russia's invasion, so this is hardly a universal thing. There's never going to be a party that does everything exactly as you want, so you just have to accept the next best option. The DSA has done a fairly good job aligning with my values. Obviously I disagree with this totally, and many other things, but they're doing a lot of good things too, and significantly more compared to the DNC.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    One thing you show as a positive, the disunity of the DSA, is also why they are less effective per member than democratic centralist organizations. It's very difficult to steer a ship that wants to go in many different directions at the same time, it's much more effective to democratically come to a consensus on where to go and agree to publicly uphold that consensus externally, than it is to have endless factionalism and outward instability.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Their pamphlet calls for “the withdrawal of Russian troops through a settled ceasefire agreement” — a negotiated peace, basically. The (geopolitically not-naïve?) alternative is what exactly?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    They’ve been saying that since pretty much immediately after Russia invaded, and haven’t changed it. Not an exhortation to respect the territorial boundaries of sovereign nations. Not supporting sanctions against the attacking country (Russia). No mention whatsoever of the grey-zone and subterfuge and repeated, systematic, brutal expansionism that Russia has engaged in since pretty much immediately after the Soviet Union fell. Just a “negotiated settlement”.

    What even is an equitable negotiated settlement would be with a country that launched an unprovoked invasion under cover of subterfuge that violates the Geneva Convention?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    A couple thing:

    1. There was a potential peace deal in April 2022, just after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February. At that time, Ukraine and Russia appeared close to agreeing on a 10-point peace plan during talks in Istanbul, Turkey. Boris Johnson persuaded Zelenskyy to abandon the talks. It’s all documented. Johnson has a lot to answer for.

    2. It’s quite right that most of the DSA’s focus is on the impact of America’s actions in the world, not Russia’s.

    3. Unilateral US sanctions can cause some inconvenience to wealthy, powerful targets, but above all, they have been proven to cause widespread and often deadly harm to people who certainly don’t deserve it. See https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(25)00189-5/fulltext

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    This is why I've remained an unaffiliated independent since first registering to vote in 1977. Plenty of alternatives have come along, but they have all had problems that I felt were insurmountable, so I've never joined any of them. Even when Republicans went full MAGA, ensuring that I will never vote for a right-leaning candidate ever again, I still didn't joint he Dems, because I have lots of problems with them, too. And I have problems with the DSA, too.

    I vote based on ISSUES, not parties. I am actually right on some issues, left on some, and I have a nuanced take on many more that aren't right, left, or middle.

    No party is EVER going to be able to count on my vote. They have to EARN it every time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    I hope to god that you have always lived in a state with an open primary then. If not, then that's a idiotic take overall.

    If you don't vote in the primaries you're ensuring that no party will ever earn your vote because you're not helping select a good candidate and you're just pissing in the wind and then complaining that you're wet.

    I don't like Democrats either but I vote in the primaries to make sure that progressives at least have a chance of getting in.

    ETA: A reminder that simply registering for a party will get you some annoying texts, well at least if you're in sign up for the Democratic party because they really suck at outreach, Republicans will flood the ever loving shit out of you, but registering doesn't mean you have signed some kind of blood pact to vote for them in the general every time. Fucking vote in the primaries you animals!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago*

    Can confirm, worked for the post office. Democrats will occasionally send their registered voters something, usually a small little brightly colored card or something with a "vote for me pls" slogan. Republicans will send you a fucking small poster every other day talking either about god, guns, and trump, or how the local democratic candidate literally eats babies and the Republican candidate does, in fact, oppose eating babies. It was annoying as hell. I got so tired of casing political shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago (12 children)

    So the DSA is tankie?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Communists tend to be very critical of the DSA for its reformist approach, but the DSA line on NATO expansion and imperialism is closer to what communists believe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Pro-authoritarian does not equal Communist. The goal of a Communist government would be to remove those in charge. Russia (and China) are not Communist, because they aren't attempting to remove their own power structure and give it to the people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    The goal of a communist government is the establishment of communism, a classless and fully collectivized society. Russia isn't communist because it became capitalist after the dissolution of socialism. China is a socialist country run by a communist party, where the working classes have supremacy. "Power structure" means nothing when divorced from the class struggle, communists don't support abolishing power, but instead establishing worker power and protecting it, as is the case in China. The people run the state in China.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    China is a socialist country run by a communist party, where the working classes have supremacy.

    How do you believe this? In what way does the working class have supremacy over the capitalist elite in China?

    Communism, as described by Marx, establishes a strong power to replace the elites, but then removes itself to give the power to the people. A powerful ruling class is not supposed to be maintained, as it is in China. China is largely capitalist, with a rich and powerful owner class who command businesses, and have more political influence than the average worker. This is not Communism. I don't know how you fail to understand this. Do you just listen to propaganda and not try to understand things for yourself?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I believe this because I am a communist, I'm a member of a party and I study the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and the history of existing socialist states. In the case of China, the workers and peasants established political supremacy through a long civil war and revolution, solidifying a socialist state in 1949. Capitalists exist in China, but they do not form a coherent political body, the revolution decided that they will not be allowed to usurp the power of the workers.

    Regarding communism, you're confusing the eradication of class society with the eradication of all centralized administration, and confusing the socialist stage with the classless and stateless communist stage. China has capitalists, correct, because China is a developing country. Communism is not a moral decree, but a mode of production predicated on immensely developed productive forces. China does not yet have those productive forces necessary for the complete eradication of class.

    Regarding the economy of China, the commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned. Private ownership is largely in secondary industries, and are utilized in order to accelerate the buildup of immense productive forces. This is called the Socialist Market Economy, which is a transitional form of economy in service of building more developed socialism.

    To circle back, I do understand this. I work constantly through organizing work and study, both on my own and with comrades, to understand Marxist-Leninist theory and practice. It's critically important for my own work as a party member. It's critically important to not make any confusion on theory or practice, and to defend existing socialism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    In the case of China, the workers and peasants established political supremacy through a long civil war and revolution, solidifying a socialist state in 1949. Capitalists exist in China, but they do not form a coherent political body, the revolution decided that they will not be allowed to usurp the power of the workers.

    The issue is your view is clouded with a history, and propaganda. The US decided it wouldn't allow tyrants to take power. Does that actually mean it won't, or hasn't, happened? Of course not. The peasants do not have the same power as the owner class in China. You know that. Why do you insist that they do?

    Regarding communism, you're confusing the eradication of class society with the eradication of all centralized administration, and confusing the socialist stage with the classless and stateless communist stage. China has capitalists, correct, because China is a developing country. Communism is not a moral decree, but a mode of production predicated on immensely developed productive forces. China does not yet have those productive forces necessary for the complete eradication of class.

    At what point will it? When do you think they'll decide they have the productive forces necessary and dissolve their own power? They're one of, if not the, largest productive force the world has ever seen. If not now, it's never. Those with power will never want to give it up, and they'll do everything they can to cement their power. They'll have you believe they're not, and they're just working in your best interest, and then it'll be almost impossible to remove them. This is how it always goes. This is not a criticism of China. It's a criticism of hierarchy. Those at the top never want to stop being at the top.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    There are no peasants in China anymore. Agriculture has been near entirely industrialized and proletarianized, there are no feudal lords any longer. The leader of China is the proletariat. The proletariat establishes and maintains dominance over the existing capitalist class through public ownership of the commanding heights of the economy, and the communist party which itself is a mass proletarian cadre organization. The worker state has dominance over the less powerful private sector, and enforces this. The PLA is also subject directly to the CPC, not the state itself.

    The capitalists in China do not have power over the CPC. Not only are they barred from the top levels of administration, but corruption and subversion are harshly punished. The very fact that China has capitalists means the CPC cannot allow them to form a coherent political bloc by which they can wage counterrevolution and reverse socialism.

    In other words, I insist on very basic facts from a Marxist-Leninist perspective, that the state in China is run by the CPC, which itself is a mass proletarian party, and that the core aspects of the economy are owned collectively. It is from this basis that I understand China as socialist.

    As for the idea that the workers should simply decide to dissolve their own power, this is not how the withering of the state works. The state is specifically the superstructure by which the base of society, the mode of production and distribution, is maintained in favor of the ruling class. Since the ruling class of China is the proletariat, it does not need to abolish its own power. What it needs to do is gradually collectivize the economy as the private sector itself grows to national levels and markets cease to play a progressive role in socializing production. This is how the proletariat abolishes itself as a class, and the oppressive elements of administration for maintaining proletarian rule fade.

    What will not fade is any and all hierarchy. Marxism is not anti-hierarchy, this is an anarchist conception. Marxists seek to abolish class society, which does not mean eliminating all administration. Just as a principal and a teacher are both proletarian, so too are proletarian factory workers and state administrators. Hierarchy is not the problem, class is. There is no "abolish the state, implement communism" button. Instead, the material relations of production are shaped primarily by the level of development of the forces of production.

    I really do think reading Marx could help explain a lot of these concepts like class, the socialist state, and transformation from capitalism to communism. If you want suggestions, I can make some.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I used the term peasant because you did.

    Anyway, I'm not going to continue this. This will be my last comment here.

    The workers are not the ones in power. There's a party that supports them nomitively, but those in power are sitting in offices and wearing suits. They aren't workers, and they have more power than the workers do. I don't know how you don't understand this.

    I didn't say Communism would remove hierarchy. I said the issue is that it won't dissolve itself, at least if it stays around this long and establishes itself. The hierarchy, as always, gives too much incentive to those in power to maintain their power. That's why I'm an Anarchist, because those incentives should never be allowed to exist. It'll require another revolution to dissolve them, and then we're in the same situation we started with.

    Assuming they'll just hand over power puts you in the same category as people who believe in benevolent monarchies/dictators. Maybe it can work for a short time, but power will be cemented and it'll never naturally be dissolved.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    China was predominantly a semi-feudal country in 1949, the workers and peasants worked together to establish socialism. Over time, China has developed out of having a peasantry, thus there is no longer a peasant class. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

    The biggest problem is that you are explicitly rejecting Marxist class analysis in favor of an entirely different, idealist form of class analysis. Office workers, administrators, etc. are workers. What makes a worker isn't where they work, or how they work, but their social relations to ownership of the means of production and distribution.

    For example, consider a shoemaker. Said shoemaker lives his entire life making shoes. Our shoemaker here inherited a shop, which he owned. This made him petty bourgeois, and his thinking gradually shifted towards individualism. Then, hardship fell upon his shop, and he had to join a factory. He was still making shoes, but his class changed to proletarian. He no longer sought individual powers as a business owner, but instead gradually came to join the shoemaker's union and agitate for collective ownership.

    The job was effectively the same, but the class and thus the class ideology changed.

    In China, the commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned. The CPC is an overwhelmingly proletarian party. The fact that high administrators have more material benefits does not make them a class, as they share the same social relations as the rest of the proletariat, and thus are also emancipated by furthering collectivization.

    This is Marxist class analysis.

    Your analysis does fit anarchism. Your issue isn't with class, but with hierarchy. Socialism does not need a second revolution to abolish worker power, it will gradually develop into communism and class distinctions are gradually abolished. Your analysis returns to idealism, it lacks a materialist basis and thus runs into problems when applied to reality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • [–] 28 points 2 months ago

    Guys. No one is going to agree on all ideals, but can we agree that making perfect the enemy of good isn't a productive way forward. I understand no one wants a compromise, but those are as many as there are ideals, one set for every person on the planet, there's no way around it.

    Though yeah, voice your complaints, nothing changes without that anyhow

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 88 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Only the left could take one of the leading progressive candidates reasserting progressive priorities and make it a huge problem.

    Purity destroys all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    The left eats itself, but only faster than the right does. I thought the left might unite under the threat of fascism, but this thread shows that the far left and the far right just want most of the world dead. They want revenge, not solutions.

    I increasingly feel that the only way to pull out of this is a new centrism. The opposite of neoliberalism, focusing on human rights, living wages, and liveable spaces. Environmentalism too, if that is even possible anymore. Basically things that are hard for anyone to deny the value of.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Those things are all leftist positions 😅 to me it just sounds like you hate the culture and attitude of chronically online leftists. Which is really fucking understandable, I can see how their behavior and rhetoric would be alienating

    But leftist political ideology is about building a society that structurally supports all of the things youre talking about. Because when you build a society that is supposed to support those things under capitalism there will always be a structural conflict with those causes (neoliberalism IS about trying to build those things under capitalism. It has not worked out great).

    Those things are expensive and make no money. The position of leftists is that capitalism is structurally at odds with the outcomes you care about, and that we need to build a world that is structurally aligned with those causes.

    But yes, chronically online leftists are generally interpersonally immature, spiteful assholes, and are unfortunately not super fun to be in community with in online spaces.

    💯 1
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago

    I am lucky enough to live in Minnesota, where we already prioritize green spaces, and all those leftist values are generally centrist. And yes, the rest of the comment is directed at those in the thread who call us racist Nazis for being Americans who dare resist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    The "far left," socialists, communists, etc, want all of those things. The important part is that leftists analyze imperialism and capitalism as the primary barriers to such a society, and see the establishment of socialism as necessary for the basis of such a society. This doesn't mean the left doesn't want solutions, it means our solutions are shaped by our analysis.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 27 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    I'd much rather her go after Schumer's Senate seat than run for President. Same situation with Ossoff, would love for him to be President, but he's needed in the Senate more at this time.

    Not to say that AOC wouldn't be a good president, it's more of a "right candidate, wrong country" circumstance. Plus I feel like the decade long stint as conservative-media's punching bag poisoned the well for uninformed voters (which is an unfortunate majority, by design)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

    poisoned the well for uninformed voters

    This is why she couldn't unseat Schumer either. She does well in her district, but New York as a state is more purple than people realize. There's a reason Chucklefuck has kept the wealthy, conservative Baileys in the front of his mind for decades now.

    I mean, shit, Lee Zeldin only lost the state by about 6% during the last gubernatorial.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Ossoff for President? The pro-israel, anti-Medicare-for-all guy?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Given that the DNC has been heavily floating Harris and Newsom, there really isn't a prospective candidate that has more of a fighting chance. Maybe I'm starstruck because Ossoff captured the same hopeful hype Obama did back in '08; but given the choice between Newsome Harris or Ossoff, it's going to be Ossoff without hesitation. I will agree that his stance on Israel isn't ideal, but--much like with MAGA/Heritage Foundation --rooting out all of the compromised representatives isn't going to be instantaneous; as much as I would love for it to be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 9 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    The DNC should only run Harris again if they want to lose.

    At this point, it looks like that’s exactly what they want.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    The DNC nominates whoever wins the primaries. They didn't want AOC or Mamdani or Sayed but the voters spoke out. As long as we continue to see DSA/progressive candidates run and voters vote, the old guard neoliberal wing will shrink as it's shown the door.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    Not ideal? Motherfucker said the US-Israel relationship is "IRONCLAD."

    Sorry, but the baseline for this next election is clearly 1) FUCK Israel because every Democrat, and even some Republicans (see Mike Rogers), is rejecting or denying AIPAC funds and 2) finally putting together a bill for Medicare for All for vote on the Senate floor, the most important progressive policy that was at the forefront of Bernie's movement. Don't forget the reaction of the MURDER of a United Healthcare CEO. That just tells you how much people despise the current healthcare system.

    I forgive Abdul El Sayed for declaring himself a capitalist rather than a socialist. That's because he has unequivocally built his campaign around these two baseline issues.

    Maybe you're in the south where Ossoff's voice might echo louder, but I honestly haven't heard much about him in the northeast or the west coast where I frequent. The new standard is Mamdani, and for all his efforts fighting for socialist policies, to still end up with a Zionist, corporate bootlicker on the big ticket would be an utter disappoinment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Is this AOC signaling a run or is it the DSA subtly pushing AOC to run?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [+] -7 points 2 months ago (16 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 22 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    Jewish people have the right to exist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    A subtle but important distinction. Thank you for adding it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

    A distinction that is purposefully being ignored by the "Israel's right to exist" crowd.

    So no, not good for her. It's bad to conflate recent man-made construct such as Israel with Jewish people. "Israel's right to exist" is on par with "white lives matter too" and "heritage not hate." Its pure misinformation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago* (7 children)

    I had hoped

    It has the same rights that every other culture/religion does.

    would clarify my opinion enough.

    I don’t want ANYONE to die. I don’t think Israel should be allowed to bully its neighbors, flout international law, and commit genocide. A phrase has been co-opted by people we don’t agree with. So what. It doesn’t mean they control language and the meaning of words.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 6 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Israel isn’t a religion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Gah! You’ve already had to remind me of that once.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 7 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    No, I said Jewish people have the right to exist before. Now I’m correcting your statement that Israel is a religion. It is not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    To me, this whole conversation has served as a reminder of the importance of precise language. You are entirely correct, of course. That’s what I meant, and that’s why I replied the way I did. I appreciate it, especially on an emotional issue like this one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Yes precise language is a necessity on this topic. There are too many that are willing to conflate Israel and Jewish people to allow any more confusion to flourish.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Honestly, no. No nation has any right at all. People do. The "Israel has a right to exist/defend itself" shit is just Zionist cover. They invade, murder, and steal land, then get attacked and say people critical of them are infringing on their rights. Don't take the bait. Just because it sounds reasonable doesn't mean it is. Think harder about what it means.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    It has the same rights that every other culture/religion does.

    What do you think that means?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Your previous comment is removed, so I can't reference it. Israel is not a culture or religion though. It's a nation. It is not Judaism, nor does it represent Jews.

    Anyway, no culture, religion, or nation has rights. People have rights. They have a right to a culture and religion, but the culture and religion do not have rights.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [+] -25 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    AOC is establishment now.

    Regardless, she didn't stand up and say what she should've known in 2024. Biden was going to lose, kamala was going to lose. No, she decided to wait "her turn," and let the hacks at the democratic party fail america, again.

    I don't care that you guys think she's one of the good ones. She's not. Being better than fascists or their controlled opposition fascist light isn't sufficient.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    If AOC is only 36 now, then she was not old enough to run for President in 2024. It wasn't that she was "waiting her turn", she literally was barred from running according to the Constitution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    She didn't say anything against Biden even though he was going to lose, and she didn't say anything against kamala, even though she was going to lose.

    Big fail, and she knew better. As to the presidency, she can't win it either, not then, not now, not in 2028.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    There's this weird attitude among self-described leftists online that it's morally reprehensible to pick your battles. I've seen Mamdani being called a sellout for not kidnapping Netanyahu, even though it would be insanely difficult to get him to the Hague, much less actually held accountable. I've seen any number of people being shamed for supporting social democrats, as if a real leftist would see no difference between a socdem and a fascist. If you aren't already completely in control, compromising is often the only way to get anything done.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Mamdani should not promise things he can't do . I agree that it shouldn't completely delegitimize him but it is the right thing to feel to feel angry when he do the wrong things

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    I would add, the 'weird little attitude' of self described leftists that bothers me, is defending the establishment democrats when we are doomed to fail under their leadership.

    Frankly I suspect clankers are behind half of that sentiment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago

    Speaking up for an electable candidate in 2024 is not "picking your battles."

    Jesus Christ, listen to yourself, I am embarrassed for your logic, frankly, it's not worth responding to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [+] -45 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    She's trying to ride their coattails to relevance. She's still a neoliberal that can't be trusted

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [+] -50 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    She's a politician, and she's had a taste of power. It will be very difficult for her to give up that power. She'll do ANYTHING to hold on to it, believing, as they all do, that power is better off in her hands, than in someone else's'.

    My hope is that she's listened carefully to Bernie and learned from him. He's one of the very few, perhaps the only one in Congress, who stayed out of the trap.

    As far as letting her membership lapse, who knows? My guess is she was biding her time, seeing which way the wind blows. Voters are warming up to socialists at the moment, and she sees a chance to make that party work for her, so she reupped.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • 176 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post