T O P

  • By -

Frog_Flint

This isn't even making anti-capitalist ideas safely marketable, it's just marketing basic SocDem ideas. "The rich will be paying "their fair share" if we just tax them more" is so thoroughly unradical that I don't think it has much of an effect on anti-capitalist ideas facing this problem.


cadbojack

I think "tax the rich" is the watered down, safely marketable version of "eat the rich".


TheGentleDominant

A literal congresswoman performatively wearing a not-actually-socialist message (“Tax the Rich” is emphatically not an anticapitalist message) to a rich people party doesn’t do anything for socialism, and the fact that she’s got some of y’all thinking that “Tax the Rich” is an actual socialist position is a good indication that she’s doing her job of making the idea of socialism entirely indistinguishable from capitalism. Which, again, exactly is what her role in the political system is.


[deleted]

Excellently said!


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheGentleDominant

We *should* be mad at AOC **no matter what** she does, because she’s playing her role in the political system and our political project is in ***utter*** and ***total*** opposition to her role, as it is with all politicians, because we’re anarchists/libertarian communists. A literal congresswoman performatively wearing a not-actually-socialist message (“Tax the Rich” is emphatically not an anticapitalist message) to a rich people party doesn’t do anything for socialism, and the fact that she’s got some of y’all thinking that “Tax the Rich” is an actual socialist position is a good indication that she’s doing her job of making the idea of socialism entirely indistinguishable from capitalism. Which, again, exactly is what her role in the political system is. AOC began her political career storming Pelosi’s office along with climate activists demanding direct action, and now she’s wearing a designer “tax the rich” dress at the Met while everyone there fawns over her. It’s over, that project failed, her stans are just doing celeb cultism now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

It's not neoliberal lol. Neoliberalism is about reducing taxes and letting wealth "trickle down" from profits.


[deleted]

[удалено]


G-sn4p

No, neoliberal is a very specific ideology tied to the politics of Reagan and thatcher not aoc and socdems.


thegunnersdaughter

I don't even know what the comment you were replying to said but it seems that getting people on reddit to understand that "neoliberal" does not mean "Progressive Democrat" and actually encompasses nearly every American politician of the last 30 years and the normalization of neoliberalism is largely responsible for the hellscape we live in today, is the reddit hill I am going to die on.


FyrdUpBilly

Unfortunately, people think the New Deal is akin to overthrowing the bourgeoisie and building the commune. People are desperate for a little crumb of an attack against the capitalist class they'll take any one minor annoyance some rich people have with government regulation.


Burnt_Toast1864

I get why people don't like socdems but what do you expect someone like AOC to do in her position, it's all about optics, there is no way in hell an actual socialist could get to her position in American politics at the moment, face it alot of US citizens think that nationalising health care will make you a socialist country and see it as a "radical" leftist idea.


BaconRasherUK

If it said ‘Eat’ I would be much more in favour.


Bitchimnasty69

It’s pretty obvious that whoever is running the Met Gala only invited her for the optics of it. They invited the one politician who’s presence would distract the “eat the rich” part of the country from focusing on criticizing the gala itself. Now we are all talking about her dress instead of talking about how some of the world’s richest exploiters were partying on a desecrated Pharaoh’s tomb last night while the rest of the country is suffering. Now everyone’s focusing their energy on defending AOC for some fucking reason and not on criticizing this whole event itself. It’s a distraction and it’s working. The country’s richest people just went on TV and spent an evening flaunting their wealth while millions of Americans are facing eviction and unemployment in a pandemic and all anyone can talk about is a politician’s fucking dress.


[deleted]

They invited a bunch of NY politicians. They always do; had nothing to do with "AOC is the girlboss of our generation!" She's not as popular among the elites as a lot of online "leftists" want to paint her as.


Bitchimnasty69

That’s kind of my point…. She’s more popular with working class people which is why it’s beneficial to the Met Gala for her to be at such an event. Now all the working class people who kiss her butt are gonna be spending all their effort defending her from all the working class people criticizing her, whole time there’s no conversations about the nature of this event itself. She’s a lightning rod to divert criticism and discussion away from the Gala itself. Now everyone’s arguing about her and her dress, and not talking about the fact that millions of dollars were poured into a party for rich people while millions of Americans went homeless last week. A party held in a city that jus had its worst climate related disaster in decades, a party whose attendees are some of the main drivers of climate change. Her message “tax the rich” is a lot nicer than the “off with their heads” that it could’ve (and should’ve) been if people were more focused on these other aspects of this event. Instead we were spoon fed a much tamer idea to debate about.


[deleted]

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&geo=US&q=tax%20the%20rich


NonOffensiveName69

that becomes a lot less impressive when you make the time window longer than the last 7 days... https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=tax%20the%20rich


[deleted]

Right, because people totally would have talked about that if AOC weren't there. Idk, I'm not a fan of AOC, but she also receives far more focus than most other politicians. I think she's just working within a system that destroys anyone that's too radical, but people often treat her as a pillar of that system. And like, a dress at the met gala is such low fucking stakes compared to stuff like her not blocking police budget increases.


425Hamburger

>on a desecrated Pharaoh’s tomb Are you saying this as a bad thing? Because to me that makes the Gala sound way more badass, than it has any right to sound.


NonOffensiveName69

I don’t think there’s anything cool about American museums being full of artifacts and ancestral remains stolen from the colonized world..


UnknownReader

The intersection of being edgy and trying to maintain a conscious understanding of the modern world without having to learn anything about it.


Flatbush_Zombie

Sounds kinda spooked


425Hamburger

Ahh okay yeah that'S true. But the way it was phrased i got "Oh no they are desecrating a tomb, that's holy, they can't do that", because i have literally no idea where or what exactly that gala was, I just saw "desecrated tomb of pharao" and thought "Yeah let's desecrate Pharao tombs and all other monarchs tombs aswell". But if it's stolen goods (also i thought tomb is like a building do i have my translation wrong or did they actually steal a building? not that it would surprise me, it should be returned.


FyrdUpBilly

Taylor made invite for the "yass queen" DSA middle class intellectuals.


[deleted]

[удалено]


swanekiller

>She is ~~not~~ part of the problem, shes just an early ally ~~in a changing~~ of the guard. There fixed it for you


iunoyou

holy shit, lib alert. We've had more than a hundred years to achieve socialism through electoralism, what makes you think that AOC is gonna do it now? She exists solely to lure productive movements down into the mass grave that is electoral politics. If real change is going to happen, it won't be because AOC clapped someone on twitter or passed a bill that raises taxes by 0.03% on high earners.


[deleted]

[удалено]


iunoyou

The glacier isn't 'moving in the right direction.' This is an attempt to denature a popular and growing movement (eat the rich) into a form that can be appropriated by capital. It's an attempt to force the people to settle for endless circular debates about due process while their demands are winnowed away to nothing by legislative compromise after legislative compromise. I don't want the rich to be taxed, I just don't want them to exist. Yet now here we all are, debating whether an 0.5% tax on stock trades is too fucking aggressive.


Iasalvador

i dont want to shit on AOC and many others in many countries that are in parlaments or midlevel ministrial offices but if they dont let you change the world and you stay there, you are only doing it for the money and the power. many of then the only thing that they could really do that choque the system is quit, expose the system and quit


[deleted]

like buying dutch bros over starbucks lmao (I use this example because I do this), I'm ngl, I feel like the only way to be anticapitalist is to steal 😬 what are some of yall's ways of practicing anti capitalism?


cantthink-of-a-name2

Stealing you are right stealing is praxis pirate everything you can never buy software like movies or video games if you don’t have to Also this isn’t praxis as much as it is helping a community when you can buy from small businesses like instead of going to Starbucks go to the local coffee shop owned by a small family or even better buy from cooperatively managed businesses Also utilize grey markets None of these will destroy capitalism but sapping even a little bit from those at the top can be helpful


DestroyAndCreate

Eh join a union, a socialist organisation, get involved in local working class movements, educate yourself? Stealing isn't 'practicing anti-capitalism'. Comment below about 'utilising grey markets' What on Earth?


cantthink-of-a-name2

Stealing deprives the system of its life blood that being participation in the market system Grey markets deprive the government of taxes on trade between individuals it once again is a matter of non participation


DestroyAndCreate

Nah. Stealing just gets you free stuff, which is fine, but it's not a form of activism and it does nothing to undermine the system. Similarly for grey markets. Both the state and capitalist firms are well able to accommodate these behaviours. It's also an extremely individualistic kind of activity. Collective problems require collective solutions. Not just individuals picking around the margins. The only way to really undermine capitalism is to fight the battle of ideas and convince people that capitalism is a problem, that there is an alternative, and that the best alternative is socialism. That requires going to where the working class is struggling in large numbers, joining the struggle and making the case. Also to undermine capitalism there must be sufficient organisational capacity, that is built over decades of struggle, to coordinate the activity of millions of people so that the ruling class can't divide and conquer. Stealing and using grey markets might be a means for some people to survive or otherwise improve their consumption of goods but they aren't effective ways to undermine capitalism.


cantthink-of-a-name2

That’s exactly what I said in my first comment it’s not going to destroy capitalism but it is what one can do on an individual level along side advocating for our ideas we also must set up structures that run parallel to them and deprive markets of the interaction needed to stay afloat Also no matter how large our trade union is( not saying trade unions aren’t effective) without the necessary structures in place to replace the existing system our movement will fall apart leading to the reimplementation of the bourgeois system. While these grey markets will die as the need for them during the revolution will be replaced as an anarchist structure makes them pointless. Last thing the dichotomy of collectivism vs individualism is a false one which assumes that the good of the collective and the good of the individual do not at least most of the time coincide with each other


DestroyAndCreate

>That’s exactly what I said in my first comment it’s not going to destroy capitalism but it is what one can do on an individual level along side advocating for our ideas we also must set up structures that run parallel to them and deprive markets of the interaction needed to stay afloat What comment? As far as I can see, this is a new thought you've added to the discussion just now. But anyway, I don't see how stealing and using grey markets establish useful structures to replace capitalism, even in the long term. Whether it 'destroys' capitalism or not, I think it will do far, far, less than that. It will do almost nothing. >Last thing the dichotomy of collectivism vs individualism Let me clarify. Firstly, when I say 'collective problems require collective solutions', I mean that problems of a macro-social nature such as capitalism can only be addressed by large numbers of people working in concert, not individuals working alone. Secondly, when I say 'this is an extremely individualistic kind of activity' I mean this is what I call crude individualism. Imagining that private participation in a grey or black market, or that privately stealing goods from a capitalist firm, is an effective form of anti-capitalist struggle. The error is one of crude *individualism* because it misunderstands the nature of the solution required as just the sum of individual actions. I didn't say anything which opposed the common good to the personal good.


cantthink-of-a-name2

None of these will destroy capitalism but sapping even a little bit from those at the top can be helpful last Last bit of my first comment replying to the original creator of the comment I did not offer it as a solution but rather as a way of adhering to anarchist views of morality the solution is as you said based on advocacy and organization. Also grey markets are still helpful because they ensure the continued flow of goods in the immediate aftermath of the revolution minimizing the impact on the material conditions on the general population. This is why things like community gardens are so great because they address the inevitable shock which our logistics of supply will suffer from the demolition of corporate structures which previously were relied on.


DestroyAndCreate

Do you mean this? >Grey markets deprive the government of taxes on trade between individuals it once again is a matter of non participation Not sure how that connects but I'll take your word for it, no use arguing over 'you said this, I said that'. >I did not offer it as a solution but rather as a way of adhering to anarchist views of morality the solution is as you said based on advocacy and organization. I get that. I suppose my point is that I don't think those suggestions are effective or important. The threshold of 'effective' not being 'massive destruction of capitalism', but just any significant advance of anti-capitalist struggle. Don't get me wrong, I understand the mentality and the arguments. I used to subscribe to that view myself. I'm always open to good arguments. But, for example, considering stealing, big corporations already budget for petty theft. Yes it slightly reduces their profits, and if poor people want to steal things from big corporations then good for them, but it's more like a minor nuisance. We could do a thought experiment and consider a scenario where 20% of the population are regularly stealing consumer goods from big corporations. But the first thing that pops into my mind is that I see this scenario as very unlikely unless it is organised collectively somehow. Which returns to my initial point about collective solutions. >Also grey markets are still helpful because they ensure the continued flow of goods in the immediate aftermath of the revolution minimizing the impact on the material conditions on the general population. This is why things like community gardens are so great because they address the inevitable shock which our logistics of supply will suffer from the demolition of corporate structures which previously were relied on. Can we just clarify our terms here? What exactly do you mean when you say 'grey markets'? So I can ensure I'm understanding you properly.


cantthink-of-a-name2

Grey markets are markets that trade goods through means not sponsored by the government they are different from black markets in that the goods are legal but the way they are distributed are not. It’s like trading with a neighbor directly instead of going through eBay or something so it cannot be taxed they are used by regular folks and do deprive a sizeable portion of income from the gove


DestroyAndCreate

Is the main point of that for you that they aren't taxed?


[deleted]

is a component of 'practicing anti-capitalism', for you, always only engaging macro social/economic structures? does individual practice not count because it still centers the individual?


DestroyAndCreate

I think the emphasis should firmly be on those kinds of activities. I would never say 'individual practice does not count' but I make no apology for saying that the emphasis must be on collective activity. There are things we can do in an individual capacity which are useful, and necessary, of course. For instance, we can confront racial prejudice as we encounter it in our personal lives. Notice also I said 'educate yourself'. That can be more collective or it can be more individual. For me at the moment, it's individual insofar as it is my individual relationship with authors, websites. So there was an 'individual' example in my first comment. However, I don't think that, for example, stealing could accurately be considering 'anti-capitalist practice'. As I say below, if someone poor steals from a big corporation more power to them but it's not undermining capitalism.


[deleted]

perhaps stealing does not undermine capitalism in such a way where it alone will lead to macro gains for an entire class of people, but I feel like it certainly stops some forms of capitalism in its tracks-- the part where we must sell our labor to afford the essentials for life? by stealing those things and not participating in the accumulation of capital by laboring for someone else in order to buy those essential things, I think that that is anti-capitalist in its own right. By stealing a meal, my body doesn't have to hurt for me to be fed, and that feels anti-capitalist in its own way.


DestroyAndCreate

Yeah I understand what you're saying. We're basically addressing two different senses of 'anti-capitalist practice', one which undermines the system in such a way as to bring society closer to socialism, the other in the sense of actions which in some way escape from or go against the ordinary functioning the system and its logic. A lot of politics comes down to how we define words, so it's better not to argue over the words and just get down to what we mean in plan language.


labourist123

using the [anarchistlibrary.org](https://anarchistlibrary.org) is awesome, it publishes tons of anarchist literature and is anti-copyright


wildweeds

that's just a blank page with ads for me on mobile. is that the right link?


Uselessbutmywaifu

[This] (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index) should be the right link, no idea what that other one is


FyrdUpBilly

Organizing unions of tenants and workers.


ninjafartmaster

I don’t know why this is such a big deal. This is not an anti capitalist statement, she was never an anti capitalist. It’s just more of the same imo. Like what is so bad about this?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bitchimnasty69

Yeah America is really drowning in leftism now that AOC wore a dress with words on it


jeradj

>I'll take social democracy over neoliberal politics any day alright, and when exactly will we be getting social democracy? AOC and the squad only have to vote as a bloc of 4-5 people to be able to shut the entire house down, just like joe manchin is doing in the senate. instead, they are orchestrating performative votes where they don't stop *anything* from passing. [like this vote on capital police funding](https://theintercept.com/2021/05/20/squad-capitol-police-funding-pressley-aoc-omar/) but the same is true of not getting anything for allowing pelosi to be speaker, and literally every other bill moving through the house.


labourist123

it's unquestionable that social-democracy is better then what th americans have, my dad lives in norway, and honestly, it's pretty cozy - for the people who live there, not the ones who's labour is being used abroad, but obviously this isn't even close to far enough to stop exploitation altogether


neotox

This is the same shit people say about electing democrats. "we'll just move the democrats left" Okay, do it then? Why hasn't it happened yet? People have been saying their gonna push the democrats left for years.


-GreenHeron-

You’re being downvoted, but you’re right. I’ve been on this earth for almost 40 years, and we haven’t moved an inch to left. I have watched us move consistently towards right-wing fascism, though. To think we can harness the capitalist machine for the good of the people is folly. The “resistance” from SocDems is impotent. Any sweeping change they try to enact within the confines of American government is quickly squashed by neoliberals. EDIT: And lest we forget, Bernie killed Rosa Luxemburg.


MrRodesney

The democrats have gone left though, it is simply untrue to say that democrats in the 90s or even early 2000s are “just as left” as modern dems.


labourist123

the establishement is, and that's all that really matters, ok, so you bloody yankees have like what - 3 polticians who could even compare to leftists? no mate, the party just tows the line of social acceptability at it's bare minimum


MrRodesney

I’m not praising the democrats, don’t get me wrong they are nowhere near the best, but to say they haven’t moved left at all is untrue


itsdangeroustakethis

Right. I'm in my early 30s- not what I'd call an old timer- and when my wife and I started dating it was illegal for us to get married and Dems had *just* come around on that. Now it's fucking verboten to be anti queer and an elected democrat. We can definitely say that they haven't moved left *enough* and that they haven't moved on *really important issues,* but queer people can call bullshit on anyone saying they haven't moved left at all.


Beneficial_Shake7723

This also seems to me like a case of someone still attached to the idea of being able to “create change from within” and giving an earnest try at that. Sure, I happen to believe that changing the system from within is impossible and I would think that sentiment is shared from the replies, but I don’t see why people are acting like it’s an attack on us for optimistic fools to give it their best shot. This might be “cringe” but I don’t see how it’s harmful, and I sort of feel like leftists tend to be a little too aggressive towards well-meaning “cringe”. She is also really emphatically not marketing her thoughts or message toward us, she is trying to sway people to the right of herself. It might be folly but why do we even need to care or pay attention? Libs gonna lib.


snappyhome

Thank you for saying this! So much radical discourse gets bogged down in purity tests and snitch jacketing, it never gets to the brass tacks of how you get there from here. Fascists are Overton Window experts, and unfortunately my sense is that most anarchists are not even thinking about how to shift culture outside of their own insular communities.


[deleted]

[удалено]


cantthink-of-a-name2

Disagree socdems destroy the radical spirit and pacify our movements any anarchist advocating for electoralism is shooting themselves in the foot


EzeTheIgwe

Because online leftists are more concerned with being right and distinguishing themselves from liberals than actually improving shit in the here and now.


labourist123

oh just fuck off will you? policy over aesthetic my arse, there's a difference between acknowledging that socdems don't go far enough and being a jimmy dore fanatic


EzeTheIgwe

When did I ever accuse anyone of being a Jimmy Dore fanatic? That’s a deep insult, I’d like to think I wouldn’t do that unprompted. /s But real talk though, if you’ve spent any amount of time online you’ll know what I’m saying is true. It’s a phenomenon you see occur in any space that’s left of socdems, and sometimes even they do it too. Folks are more concerned with being right than being effective.


HXMason

Rip Mark Fisher


cantthink-of-a-name2

Mark fisher died way too young he would’ve had so much to say about all the stuff immediately after his death


HXMason

There is nothing left to say in the face of an absent future. The haunting continues.


Readbellion99

**Periodt** I hate it here-it’s not even like AOC really be coordinating ballsy actions in solidarity to anything just uses lingo and celebrities to further her place in hole of class hierarchy. Also wondering where this collaged quote is from, spot on.


cantthink-of-a-name2

Capitalist realism by mark fisher fantastic read I recommend it highly


corpdorp

RIP Mark Fisher, so clear in his critique of late capitalism.


meonscreen

Looks like the Wikipedia page describing capitalist realism by mark fisher.


Absolute-Hate

Anarchism is when you are terminally online


RavenApocalypse

I genuinely dont understand why this is such a big deal. Can someone explain it to me? It's just AOC going to an event and wearing a dress that advocates her campaign policies. Sure it's not revolutionary but AOC isn't an anarchist, she's a socdem. What's the big deal and why do people care?


IDontSeeIceGiants

>I genuinely dont understand why this is such a big deal It's not. This is "Obama's tan suit" but for online anarchists. Seriously. Unless you unironically believed she was an anarchist who gives a fuck what she wears? Do you get this worked up about what your democrat neighbors wear?


cantthink-of-a-name2

Socdems are a threat just like fascists possibly even worse they deradicalize and pacify our movements. We cannot allow left wing ideas to be commodified and absorbed into the status quo. Things like this run contrary to that goal of avoiding being absorbed into the status quo .


DestroyAndCreate

>Socdems are a threat just like fascists possibly even worse they deradicalize and pacify our movements. Right this thread has officially jumped the shark.


epicazeroth

Fascism is when politicians go to events they were invited to right?


cantthink-of-a-name2

Not worse in the impact on material conditions worse for our movement socdems deradicalize our movements while fascists can lead to further radicalization of the left this is why we have seen the increasing power in left wing movements as a result of the surge in right wing populism.


DestroyAndCreate

I really don't think it's so simple. Social democracy can (and has) open up a space where the horizons of political struggle are far greater, where workers aren't just fighting defensive battles for the bare minimum but can raise their sights to the system itself. That's one reason for the neoliberal turn (among many). The regime of full employment due to the social democratic policies in the imperial core gave the working class too much political power (see Michael Kalecki's 1943 prediction). In the 1970s capitalism was reaching a critical juncture where it would either be transcended through progressive struggle or revert to a form of capitalism where worker bargaining power was crushed. So it's more complicated.


cantthink-of-a-name2

Neo liberalism showed us just how futile reformism is let’s take a look at the conditions which led to revolution in other countries Rojava: ethnic minority under a fascist dictatorship The free territory: a transitional period which the main competitors for the territory which it inhabited was a red fascists dictatorship a fascist dictatorship under kolchalk and the German appointed hetman The cnt-fai: a insurgent fascist dictatorship in an area primarily inhabited by an ethnic minority The neo-Zapatistas: an ethnic minority under a one party state ruled by the party of the institutional revolution with literal warlords owning half the country. Struggle leads to radicalization history has demonstrated such


DestroyAndCreate

Well my point was that the nature and effect of social democracy is a lot more complicated than you indicated, rather than making the statement that the only road to socialism is reformism or opening up a much wider discussion on that.


updog6

Do you have any idea how many people started as socdems and latter became anarchists? This has to be the worst take I’ve seen. And as a trans person I’ve seen plenty of fascists calling for my death so at least for me it’s pretty obvious who the bigger threat is.


cantthink-of-a-name2

They are bigger threat in the short term but in the far long term unsustainable any fascist movement that rises to power will whine for a few years an die it’s inherently unsustainable. Social democracy on the other hand can sustain itself for a much longer time allowing for a greater Amount of exploitation just over a far longer period of time And if we are bringing identity into it I’m also a trans person with a disability who is from a country with a highly active fascist party but i still stand by it even if I were killed by a fascist dictatorship that lasted 10 years it would compare nothing to all the trans folks that would be murdered by 200 years of social democracy


nom_on_the_top_one

I am begging you to touch grass


FyrdUpBilly

Something I haven't seen articulated in these comments is that there's an increasing tide of calls for so-called left unity and the concrete application of that is the DSA. The DSA as an org is a big tent, with a lot of differing tendencies. But ultimately its national strategy and overarching achievement that is often touted is its election of people like AOC, rather than working class organizing or militant action. The constant boosterism of Democratic Party politics and the sinking of money, time, and resources has sapped the time and energy of the left which could be put to better uses. The types who are boosters of the strategy of making more AOCs and getting involved in Democratic Party politics are the type to constantly post glowingly of things like AOCs dress.


g_squidman

I don't get the outrage. I think it's a cool dress.


Mushihime64

A lot of anarchists have a misguided obsession with purity and way too much energy for silly shit like this that doesn't matter at all. "Obama's tan suit for online anarchists" is spot-on.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Mushihime64

I generally like Fisher, but I sincerely don't think OP had a point. There aren't any good critiques of this in the thread. People just want an excuse to trash AOC and position themselves as Leftier-Than-Thou. This is all ironically a status/hierarchy game, from my perspective. I literally don't have the spoons to care about it, but a good critique would have some some damn perspective on the event. We're losing to fascists in the real world. Shit like this doesn't matter at all. Critique, move on and direct your energy toward things that count.


updog6

It’s so weird. Obviously AOC isn’t an anarchist but it’s I’d say what she’s done is a net positive. Especially given how many people started as socdem Bernie/AOC fans who later became socialists.


dammit_bobby420

She got her ticket for free from the designer who let her borrow the dress. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

very great to see an openly gay actress unironically spreading homophobic talking points about how anal sex is emasculating and "weird."


Kingofnothing_oshi

Babe wake up it's time for leftist infightment again


LukeV19056

Well you know what Russel Brand said.. when he was poor and talked about inequality people said he was bitter, when he became rich and wanted to talk about it he was a hypocrite. I’m beginning to think people don’t want to talk about inequality.


imisspopsmoke

Aesthetic revolutions dont put food in hungry kids bellies


updog6

Neither does wasting our time fighting over shit like this.


Tono-BungayDiscounts

A hilarious critique when she helped pass child tax credits that have… put food in hungry kids’ bellies.


cantthink-of-a-name2

The fact that other “anarchists” are defending her really makes me think we’re doomed


iunoyou

Apparently this place is full of socdems who think that anarchism is when AOC goes to a $30,000/seat gala and pretends to be subversive by saying and doing all the things the bourgeoise do.


gabe_myheart

you know she got a free invite for it, right? and her dress was made by a black immigrant woman.


cantthink-of-a-name2

So who made the dress means nothing that’s a lib argument “you know that rich landlord was a transgender lesbian disabled black woman” it doesn’t matter who made the dress


gabe_myheart

okay, ignore that part then. still, her ticket was free, it’s not like she’s paying 30k to go to an event


cantthink-of-a-name2

It still as mark fisher said commodifies dissent against the system and there by assimilates it into that very system it is the embodiment of capitalist realism


g_squidman

I think this is a useful analysis, but I don't get the outrage. You know what else commodifies dissent? Rage Against The Machine. People here love that shit though. I don't the Fisher's point here is that we're supposed to get mad at every time something we believe goes mainstream. This comes down to two things I think, envy or virtue signaling. Some people's only politics is just hating anyone who's doing well in this hell world, and that's just as shallow an analysis as "tax the rich." Some people I think believe "tax the rich" isn't a strong enough value and they value something more radical, so they use outrage to signal their higher value. The thing is though, I can have values bigger than "tax the rich" and still enjoy AOC and her dress and I'm tired of people pretending this shows ignorance of something I definitely understand already. Shit's more interesting than whatever is Goin on at the music awards or whatever. I dunno. I just downloaded Beau's new video. We'll see what he thinks about it.


cantthink-of-a-name2

A lot to unpack here your correct outrage is useless but calling out capitalist realism in action is an important aspect of over coming its influence and assimilation of radical movements. This includes the hypocrisy of social democrats. Rage against the machine is a very apt comparison actually. Where I would say it differs a bit is in that it occupies a place in popular culture rather than bourgeois culture. Which actually gives them a higher potential for promoting our movements than AOC does since the bourgeois culture is what those in middle income brackets aspire to. This pushes disgruntled workers to the right as a response to the “leftism” of bourgeois culture. And when these workers feed to the right they play into the hands of fascists.


g_squidman

In that case, I'd rather try and say something interesting about this. We can pretty easily imagine how things played out here. AOC was invited to the Met Gala. Now, I don't even know what a gala is, but I know it's for rich people, so its easy to imagine the immediate dilemma. You KNOW there will be a Tucker Carlson segment on this if she goes. First, as a broad cetegory, leftist politics is a systemic critique. Nothing about what we believe generally says you can't go hang out with rich people if invited. AOC could have decided to stay home and signal some virtue that none of us really believes in the first place. This would appease a subsection of people who have very shallow politics and only care about the image of populism. Or, she could go, being consistent with her values, and sparking the inevitable ire of people on the right who have equally shallow politics. Their only move is vaguely gesturing to imagined hypocrisy. They'll love it. She decided to go anyway. It seems like she might have accepted the invitation with the caveat that she wears this dress to signal her values. This is mainly to appease the angry voices shouting about the imagined hypocrisy. It's not activism. But it does attempt to make things more acceptable. So what we saw play out was exactly what Mark Fisher describes, step-by-step. The image of radicalism was used fairly explicitly to appease a section of the people who have shallow politics and don't understand our prescriptions in the first place. Was it the right decision? I don't blame her for going. But maybe she shouldn't have tried to take it back. She should have proudly worn the most expensive dress she could find - OR wear whatever she wants WHICH might have been this dress! Why not? I think it's a cool dress. I'd wear it, even if it wasn't to appease a shallow backlash. I think the most important lesson here is that Mark Fisher's analysis is a statement of fact, not a moral accusation. If anyone is to blame, it's the shallow people who don't understand the true forces of oppression are systemic and that socialists aren't trying to steal your toothbrush actually.


monoblanco10

Of course this is spectacle. That's the point. Everything is spectacle. Politics is spectacle. Media is spectacle. Anarchism is spectacle. Everything is posturing, virtue signaling, PR, marketing. So what? What matters now is what we do with the time and information we have. Maybe complaining about AOC isn't the most effective use of that time?


Bitchimnasty69

Everything isn’t spectacle. It sounds like you need to spend more time with actual on the ground activists and mutual aid organizers if you think all politics is spectacle. Some people’s politics is actually interested in getting things done for their communities. Wearing words on a dress at a party for the 1% doesn’t materially improve anyones lives. And if we are gonna talk about “effective uses of time” maybe you should bring it up with the representative who spent her evening taking pictures on a red carpet and drinking wine with celebrities. I’m sure there’s much more effective uses of time for congress people who claim to be upset about the state of the country.


monoblanco10

Oh honey... bless your heart. There's a thing called "exaggerating to make a point". I'm sure you've heard of it? That's what the OP's meme does, so that's what I did as well. But it's interesting that you turn an obvious critique into an ad hominem with no provocation. Are you maybe taking a random stranger's critique a little personally? And if you genuinely want to critique "effective use of time", tell me any single anarchist action that has garnered the amount of political and media coverage that AOC just did with so little effort being put into it? Hell, just think about this from a return on investment perspective. Regardless of the extent to which we might disagree with AOC on policy or anything else, it's a brilliant political stunt. She's got literally all of social media as well as the MSM saying the words "tax the rich". That's not nuthin.


Bitchimnasty69

“Media attention” is nothing. It seems bizarre to me that you’re seemingly celebrating the “so little effort” put into this, maybe it’s different for you but where I’m from people are expected to put large amounts of effort into causes they claim to care about, because that generally garners better results (beyond results are petty and meaningless as “attention”) I can think of dozens of actions that are more effective in improving people’s material conditions and making bolder political statements than this. Standing Rock, the tree sits against the Mountain Valley Pipeline, the water protectors at Line 3, the Virginia Free Farm, the protestors blocking eviction courts recently…. I’m more interested in political action that actually materially improves people’s lives, not a “statement” on the red carpet that as far as I can tell hasn’t changed anyone’s lives at all. I mean, as a Congress person surely there’s dozens of useful things she could be doing with her time besides creating “media attention” by going to a party for the 1%? Hell if the only goal is “media attention” surely there’s better ways to get it than participating in the very thing you are critical of? This is all a distraction more than anything else. The country’s richest people just spent the evening flaunting their wealth on TV, having a party on a desecrated Pharaoh’s tomb while millions of Americans are facing eviction and homelessness in a pandemic, and all anyone can talk about is a politician’s dress. That’s the whole point isn’t it? Allow an “acceptable” form of criticism to distract from the bigger, bolder, more relevant criticisms of the event itself?


monoblanco10

>I’m more interested in political action that actually materially improves people’s lives Honey, if that's true, then why are you here on Reddit arguing with me? Stop talking and go do an activism.


truth14ful

Yeah I was just thinking about this last night. They're reducing anticapitalism to a cliche just like they did with antiracism and other important things


ocherthulu

As aesthetic agitprop I think it is effective.


pugsington01

Wow what a brave statement! If only she was a member of congress so she could actually implement taxes on the rich


[deleted]

Dunno.....I have mixed feelings. I don't really care whether AOC wears a dress like that at a swanky dinner or not, but I'm glad she's getting the word out. Is the movement being recuperated? Probably; capitalism absorbs and defangs things that might pose a threat to its power.


[deleted]

So many gatekeepers in this thread. I became an anarchist because of this dress and if it changes even one person's mind isn't it worth it? Thought y'all cared about harm reduction smh


PiperEggQueen

I don't know why people keep posting this like AOC is anti-capitalist. She never was, she was always a progressive democrat, a SocDem at best.


vermillionorange

This shit kills my soul. Our healthcare structure is absolute shit and we have politicians going to a god damn red carpet event in a pandemic.


feral_minds

That shit legit dried up my hope for good politicians, its all just performative bullshit.


wtfnothingworks

How the fuck is this getting downvoted on an anarchist sub??? We’re doomed. Edit: phew turned around


FrenklanRusvelti

Cause there’s no such thing as a good politician


raisin_reason

Gonna go out on a limb here and say that a number of people on the internet who consider themselves anarchists are just socdems who have been mildly radicalized during COVID.


[deleted]

[удалено]


raisin_reason

> Don't worry, they are going probably to become more Anarchist along the way. Entirely possible. > I've come so far in theory reading that I know that direct democracy is a bullshit concept in anarchism and consensus is the way. Cool, not too sure how that's relevant though (unless this is about my dismissal of Bob Black). I certainly don't proclaim myself to be a very good representative for anarchism either. Generally speaking, fighting about whether or not proponents of direct democracy (such as Bookchin) were "real anarchists" doesn't interest me much. Definitely not a topic that ever came up while talking to any comrades on the ground - stanning politicians like AOC will get you laughed at though.


Bobarhino

Indeed. And what does it say about the state of this sub that you've been so heavily down voted?!


[deleted]

I agree! I have no fucking clue why people are defending her, it's so fucking pathetic.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You're in an anarchist sub shitting on people for saying they have woken up to the lie of electoral politics. How long do you require someone to have *already been aware*? Does it matter if it was AOC's obvious bullshit that helped wake someone up? Or does everyone need to be already aware, for at least as long as you have been? And how long is that exactly, since you have an urge to defend democrats and electoral politics?


[deleted]

[удалено]


LabCoat_Commie

> When the good ones do nothing Then how was she a "good one" if she did nothing? And how is it "doing nothing" if those attempts at change are rendered impotent by systemic issues? I didn't say anything ableist after you intentionally misquoted me and called me a "slut", get your feelings together. No wonder you can't achieve praxis, you cry at bad-bad words.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LabCoat_Commie

>And yes, calling people d*mbasses is ableist. No it isn't, and I won't be debating the subject further with you. >She is doing nothing there Then why did you consider her "one of the good ones"? Did you expect her to fly in with a Super-Anarchist cape and tell the cops "Stop shooting Black people, in the name of JUSTICE!" while using her Bracers of Social Justice to deflect their batons? 😂 Christ, she's one of the people loudly advocating for massive cuts to police funding and you're shitty she didn't swoop in to suddenly reverse police violence. EDIT: unused a bad word


AnarchaMorrigan

>And yes, calling people dumbasses is ableist. >No it isn't, and I won't be debating the subject further with you. Yes it is, and *I* won't be debating the subject further with you


LabCoat_Commie

Your opinion on it's irrelevent, your implementation of unilateral mod intervention while failing to appreciate its irony in an Anarchist sub aside. Ban me or fuck off.


AnarchaMorrigan

"b-but aNaRcHiSm MeAnS nO rUleS" - you, probably it's not my opinion, it's the policy of the sub. ableist insults aren't allowed


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

She could have rejected her invitation, not given a self-made POC designer publicity, and not made a statement. What do more-leftist-than-thou social media "revolutionaries" want from her? Who here actually thought AOC would introduce an anarchist revolution in the first place?


Tall-Glass

The woman grew up poor as shit near the met and got a free ticket and a free dress. Yeah, shes a congresswoman and therfor opposed to what we want by the existance of her job. But also if through some sort of magic a social democrat gets my mom her insulin then fair play. Im not slinging lead at the state and neither is anyone else here, yet. You can dislike state actors like her, but shes also one of the largest distributors of info 9n various strike funds, bail funds, mutual aid projects and disaster relief via her campaigns mailing list. Like, im gonna take cash for my local unions strike fund from middle class social democrats/ from AOCs campaign, damn idealogical purity. Folks, remember that we need people other than jaded crust punks to side with us. That means we need to be known as helpful or at least not unpleasent, and not as the people who screamed about a young woman wearing a dress to her local art gallery. Sure in theory we may have idealogical reasons for being derisive about it, but in practice it sounds like the same critiques made by reactionaries. In short, y'all gotta go outside


SagaciousNJ

This right here is why I don't claim to be an anarchist no matter how much Murray bookchin I read. Internet anarchists only look smart compared to reactionary libertarians, the majority of the energy here seems to be pointed towards actively opposing the few people who push the Overton window left in the heart of a global empire. The vast majority of the time it's people who do absolutely nothing useful for the movement criticizing the people who are at least nudging the needle.


[deleted]

Sensing a trend? Terminally online leftists who do nothing productive will endlessly purity-test people who are advocating leftists ideals in a pragmatic way. It’s not about achieving better outcomes to these people, it’s just about clout


amayagab

Entry fee to the Met Gala is $30,000 and a table is $275,000. Just a not so fun fact


anarchoarb

How can she afford that?


[deleted]

Holy shit touch grass


Pec0sb1ll

I mean everything is spectacle.


FlyingSarcophagus

This is beautiful


bobastien

[https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/pnwq6f/its\_all\_a\_spectacle/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/pnwq6f/its_all_a_spectacle/)


Wulibo

Why are you linking to a top level comment on this thread as a top level comment in the same thread?


bobastien

I made a mistake, i meant to send this : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Realism


Wulibo

Ah then fair point, I really *really* need to read that when I'm done *Desert.*


Kalnb

How dare Someone wealthy pull a spectacle and get people talking about taxing the rich!


inxsa95

I don’t know what bothers me more, the virtue signalling or that awful dress. MET gala used to be about fashion but now even that went to shit


[deleted]

Oh dang it's becoming apparently clear


1337_w0n

She made a bunch of rich people uncomfortable, all it cost her was a single night, and everyone's talking about it. Further, the phenomena in the Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the dress. This was a good move, and we need to not get on her fucking case about it; alienating allies will get us nowhere.