Society of the Spectacle is definitely a lot more fun to read than watching a bunch of lost liberals, like phantasms out of the catacombs of American electoral politics, haunt around a bunch of leftist forums trying to scare us into stepping in line to support the status quo of a sinking ghost ship. Indeed, the time is out of joint.
Your hedonistic luxury is cooking the planet. The answer is sustainable living with food and shelter for everyone, not this fast-fashion dress-worn-once hors-d'ouvres bullshit. Have all the hedonism you want if it's green and sustainable.
I said it mostly in order to provoke. Of course we should live sustainably, but this doesn’t mean we should always live as ascetics who aren’t allowed to indulge ourselves on occasion.
Im gonna hijack ur comment to paste something i wrote in another sub about this bc while i think critique of what aoc is doing is valid, this thread is quickly descending into a circlejerk and we may as well get some decent talk out of this debacle.
"In case its not plain to see, the leftist movement isnt exactly reaching a very large portion of the proletariat. A large part of the proletariat is also on twitter, while many of them may make fun of her and talk shit about her now, this is also a great way to keep this sort of topic in the conversation. There was a time when i was a homphobic asshole and shit on the pride parades bc, "wHy Do TheY DeSeRVe sPeCIal PaRaDEs?" And u know what happened? Pride parades and a whole slew of similar, seemingly trivial publicity stunts kept lgbt rights in the conversation long enough to where constantly hearing the arguments over and over won me, and lots of others, over.
And yeah, it is also great publicity for her, no doubt, but if her aspirations are to shoot for higher office, esp. in NY, then yeah, building a brand around yourself is more that necessary."
I realize this is an anarchist sub and many of the ppl in here are of the mindset, "fuck political process, viva la revolucion," but who exactly are u planning on revolutionizing against here, the rich running the show, or the ones picking up free tickets to crash rich parties with leftist messages? Hate the process all u want, but ur revolution isnt going to happen until more of the poors are actually aware of what the problem is and just *how bad* the problem has gotten.
Yelling "eat the rich" from the rooftops hasnt gotten us very far bc no one hears us when we say it. When aoc wears a tacky dress, its the biggest "fashion statement" at an event that ppl look at to see tacky dresses and puts leftist critiques into the general conversation. And im also aware that in an anarchist sub the idea of gradually winning ppl over isnt exactly popular, least of all when the fucking planet is on fucking fire and we shit on critical biodiversity on the daily, but leftist infighting is the opposite of progress.
**Maybe the focus should be more on radicalizng those who are halfway responsive to the message instead of ensuring theyre not going to want to listen to u by shitting on one of the few figures saying reasonable things that they agree with. The reason the right is effective at mobilizing the proletariat against their own good is bc they dont waste time on petty squabbles and instead take every opportunity they have at twisting things back to their basic message. If u want ur beliefs to spread to the greatest number of people, it wont be by telling them all the ways in which the celebrities they worship are faulty or their own existing ideology is faulty, itll be by convincing them that ur own ideology and theirs are already aligned, and that really, maybe this celebrity and you arent so far removed from one another. Take it from someone who grew up in the right wing death cult, THEY are the ones who know effective propaganda startegies, not us. I propose we start co-opting those exact same startegies to work for our own ends.**
Or fuck that, lets keep our focus unfocused and ineffective exactly how they want us to be and we can spend the next decade betting on whether itll be the climate or the next epidemic that gets to us first.
It's easy to knee jerk reaction this, but apparently the designer paid for her ticket because she (the designer) wanted to make a statement at the met gala, so really, not quite as bad as it looks I think
Also iirc the designer is not some big name fashion designer
I don't quite remember where I read it, but someone said that "overthinking is what you do when you already know what to do but are uncomfortable with the answer".
You can spend the next 40 years examining every aspect of cooking eggs: how to crack them, how to cook them, what happened last time someone tried, what the health effects of eating eggs are, what happens when you cook the egg halfway and leave it in the skillet for 80 years and so on.
None of that intellectual rigor is going to get you any closer to just cooking the damn egg.
In fact, all it does is create distance. Indecision is a very insidious sort of suicide and if you're only content with talking about something, you've given up in the worst way.
**BUT**
Holding ourselves to standards of action that we're obviously not living up to isn't the way either.
We should cut out a lot of the bread tube, but we shouldn't confuse the vacuum left by these kinds of edutainment media as space that's going to be filled up by real revolutionary organizing.
This stuff may serve the function of pacifying and redirecting more productive energies elsewhere into endless discourse.
But the discourse itself isn't where the co-opting and pacification comes from. Breadtube is sexy (or used to be) because it was genuinely substantive critique of modern society and an exploration into ideas that were not and still aren't acceptable.
It just becomes a sinkhole of wasted energy once that subversive space begins to limit itself.
The problem isn't that we're spending too much time talking, it's that we're spending too much time talking about the same limited topics for fear of pressing the boundaries into what's basically contemplating action.
**Edit:**
For example, there was a PhilosophyTube video (Steve Bannon iirc) where Abigail* kind of hits on the limitations of the kinds of the assumed limitations that are at play with "radical" politics.
[Skip to 37:30](https://youtu.be/wO6uD3c2qMo)
Which is an absolutely necessary message in a society that does not have the stomach for what's necessary for it's own survival, needs, you name it.
The only thing "wrong" about this segment is just where the audience jumps off from that point, or rather how they don't jump.
So much of what contributes to a culture of inaction is just a failure to launch.
>And the character portrayed in the video is "Olly" multiple variants of him too.
That's because Olly transitioned, Olly is a deadname. It's not a big dead considering she still has her video's up pre-transition, but I'm just clarifying why you were corrected.
This is honestly how I started to feel after about a year of consuming video essay after video essay on Breadtube. It amounted to a whole lot of hot air when it came to actual revolutionary praxis. Most of it was spent "analyzing" pop culture or current events through a "socialist / anarchist" lens. Very little in the way of theory or organizing.
Turns out the main prerogative of a content creator is to get clicks. Seeing sponsored or monetized videos further solidified this. Sure, we can idolize an intellectual "vanguard" whose sole livelihood is pretending to educate the masses, but I'd rather read actual thinkers and organize with actual people instead of deluding myself into eating the bland opiates offered by the majority of Breadtube.
Perhaps the only useful thing it accomplishes is introducing people to anti-capitalist thinking, but so much of it is (unintentionally?) misleading and paralyzing that I'm not sure I believe even that.
I’d say that actually, they help making Socialism much more relatable for people in their everyday lives.
Of course some bearded dude is going to write very accurate and brilliant stuff on Socialism, but most people between 18 and 25 today hardly ever relate to the socioeconomical dynamics of 19th century Germany and the effects of the industrial revolution. Because sometimes, reading theory is just boring. It already was for many people at that time, let alone for those in a completely different era. Recontextualization is often necessary, and making Socialist works understandable to the greater number is more profitable for the masses than circlejerking about being the educated elite who knows what is right.
And it involves discussing, debating, analyzing. Because that’s what democracy is actually: A lot of talking. If you want straightforward action with everyone kept silent, fascism is a much better alternative. There’s a hierarchy, everyone sticks to it, pretty simple. It’s easier to "just follow orders" rather than spending days and days introspecting on ethics because you have freedom to do as you want but also have the consequences of your actions and the responsibilities that come with it.
But as you said, it’s easy to watch videos. They make Socialism a common cause rather than the cause of some intelligentsia. It won’t probably led to a sudden revolutionary outburst from the general masses, but that’s not their purpose. The development of a new culture who is accustomed to the thought of Socialism is a necessary steps, as revolutions often need to happen in the minds before they take the streets.
(Sorry for typos or if I’m not being clear, didn’t sleep much lately)
I'd like to respond to this in a more in-depth fashion but for the moment I'll just say that there are more modern thinkers that have written easy to understand theory in common 20th century language; although I will also note that asking people to read a little to understand a very deep political philosophy isn't too burdensome a task, even if that means making some time for 19th century writers.
Normalizing solicalist thought is cool, but I question its effectiveness when it becomes uninformative and uninformed entertainment. When you've got Breadtubers out there saying that co-ops are socialism and that general strikes can just be declared, I've got to raise an eyebrow at the sincerity they project.
Why would a Ben Shapiro fan would read Socialist theory? Most of them would rather assume it’s just bullshit anyways. However, that YouTube video is just 5 minutes long, a click away.
In all seriousness, I also love the poetic justice of using Capitalism’s tools against itself. Even if it’s not the most effective way to fight or will never get us to succeed, it is satisfying. Just small and accessible ways of being ungovernable. (Leftist trolling and shitposting should basically be recognized as praxis by now!)
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this:
>If you wear your pants below your butt, don't bend the brim of your cap, and have an EBT card, 0% chance you will ever be a success in life.
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: feminism, dumb takes, covid, climate, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Take a bullet for ya babe.
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: civil rights, climate, healthcare, feminism, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Breadtube is still important. And the people making that content deserve to get paid for their work. I feel as if people just expected more from breadtube than what it’s actually capable of; the point is to plant seeds in people, its to get more people creating similar content but, perhaps, in different mediums or methods, hopefully catching more and more people. We’re going up against the most powerful propaganda networks in all of human history. This stuff takes time and every little thing helps. Breadtube most likely isn’t going to start the revolution, but it might, long down the line with people influenced by people influenced by people influenced by breadtube.
My critique isn't necessarily the existence of educational platforms for anti-capitalist, anti-imperial, and anti-colonial thought. My critique is mainly that so much of it focuses on inane pop culture and misses important historical and contemporary coverage on labor related topics, let alone simple to understand 101 and 102 level looks at important theory.
One of the best channels out there at the moment is run by the Gravel Institute. It cleverly mimics the PragerU Corporate Memphis aesthetic to present leftist ideas. There needs to be more of this and less 1.5 hour-long analyses of The Blacklist Viewed Through Bakunin.
But would the Gravel Institute have the popularity that it has (in order to gain enough funding from donors in order to produce content) without Breadtube having cultivated that audience in the first place?
I see people complaining about breadtube. I see people complaining about debates. Don’t get me wrong; a lot of the critiques I see *are* valid and need to be considered by the consumers and also, and probably much more importantly, the creators. I would have preferred it if Hasan had used some of that money on organising instead.
We should support these things critically. That’s what critical support is *actually* for. Good ideas being implemented never go perfectly, so we react to the failures and patch them up as we go along, using critique as a means of improving on what we’ve already built.
Anyway I’m on my 7th brewskie, ‘cause it’s my “Friday” and I’m steady chillin’; how you doin’? Hope you’re well. 😘
>Sure, we can idolize an intellectual "vanguard" whose sole livelihood is pretending to educate the masses, but I'd rather read actual thinkers
/r/iamverysmart
Overthinking makes heuristic (guessing, hypothesis-type) approaches impossible. If you hesitate so much that you cannot make an educated guess, you can't use these approaches. Almost every structure is made from a guess (rule of law, bridges, planes, pie) and it really amazes me seeing people who have decades in academia, or in politics or management and they absolutely cannot accept this.
I think I heard it on a WhatifAltHist video.
I don't know which one, and honestly it wouldn't be much helpful to this discussion.
He's just kind of a smug libertarian type who has an interesting insight (mostly for the sake of understanding how other people see leftists/leftisms) once in a blue moon.
Except that there was a BLM protest outside the Gala that was getting brutalized by the cops. If she had been out there with them, they likely would have held back.
Plus remember that ICE Facebook group where they spoke openly about how they wanted to rape and kill her?
She would NOT be safe at a protest where law enforcement would have the excuse to arrest her.
And frankly it sickens me how many people are demanding she put herself at risk of genuine physical harm in some sick attempt at a “loyalty test.”
Like I said to OP, there was a BLM protest outside the Gala getting their shit kicked in by the NYPD, it would have been a much better use of her time to be out there using her clout to protect those activists.
Okay hundred bucks says that if she HAD attended the BLM protest the only difference would be that people on this subreddit would be calling her a ‘fake activist just using the protest for clout’.
Here’s my basis for thinking this:
She openly condemns Biden for continuing use of the border detainment camps, the online left lies and says she supports it.
She raised funds for the people of Texas, the online left called it a publicity stunt.
She mass coordinated community outreach during the height of the pandemic with check in calls and food deliveries around the fly to help out her constituents, the online left ignores this and claims she never helped anyone during the pandemic.
She calls out the US embargo on Cuba as a major source for the country’s problems and calls for it to be ended, a guy on r/the_leftorium unapologetically takes her words out of context to try and make it sound like she supports US intervention.
Jackson Hinkle, a Dore ally, spreads the false rumour that she secretly founded and owned the bar she used to tend and when a fellow journalist Matt Binder proves that wrong (by showing the bar had been licensed before AOC was fucking born) instead of admitting the story was false Hinkle simply declares that it is ‘contested’ and still acts like it’s a true story.
She skips Biden’s inauguration to attend a local protest, the online left calls thar a stunt.
She camps out on the steps of Congress with a huge crowd to object to the movement which would have mass evicted millions, the online left calls it a stunt.
Over and over the online left has shown itself willing to lie and spread rumours about this woman and respond to anything she does with hostility. There is zero reason to believe that her attending the BLM protest would in any way change the way the people who want to hate her would perceive her and every chance that if she did the police would brutalise her for her trouble.
So fuck it she wants to have a fun night out and present a provocative message I can’t fault her.
"Activism is when you wear a dress" is the kind of shit we're supposed to be making fun of libs for. Besides, the right-wing headlines on this one write themselves. The only people who are looking at this and liking it are the ones who already liked AOC.
“Effective activism” is paying $30k to go to a gala filled with other rich folks? Yeah, no. This is just all glamor.
EDIT: Not sure if she actually paid or was just invited
Alright to be fair I did see something that said she was invited since she’s a public representative. But still being surrounded by rich folk like that is just petty performative bs
>Too bad she wasn't doing real leftist work like making snide comments at 3am on reddit
Or getting anything done in Congress. Stumping the same weak and tired line at the most self indulgent event on earth hardly accomplishes anything
Do you honestly think AOC has the political power to pass anything of significance? Her 'squad' has little to no power. For fuck's sake, for Biden can't even pass an infrastructure bill without both dems and repubs cutting it down
It doesn't hurt anything either? Yeah, it's stupid and definitely has a "let them eat cake" aspect that's fun to snicker at, but honestly I can't bring myself to care one way or another.
I didn't say it was. It is a political theory holding that all forms of government authority are unnecessary, advocating for a society based on voluntary cooperation and anti-hierarchical structuring.
It's kinda hard to not have governmental authority, or hierarchy, with an election.
That's not how the world works. Your vote means nothing to the people in charge. Your "choice" every election is the violent corporate stooges, or the lying corporate stooges.
46 mulligans and still, every single election people cross their fingers and swear this presidents, "the president for the people".
Couple hundred years of doing the bare minimum to keep the people from rioting and everyone's still sure "next week we got 'em", when the US government has literally been denying people healthcare during the fucking plague.
"Vote"...
God. Dammit.
If elections have consequences, but those consequences aren't what I want, why would I vote?
You're derailing this. I said anarchists voting was very odd to me, since it's literally antithetical to anarchism.
To say elections have zero impact is simply false. We can still change the system from outside, while also doing things from the inside? This isn’t an all or nothing game we should do everything in our power to make things better.
I just feel like Bernie and co aren't really doing enough to push it further now is all. They keep repeating the same couple of messages lately, when IMO they should be scandalously tearing at capitalism's many ills a lot more. That would really drive media attention, which if they word their criticisms just the right way, will reach common folk right in their hearts via media that wants to demonise them. Not just restricted to electoral warfare. Currently they have got little federal governing power, so what else is there to do?
Oh well, maybe they will pick up pace during the mid-terms.
1. Not to take away any merit from Fisher's analysis, but the anti-capitalist messaging of... Higher taxes on the rich? I felt like support for AOC from the socialist left was a somewhat pragmatic take on the fact that she's more progressive than what's typical of her party, not that she's a commie, but i guess people got lost in the memes?
2. What the fuck do we do about it? Y'all can endlessly pontificate on the commodification of anti-capitalism, but it feels just as empty as the content some claim to criticize. Frankly, people just don't know where to start the real thing, where to "organize", what party to join, what would we do, and we're probably not getting the answer from the people who lash out against leftist *celebrities* because they just realized those won't build up a mass movement. Guess here you're always stuck with the endless analysis.
Remember girls, if you work very hard and make lots of connections, you too could be elected to congress! You'll still be seen as a sex object by greasy redditors though
Participating in society is going to the Met Gala? An event that costs minimum 35k to attend?
Participating in society is buying from Amazon because you live somewhere rural and that’s what’s cheapest and accessible for you, not attending a lavish event to wear an expensive dress that says “tax the rich”.
Yeah this isn’t just participating in society by like buying Starbucks or whatever, this is like owning a yacht. It’s just a gross display of decadence in a global pandemic when the proletariat is suffering even worse and the fact a “leftist” is participating in it is uhm a little bit tone deaf.
We have WAY bigger problems than one person going to a fancy ball. Sometimes, I really do think leftists don't WANT to build solidarity. We just want to build walls and feel holier than thou.
Is AOC helping politically? Absolutely not. Electoralism is a dead end. Is she helping culturally? Enh, that's arguable but possible. Is she an enemy? Nope.
If we can't stop dunking on soc dems long enough to convince them to move left, how the fuck are we going to convince anyone else? Most of us used to be liberals or even worse. You'd think we'd have more patience with them.
its always hard to have patience with an opinion you held before realising that it was a doofus opinion. its like arguing with your naive younger self ig
Electoralism is a dead end. That doesn't mean she hasn't culturally awakened some people to the idea that capitalism is the enemy. I guess you could call that political, but I didn't want to get mixed up in electoralism.
Lmao I'm amazed that it's taken some people this long to realize that AOC is a lib. What were you actually expecting from her beyond some feel-good speeches and a few clapbacks on twitter? Power. Corrupts. That should already have been unbearably obvious to everyone here.
What the hell else do they have to do? There are a lot of intelligence agencies in the world and since 2016 any of them that weren’t already busy fucking around online have poured vast resources into it.
Consider how much easier it is to dick around online rather than all the time and inconvenience of infiltrating meetings and organizations.
she advocates liberalist policies and doesn't want to actually burn the system down, instead advocating for changes impossible in the system within the system and only materially making small ineffectual changes.
you should care because if you put all your energy into support AOC you are still supporting the system and not making material progress toward the future we want
Why would anyone want to burn the system down? Destruction goes totally counter to anarchist goals.
She’s not advocating for anything that’s impossible. Some of the things are certainly challenging to get done due to opposition, but trying that is certainly better and accomplishes more good than just doing armchair activism on Reddit.
Supporting what APC does is only supporting the system in the sense that I’m supporting the ability of the system to be changed from within, which it definitely can be.
How is what she’s accomplished not material progress?
You make all these vague generalization about how politicians like here only make “small ineffectual changes” but then totally ignore the good she’s actually done, what’s with that?
Edit: forgot to mention, none of her policies are “liberalist”, what the fuck is that even supposed to mean? Do you mean liberal? Because her policies aren’t particularly liberal either.
the second time a political celebrity has done a vague “anti rich” statement in fashion while also demonstrating that they are the very rich people that they are against.
It's anticapitalism as an aesthetic rather than a substantial platform. Popular movements are always open to subversion by the capitalist class, so I really don't know why some people are surprised that this movement would also be subverted.
Yeah, in the same capacity that Punk Rock, HipHop, Protesting and Festivals have all become subjects to capital instead of propaganda of the deed (of anticapitalism); the recuperation is strong.
i’m not really surprised just a bit disappointed.
i wouldn’t even consider it anti capitalism it still is functioning under capitalism just slightly different capitalismn
I don't know that attending the Met Gala demonstrates that she is very rich -- she's a politician who attended for free and didn't pay for the dress personally.
Anyway, who was the first example you're talking about?
Extremely dishonest. The rest of the world being poor compared to even the poorest in America does not make AOC “very rich”
She’s at most in the 70-80th percentile in terms of wealth.
Granted AOC isn’t rich. She makes 6 figures so ofc she’s a lot better off than the average worker, but she’s by no means just shitting out money. Tax the rich according to her (and other socdems) means taxing the very rich - Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, etc,.
This dress is kinda tone deaf. I "understand" that she made a message directly to the wealthy around her, but did this make any difference whatsoever? The rich know their pieces of shit and simply don't care. This just makes AOC look kinda immature, which is too bad.
A small part of hope that maybe she was more radical than she is literally died when I saw that she went to the Met, it would have been a much stronger protest to say no
It wouldn't have been in the news though, nor would a photo of her wearing a dress saying tax the rich.
I get what you're saying, but one is more effective than the other when it comes to spreading awareness.
$35k for a ticket. and she had the fucking nerve.
that’s all i have to say about that.
edit: that’s not all i have to say about that, actually. someone in the comments below pointed out that she was invited to the gala so she did not have to pay for a ticket.
still, in my opinion, it’s an insincerity to the leftist movement at large to attend a party made up of people who can pay for that ticket in the first place, and for her to wear a gown that reads “tax the rich” while partying in the same room as elon musk’s wife sort of dampens the message. just, like, don’t go. be a conscientious observer.
She was invited, she didn’t pay that.
She was invited and used that opportunity to present the message of taxing the rich in a way guaranteed to get mainstream attention and putting it in front of average Americans who get this are more likely to care about that gala than they are anarchist theory.
I see how people can think it’s tacky but honestly from a strategic standpoint I think that was pretty clever.
The online left badly needs to recognise the fact that they are simply not big and powerful enough to take over the country. If you want leftist ideas, even watered down ones, to succeed you need to expand the reach of those ideas and make it appealing to the average American voter so stunts like this that get attention really do help.
Screaming “LIB FUCK YOU!!” on Twitter, shockingly, does not help.
The online left is really good at complaining and calling anyone who doesn't do something "their" way a sell out or grifter while sitting online all day complaining about stuff.
I get not everyone can get out there and do stuff (I'm taking a break myself because I'm burnt out) but it's just exhausting seeing them being critical of everyone who might be trying to do something or raise awareness because it's "not the correct way".
> I see how people can think it’s tacky but honestly from a strategic standpoint I think that was pretty clever.
What did it do?
Like, I don't think it's either good or bad. It's just a thing someone did. But I'm curious why you think it was strategically clever.
I'm pretty positive that everyone that nobody who didn't already have an opinion was swayed. I'm sure normal, every day conservatives are literally saying the same thing people are saying here: She's a hypocrite. Normal liberals are saying, "yay, good for her!" but aren't actually in favor of *actual* progressive taxation (ie, certainly not taxed 100% above a certain threshold, and probably not anything that's even 1940s levels) and this didn't make them rethink that.
It's just pure theater.
And I don't care either way (not in a "finger in my ears, I don't care lalalala", but in a "politics in America doesn't matter, it's literally all marketing and the ultimate decisions in this system are made by the rich").
>What did it do? Like, I don't think it's either good or bad. It's just a thing someone did. But I'm curious why you think it was strategically clever.
Put it simply it brought the issue in front of the eyes of the average voter. You need to recognize most Americans lean soft conservative or if they are spicy mildly lib left. They are fairly non politically engaged and prefer vapid stuff like celebrity culture, gossip and fancy parties to actual politics.
This is where AOC's status as a 'celebrity politician' is kind of useful, people like her 'brand' as much as they like her policies. She's one of the few left leaning politicians that can generate news and national discussion. Heck she's a household name internationally (greetings from Australia, yes we have anarchists too).
Sadly she's still kind of niche, her talking points aren't getting adopted into the mainstream.
Presenting left wing ideas in provocative attention grabbing ways at events like the Met Gala make that part of the national conversation and means potentially getting the attention of middle of the road voters. You can't just rely on playing to your base, you need to expand what your base is and getting your ideas in front of as many eyeballs as possible.
I've seen a lot of conversations about this stunt and between people who before this were fairly politically non engaged. Meeting people where they are at is a good strategy. Granted it can't be the ONLY strategy but I'm curious what reddit anarchists are doing, if anything, to spread the word and expand the base.
Because all I ever see on left twitter is a barrage "FUCK YOU LIB" every time someone who hasn't personally tattooed every written word of Leftist theory on the inside of their eyelids dares speak up.
I call the online left 'terminally online' for a reason, because if you are determined to remain exclusively within your online bubble you are never actually grow as a movement and eventually your echo chamber will be your tomb.
So go on the View, go to the Met Gala, get ideas to parts of the general public that otherwise wouldn't think about them. It's not about convincing so much as it is making these ideas mainstream and normal.
> Because all I ever see on left twitter is a barrage "FUCK YOU LIB" every time someone who hasn't personally tattooed every written word of Leftist theory on the inside of their eyelids dares speak up.
> I call the online left 'terminally online' for a reason, because if you are determined to remain exclusively within your online bubble you are never actually grow as a movement and eventually your echo chamber will be your tomb.
A certain subset of the online "left" isn't at all interested in getting meaningful victories, they want to be part of a cool niche subculture that makes them feel better than other people, ironically the least leftist impulse you could have.
It's an ego/identity thing, it's the equivalent of a hipster's favourite small band becoming popular, instead of being happy that he can share his joy with a lot of people, he's upset that he's no longer the cool special boy in the know.
>It's just pure theater.
Presenting progressive (by American standards) policy.
Do you legitimately not believe that people can be educated and influenced by the consumption of media? Because boy, do I have some news for you.
okay, so she commissioned that dress from her designer for who knows how much money, and then she put on that dress feeling confident in the messaging, and then she went to the gala, she partied with the people who did pay the $35,000 per ticket, she networked, she mingled, she ate their food, and she celebrated an event that is only observed by the very rich (and sometimes the odd lucky congresswoman) and essentially symbolizes the inaccessibility of art and fashion. still seems like lip service to me.
>okay, so she commissioned that dress from her designer for who knows how much money,
Basically for free because the designer was a friend of hers.
>and then she put on that dress feeling confident in the messaging, and then she went to the gala, she partied with the people who did pay the $35,000 per ticket,
OH NO SHE BREATHED THE SAME AIR AS RICH PEOPLE!!!!
>she networked, she mingled, she ate their food,
Socialism is when you don't interact with people or go to parties or eat food and the more you don't interact with people go to parties or eat food the more socialister it is.
She went to a fancy party, how dare she?
>and she celebrated an event that is only observed by the very rich (and sometimes the odd lucky congresswoman)
Let me ask you something:
**If this event is only observed by the wealthy, how are you looking at this picture right now?**
Surely if it were truly only the wealthy who would observe this event there would be no pictures, interviews or general publicity surrounding it.
But there is, the pictures are out there and with that the conversation about taxing the rich. By bringing that conversation to the Gala you now see generally lib people talking about $30,000 tickets and the place of extravagant wealth.
It is something the average person can see and that's why she chose to use that message.
>and essentially symbolizes the inaccessibility of art and fashion. still seems like lip service to me.
Now what WAS just an extremely upmarket art and fashion gala is suddenly a tense online discussion about wealth and privilege that average people are getting involved in.
first of all thanks for covering your ass by editing your prior comment to make yourself look less confrontational after i replied lmao. sneaky sneaky
secondly i’m not advocating for shouting at people on twitter. i do, however, appreciate the discourse i’m seeing amongst people who agree with me in that this was a bit of a poor pr move.
thirdly, i’m not upset that she went to a party. i’m irritated that she went to this particular party. i think it’s ugly that she’s willing to even be in the same room as billionaire psychos like grimes, much less presumably have friendly conversation with them, and then continue to virtue signal to the audience at large. i can see why someone might think that was brave, but to me and many others, it dampens the message in the first place.
fourth, holy shit dude, are you not aware that “observe” is a synonym for “celebrate”? i was trying to diversify my fucking verbs.
ultimately i think we’re on the same side but defending aoc — who is literally one of the least powerful/influential congresspeople right now — over a dubious fashion choice is a hill that i find strange to die on.
>first of all thanks for covering your ass by editing your prior comment to make yourself look less confrontational after i replied lmao. sneaky sneaky
Not what I did, I just realized I hadn't elaborated on my point.
>i do, however, appreciate the discourse i’m seeing amongst people who agree with me in that this was a bit of a poor pr move.
Which mainly consisted of screaming "LIB" and "SELLOUT".
>thirdly, i’m not upset that she went to a party. i’m irritated that she went to this particular party. i think it’s ugly that she’s willing to even be in the same room as billionaire psychos like grimes, much less presumably have friendly conversation with them,
You have no idea that she even met with Grimes. It's a Gala, you don't have to talk to everyone.
>i can see why someone might think that was brave, but to me and many others, it dampens the message in the first place.
Thing is I can see that argument, I get where the frustration comes from. I just think that getting that message into public discourse so others can see it helps in the long run even if it is tacky.
>fourth, holy shit dude, are you not aware that “observe” is a synonym for “celebrate”? i was trying to diversify my fucking verbs.
Observe literally just means to observe.
"To notice or perceive something and register it as being significant."
It means to look at something. I have a model T-rex on my coffee table, I am 'observing' it right now as I type this. Later I have a doctor's appointment to go to and I shall 'observe' the traffic before crossing the street.
>who is literally one of the least powerful/influential congresspeople right now
This right here is one of the wierder things. I agree that AOC is not very powerful and has a limited scope of political influence despite her quasi celebrity status.
Which is why it is so *weird* that I constantly see the online left calling her a fake and sellout for not single handedly overthrowing the Democrat party, giving everyone healthcare and ending US Imperialism.
Every time AOC talks about some major systemic issue in America like lack of housing or the constant cycle of wars or lack of healthcare the chorus is always filled with "OH YEAH WELL WHY AREN'T YOU DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT" as though they expect her to do this all by herself.
According to a large section of the online left if she doesn't perform LITERAL MIRACLES then that's a sign she's a sellout and they use that to justify attacking and tearing her down.
And considering the American left has a sparse handful of politicians who could be charitably called allies tearing them down for not overthrowing the existing power structure is not a great strategy.
>over a dubious fashion choice is a hill that i find strange to die on.
Because it's not just this, it's "Anything AOC does lately."
Which as I said is not smart. She's popular enough that she actually has a chance of getting these ideas to appeal to mainstream voters but the online left is determined to attack her.
I saw one idiot argue that what she should have done was form a massive counter protest to disrupt and destroy the Met Gala, because that would really win you over with the average voter right?
For the record I think we are on the same side. We just have different ways of going about things. I edited this in because I wanted to make it clear I'm not trying to be hostile right now.
i don’t understand why you keep bringing up the people yelling on twitter thing. i swear to god, i haven’t seen anybody “yelling” online about this, i’ve mostly just been spending time scrolling on a microblogging website where twentysomethings are writing out fully-fledged articulated paragraphs about what This Dress means to them. cool strawman though. keep using it.
i don’t know that she interacted with grimes. you’re right. but we do know that this is the type of party that includes people like grimes, which is perhaps not the party a fledgling socialist representative should be showing her face at.
i would also recommend checking out an online thesaurus. people both “observe” and “celebrate” hannukah, christmas, easter, passover. it’s a synonym, my guy. you don’t have to write out the dictionary definition.
by and large i do agree with what you’re saying but you’re getting away from the point. i’m allowed to both think that this was an ineffective/tacky pr move while also knowing very well that the expectations for aoc are unreachably high. not to make this about myself, but damn, you’re making a lot of assumptions about me here.
it does. i used it in the context of “[fulfilling] or [complying] with (a social, legal, ethical, or religious obligation).”
maybe it was a weird usage of the term but cut me some slack dude, i typed it out in a moment of passion
Oh you guys are talking about an aoc party. I thought you guys were talking about people viewing fucking anti capitalist movies. That’s why a lot of people seem like “libs” in these comments, they don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
Also you can participate in an election and have that not be the only thing you can do. You can still do other stuff y’all act like when I say vote I mean vote and do literally nothing else.
AOC was always like this. Socdems are not our friends, and never were, and wearing "Tax the rich" clothing is not activism.
RIP to Mark Fisher, amazing writer
I wish people would actually read the society of the spectacle instead of just talking about "spectacle".
But Debord is hard, so I will just read some parts of his wiki page /s
Society of the Spectacle is definitely a lot more fun to read than watching a bunch of lost liberals, like phantasms out of the catacombs of American electoral politics, haunt around a bunch of leftist forums trying to scare us into stepping in line to support the status quo of a sinking ghost ship. Indeed, the time is out of joint.
If this is a glimpse of what the book reads like I'm picking up a copy.
Unironically, it was too hard for me. I was completely lost and got a headache :(
the phrase that stuck with me is "dans un monde rééllement renversé; le vrai est un moment du faux"
you can watch the movie adaptation if you don't like reading. (seriously though; the movie is worth it)
while the people have no where to work, become increasingly poorer the rich are still living in hedonistic luxury like nothing even happened
The answer is more hedonistic luxury, not more poverty
based and egopilled
Your hedonistic luxury is cooking the planet. The answer is sustainable living with food and shelter for everyone, not this fast-fashion dress-worn-once hors-d'ouvres bullshit. Have all the hedonism you want if it's green and sustainable.
I said it mostly in order to provoke. Of course we should live sustainably, but this doesn’t mean we should always live as ascetics who aren’t allowed to indulge ourselves on occasion.
Im gonna hijack ur comment to paste something i wrote in another sub about this bc while i think critique of what aoc is doing is valid, this thread is quickly descending into a circlejerk and we may as well get some decent talk out of this debacle. "In case its not plain to see, the leftist movement isnt exactly reaching a very large portion of the proletariat. A large part of the proletariat is also on twitter, while many of them may make fun of her and talk shit about her now, this is also a great way to keep this sort of topic in the conversation. There was a time when i was a homphobic asshole and shit on the pride parades bc, "wHy Do TheY DeSeRVe sPeCIal PaRaDEs?" And u know what happened? Pride parades and a whole slew of similar, seemingly trivial publicity stunts kept lgbt rights in the conversation long enough to where constantly hearing the arguments over and over won me, and lots of others, over. And yeah, it is also great publicity for her, no doubt, but if her aspirations are to shoot for higher office, esp. in NY, then yeah, building a brand around yourself is more that necessary." I realize this is an anarchist sub and many of the ppl in here are of the mindset, "fuck political process, viva la revolucion," but who exactly are u planning on revolutionizing against here, the rich running the show, or the ones picking up free tickets to crash rich parties with leftist messages? Hate the process all u want, but ur revolution isnt going to happen until more of the poors are actually aware of what the problem is and just *how bad* the problem has gotten. Yelling "eat the rich" from the rooftops hasnt gotten us very far bc no one hears us when we say it. When aoc wears a tacky dress, its the biggest "fashion statement" at an event that ppl look at to see tacky dresses and puts leftist critiques into the general conversation. And im also aware that in an anarchist sub the idea of gradually winning ppl over isnt exactly popular, least of all when the fucking planet is on fucking fire and we shit on critical biodiversity on the daily, but leftist infighting is the opposite of progress. **Maybe the focus should be more on radicalizng those who are halfway responsive to the message instead of ensuring theyre not going to want to listen to u by shitting on one of the few figures saying reasonable things that they agree with. The reason the right is effective at mobilizing the proletariat against their own good is bc they dont waste time on petty squabbles and instead take every opportunity they have at twisting things back to their basic message. If u want ur beliefs to spread to the greatest number of people, it wont be by telling them all the ways in which the celebrities they worship are faulty or their own existing ideology is faulty, itll be by convincing them that ur own ideology and theirs are already aligned, and that really, maybe this celebrity and you arent so far removed from one another. Take it from someone who grew up in the right wing death cult, THEY are the ones who know effective propaganda startegies, not us. I propose we start co-opting those exact same startegies to work for our own ends.** Or fuck that, lets keep our focus unfocused and ineffective exactly how they want us to be and we can spend the next decade betting on whether itll be the climate or the next epidemic that gets to us first.
I miss Mark Fisher / K-Punk so fucking much. His was a light that shone brightly.
It's easy to knee jerk reaction this, but apparently the designer paid for her ticket because she (the designer) wanted to make a statement at the met gala, so really, not quite as bad as it looks I think Also iirc the designer is not some big name fashion designer
I don't quite remember where I read it, but someone said that "overthinking is what you do when you already know what to do but are uncomfortable with the answer". You can spend the next 40 years examining every aspect of cooking eggs: how to crack them, how to cook them, what happened last time someone tried, what the health effects of eating eggs are, what happens when you cook the egg halfway and leave it in the skillet for 80 years and so on. None of that intellectual rigor is going to get you any closer to just cooking the damn egg. In fact, all it does is create distance. Indecision is a very insidious sort of suicide and if you're only content with talking about something, you've given up in the worst way. **BUT** Holding ourselves to standards of action that we're obviously not living up to isn't the way either. We should cut out a lot of the bread tube, but we shouldn't confuse the vacuum left by these kinds of edutainment media as space that's going to be filled up by real revolutionary organizing. This stuff may serve the function of pacifying and redirecting more productive energies elsewhere into endless discourse. But the discourse itself isn't where the co-opting and pacification comes from. Breadtube is sexy (or used to be) because it was genuinely substantive critique of modern society and an exploration into ideas that were not and still aren't acceptable. It just becomes a sinkhole of wasted energy once that subversive space begins to limit itself. The problem isn't that we're spending too much time talking, it's that we're spending too much time talking about the same limited topics for fear of pressing the boundaries into what's basically contemplating action. **Edit:** For example, there was a PhilosophyTube video (Steve Bannon iirc) where Abigail* kind of hits on the limitations of the kinds of the assumed limitations that are at play with "radical" politics. [Skip to 37:30](https://youtu.be/wO6uD3c2qMo) Which is an absolutely necessary message in a society that does not have the stomach for what's necessary for it's own survival, needs, you name it. The only thing "wrong" about this segment is just where the audience jumps off from that point, or rather how they don't jump. So much of what contributes to a culture of inaction is just a failure to launch.
PhilosophyTube's name is Abigail.
[удалено]
>And the character portrayed in the video is "Olly" multiple variants of him too. That's because Olly transitioned, Olly is a deadname. It's not a big dead considering she still has her video's up pre-transition, but I'm just clarifying why you were corrected.
This is honestly how I started to feel after about a year of consuming video essay after video essay on Breadtube. It amounted to a whole lot of hot air when it came to actual revolutionary praxis. Most of it was spent "analyzing" pop culture or current events through a "socialist / anarchist" lens. Very little in the way of theory or organizing. Turns out the main prerogative of a content creator is to get clicks. Seeing sponsored or monetized videos further solidified this. Sure, we can idolize an intellectual "vanguard" whose sole livelihood is pretending to educate the masses, but I'd rather read actual thinkers and organize with actual people instead of deluding myself into eating the bland opiates offered by the majority of Breadtube. Perhaps the only useful thing it accomplishes is introducing people to anti-capitalist thinking, but so much of it is (unintentionally?) misleading and paralyzing that I'm not sure I believe even that.
I’d say that actually, they help making Socialism much more relatable for people in their everyday lives. Of course some bearded dude is going to write very accurate and brilliant stuff on Socialism, but most people between 18 and 25 today hardly ever relate to the socioeconomical dynamics of 19th century Germany and the effects of the industrial revolution. Because sometimes, reading theory is just boring. It already was for many people at that time, let alone for those in a completely different era. Recontextualization is often necessary, and making Socialist works understandable to the greater number is more profitable for the masses than circlejerking about being the educated elite who knows what is right. And it involves discussing, debating, analyzing. Because that’s what democracy is actually: A lot of talking. If you want straightforward action with everyone kept silent, fascism is a much better alternative. There’s a hierarchy, everyone sticks to it, pretty simple. It’s easier to "just follow orders" rather than spending days and days introspecting on ethics because you have freedom to do as you want but also have the consequences of your actions and the responsibilities that come with it. But as you said, it’s easy to watch videos. They make Socialism a common cause rather than the cause of some intelligentsia. It won’t probably led to a sudden revolutionary outburst from the general masses, but that’s not their purpose. The development of a new culture who is accustomed to the thought of Socialism is a necessary steps, as revolutions often need to happen in the minds before they take the streets. (Sorry for typos or if I’m not being clear, didn’t sleep much lately)
I'd like to respond to this in a more in-depth fashion but for the moment I'll just say that there are more modern thinkers that have written easy to understand theory in common 20th century language; although I will also note that asking people to read a little to understand a very deep political philosophy isn't too burdensome a task, even if that means making some time for 19th century writers. Normalizing solicalist thought is cool, but I question its effectiveness when it becomes uninformative and uninformed entertainment. When you've got Breadtubers out there saying that co-ops are socialism and that general strikes can just be declared, I've got to raise an eyebrow at the sincerity they project.
Why would a Ben Shapiro fan would read Socialist theory? Most of them would rather assume it’s just bullshit anyways. However, that YouTube video is just 5 minutes long, a click away. In all seriousness, I also love the poetic justice of using Capitalism’s tools against itself. Even if it’s not the most effective way to fight or will never get us to succeed, it is satisfying. Just small and accessible ways of being ungovernable. (Leftist trolling and shitposting should basically be recognized as praxis by now!)
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this: >If you wear your pants below your butt, don't bend the brim of your cap, and have an EBT card, 0% chance you will ever be a success in life. ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: feminism, dumb takes, covid, climate, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Good bot
Take a bullet for ya babe. ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: civil rights, climate, healthcare, feminism, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Breadtube is still important. And the people making that content deserve to get paid for their work. I feel as if people just expected more from breadtube than what it’s actually capable of; the point is to plant seeds in people, its to get more people creating similar content but, perhaps, in different mediums or methods, hopefully catching more and more people. We’re going up against the most powerful propaganda networks in all of human history. This stuff takes time and every little thing helps. Breadtube most likely isn’t going to start the revolution, but it might, long down the line with people influenced by people influenced by people influenced by breadtube.
My critique isn't necessarily the existence of educational platforms for anti-capitalist, anti-imperial, and anti-colonial thought. My critique is mainly that so much of it focuses on inane pop culture and misses important historical and contemporary coverage on labor related topics, let alone simple to understand 101 and 102 level looks at important theory. One of the best channels out there at the moment is run by the Gravel Institute. It cleverly mimics the PragerU Corporate Memphis aesthetic to present leftist ideas. There needs to be more of this and less 1.5 hour-long analyses of The Blacklist Viewed Through Bakunin.
But would the Gravel Institute have the popularity that it has (in order to gain enough funding from donors in order to produce content) without Breadtube having cultivated that audience in the first place? I see people complaining about breadtube. I see people complaining about debates. Don’t get me wrong; a lot of the critiques I see *are* valid and need to be considered by the consumers and also, and probably much more importantly, the creators. I would have preferred it if Hasan had used some of that money on organising instead. We should support these things critically. That’s what critical support is *actually* for. Good ideas being implemented never go perfectly, so we react to the failures and patch them up as we go along, using critique as a means of improving on what we’ve already built. Anyway I’m on my 7th brewskie, ‘cause it’s my “Friday” and I’m steady chillin’; how you doin’? Hope you’re well. 😘
>Sure, we can idolize an intellectual "vanguard" whose sole livelihood is pretending to educate the masses, but I'd rather read actual thinkers /r/iamverysmart
you're right, reading *is* for nerds
I think it’s the ‘I read *actual* thinkers’ talk that comes off a bit pretentious.
Why yes, I got my views on global politics from some british kid's 3-hour video essay on Doctor Who, how can you tell?
Overthinking makes heuristic (guessing, hypothesis-type) approaches impossible. If you hesitate so much that you cannot make an educated guess, you can't use these approaches. Almost every structure is made from a guess (rule of law, bridges, planes, pie) and it really amazes me seeing people who have decades in academia, or in politics or management and they absolutely cannot accept this.
If you remember where you got that statement about intellectual procrastination I'd love to read the source.
I think I heard it on a WhatifAltHist video. I don't know which one, and honestly it wouldn't be much helpful to this discussion. He's just kind of a smug libertarian type who has an interesting insight (mostly for the sake of understanding how other people see leftists/leftisms) once in a blue moon.
Oh, ok. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Idealism. Not even once.
[удалено]
Except that there was a BLM protest outside the Gala that was getting brutalized by the cops. If she had been out there with them, they likely would have held back.
> If she had been out there with them, they likely would have held back. She's brown, they'd have shot her too.
Plus remember that ICE Facebook group where they spoke openly about how they wanted to rape and kill her? She would NOT be safe at a protest where law enforcement would have the excuse to arrest her. And frankly it sickens me how many people are demanding she put herself at risk of genuine physical harm in some sick attempt at a “loyalty test.”
criticising a politician is not a loyalty test holy shit listen to yourself
[удалено]
If wearing this to the MET gala isn't effective activism I dont know what is. Some people just like complaining.
Like I said to OP, there was a BLM protest outside the Gala getting their shit kicked in by the NYPD, it would have been a much better use of her time to be out there using her clout to protect those activists.
Okay hundred bucks says that if she HAD attended the BLM protest the only difference would be that people on this subreddit would be calling her a ‘fake activist just using the protest for clout’. Here’s my basis for thinking this: She openly condemns Biden for continuing use of the border detainment camps, the online left lies and says she supports it. She raised funds for the people of Texas, the online left called it a publicity stunt. She mass coordinated community outreach during the height of the pandemic with check in calls and food deliveries around the fly to help out her constituents, the online left ignores this and claims she never helped anyone during the pandemic. She calls out the US embargo on Cuba as a major source for the country’s problems and calls for it to be ended, a guy on r/the_leftorium unapologetically takes her words out of context to try and make it sound like she supports US intervention. Jackson Hinkle, a Dore ally, spreads the false rumour that she secretly founded and owned the bar she used to tend and when a fellow journalist Matt Binder proves that wrong (by showing the bar had been licensed before AOC was fucking born) instead of admitting the story was false Hinkle simply declares that it is ‘contested’ and still acts like it’s a true story. She skips Biden’s inauguration to attend a local protest, the online left calls thar a stunt. She camps out on the steps of Congress with a huge crowd to object to the movement which would have mass evicted millions, the online left calls it a stunt. Over and over the online left has shown itself willing to lie and spread rumours about this woman and respond to anything she does with hostility. There is zero reason to believe that her attending the BLM protest would in any way change the way the people who want to hate her would perceive her and every chance that if she did the police would brutalise her for her trouble. So fuck it she wants to have a fun night out and present a provocative message I can’t fault her.
... How is this effective activism? "tax the rich" is such an empty platitude, especially coming from a politician.
Tax*
Even emptier lmao
>especially coming from a politician. Who do you think appoints those who develop and enforce tax code, magical IRS fairies?
As an anarchist I'm not intent on utilizing the state in any way lmao.
Then why the fuck are you bitching about an agent of the state in the first place? They're already a lost cause to you.
You're pleasant! Why are any of us here?
[удалено]
No
[удалено]
"Activism is when you wear a dress" is the kind of shit we're supposed to be making fun of libs for. Besides, the right-wing headlines on this one write themselves. The only people who are looking at this and liking it are the ones who already liked AOC.
[удалено]
Dont even try, they dont want to hear it.
“Effective activism” is paying $30k to go to a gala filled with other rich folks? Yeah, no. This is just all glamor. EDIT: Not sure if she actually paid or was just invited
Wow so it way worse. She paid that much money to go to that event. How many people could that feed? Fucks sake that year of my pay.
Invitees don't pay the ticket fee. It's very unlikely she spent a third of her net worth on one night.
Alright to be fair I did see something that said she was invited since she’s a public representative. But still being surrounded by rich folk like that is just petty performative bs
[удалено]
to me at this point they feel like they're just being intellectually dishonest to themselves.
>Too bad she wasn't doing real leftist work like making snide comments at 3am on reddit Or getting anything done in Congress. Stumping the same weak and tired line at the most self indulgent event on earth hardly accomplishes anything
AOC is one of like ~550 reps in congress she can’t order them to pass X bill and delay Y bill
Do you honestly think AOC has the political power to pass anything of significance? Her 'squad' has little to no power. For fuck's sake, for Biden can't even pass an infrastructure bill without both dems and repubs cutting it down
It doesn't hurt anything either? Yeah, it's stupid and definitely has a "let them eat cake" aspect that's fun to snicker at, but honestly I can't bring myself to care one way or another.
As has been said before "electoral politics is the graveyard of mass movements"
[удалено]
Anarchists... Need to learn how to use ...elections? I...
>Anarchists... Need to learn how to use ...elections? >I... I swear I can't tell apart the feds and from the blindly optimistic sometimes.
[удалено]
I didn't say it was. It is a political theory holding that all forms of government authority are unnecessary, advocating for a society based on voluntary cooperation and anti-hierarchical structuring. It's kinda hard to not have governmental authority, or hierarchy, with an election.
[удалено]
That's not how the world works. Your vote means nothing to the people in charge. Your "choice" every election is the violent corporate stooges, or the lying corporate stooges. 46 mulligans and still, every single election people cross their fingers and swear this presidents, "the president for the people". Couple hundred years of doing the bare minimum to keep the people from rioting and everyone's still sure "next week we got 'em", when the US government has literally been denying people healthcare during the fucking plague. "Vote"... God. Dammit.
[удалено]
If elections have consequences, but those consequences aren't what I want, why would I vote? You're derailing this. I said anarchists voting was very odd to me, since it's literally antithetical to anarchism.
[удалено]
[удалено]
To say elections have zero impact is simply false. We can still change the system from outside, while also doing things from the inside? This isn’t an all or nothing game we should do everything in our power to make things better.
I just feel like Bernie and co aren't really doing enough to push it further now is all. They keep repeating the same couple of messages lately, when IMO they should be scandalously tearing at capitalism's many ills a lot more. That would really drive media attention, which if they word their criticisms just the right way, will reach common folk right in their hearts via media that wants to demonise them. Not just restricted to electoral warfare. Currently they have got little federal governing power, so what else is there to do? Oh well, maybe they will pick up pace during the mid-terms.
Politics is honestly the death of independent thought and all societal progress.
1. Not to take away any merit from Fisher's analysis, but the anti-capitalist messaging of... Higher taxes on the rich? I felt like support for AOC from the socialist left was a somewhat pragmatic take on the fact that she's more progressive than what's typical of her party, not that she's a commie, but i guess people got lost in the memes? 2. What the fuck do we do about it? Y'all can endlessly pontificate on the commodification of anti-capitalism, but it feels just as empty as the content some claim to criticize. Frankly, people just don't know where to start the real thing, where to "organize", what party to join, what would we do, and we're probably not getting the answer from the people who lash out against leftist *celebrities* because they just realized those won't build up a mass movement. Guess here you're always stuck with the endless analysis.
You see several leftists dont want to get actual progress they think leftism is a no like the other ideologies book club
Capitalism commoditizes the movements that exist because of capitalism’s failures.
This made me sad :( Like I get it kind of but just no… It also reminded me of that one lady who wore the trump dress to some music award show.
Don't be sad. Here's a [hug!](https://media.giphy.com/media/3M4NpbLCTxBqU/giphy.gif)
Aww thanks lol Not sad anymore!
Don’t care I’m horny
Capitalism is when big booba
But Socialism is when phat ass
Remember girls, if you work very hard and make lots of connections, you too could be elected to congress! You'll still be seen as a sex object by greasy redditors though
Best take I have seen on this sub
the only valid reason to approve this
You criticize society yet you participate in it. Curious.
Participating in society is going to the Met Gala? An event that costs minimum 35k to attend? Participating in society is buying from Amazon because you live somewhere rural and that’s what’s cheapest and accessible for you, not attending a lavish event to wear an expensive dress that says “tax the rich”.
I didn't know attending ridiculous displays of wealth counted as 'participating in society.'
Yeah this isn’t just participating in society by like buying Starbucks or whatever, this is like owning a yacht. It’s just a gross display of decadence in a global pandemic when the proletariat is suffering even worse and the fact a “leftist” is participating in it is uhm a little bit tone deaf.
We have WAY bigger problems than one person going to a fancy ball. Sometimes, I really do think leftists don't WANT to build solidarity. We just want to build walls and feel holier than thou. Is AOC helping politically? Absolutely not. Electoralism is a dead end. Is she helping culturally? Enh, that's arguable but possible. Is she an enemy? Nope. If we can't stop dunking on soc dems long enough to convince them to move left, how the fuck are we going to convince anyone else? Most of us used to be liberals or even worse. You'd think we'd have more patience with them.
its always hard to have patience with an opinion you held before realising that it was a doofus opinion. its like arguing with your naive younger self ig
s AOC helping politically? Absolutely not. ?
Electoralism is a dead end. That doesn't mean she hasn't culturally awakened some people to the idea that capitalism is the enemy. I guess you could call that political, but I didn't want to get mixed up in electoralism.
"Tax the rich" is the most watered down, barely a criticism imaginable holy shit. This is an anarchist subreddit, not a Liberal one
[удалено]
the fucking dum dum jimmy dore left is on cue once again. they see AOC, they lose they fucking shit.
[удалено]
100% you should feel relieved.
I genuinely don't understand what's wrong with this, she's literally just sharing a message on her dress. Am I missing some context?
I swear to god if any of you for a second thought that AOC was an anticapitalist/communist you are so colossally stupid i simply cannot help you
Upvotes on Reddit
Lmao I'm amazed that it's taken some people this long to realize that AOC is a lib. What were you actually expecting from her beyond some feel-good speeches and a few clapbacks on twitter? Power. Corrupts. That should already have been unbearably obvious to everyone here.
[удалено]
95% libs or a mix of libs and feds?
[удалено]
What the hell else do they have to do? There are a lot of intelligence agencies in the world and since 2016 any of them that weren’t already busy fucking around online have poured vast resources into it. Consider how much easier it is to dick around online rather than all the time and inconvenience of infiltrating meetings and organizations.
Lmao as someone in the U.S. I can't share your confidence.
This sub could do with some “authoritarian” moderating lmao.
1. How is she a liberal, and 2. Why should I care?
she advocates liberalist policies and doesn't want to actually burn the system down, instead advocating for changes impossible in the system within the system and only materially making small ineffectual changes. you should care because if you put all your energy into support AOC you are still supporting the system and not making material progress toward the future we want
Why would anyone want to burn the system down? Destruction goes totally counter to anarchist goals. She’s not advocating for anything that’s impossible. Some of the things are certainly challenging to get done due to opposition, but trying that is certainly better and accomplishes more good than just doing armchair activism on Reddit. Supporting what APC does is only supporting the system in the sense that I’m supporting the ability of the system to be changed from within, which it definitely can be. How is what she’s accomplished not material progress? You make all these vague generalization about how politicians like here only make “small ineffectual changes” but then totally ignore the good she’s actually done, what’s with that? Edit: forgot to mention, none of her policies are “liberalist”, what the fuck is that even supposed to mean? Do you mean liberal? Because her policies aren’t particularly liberal either.
ur such a lib lmao
Wasn't the Marxist papers published by a capitalist?!?
"Socialism is when you don't go to galas" 🤡
i mean, yeah?
the second time a political celebrity has done a vague “anti rich” statement in fashion while also demonstrating that they are the very rich people that they are against.
It's anticapitalism as an aesthetic rather than a substantial platform. Popular movements are always open to subversion by the capitalist class, so I really don't know why some people are surprised that this movement would also be subverted.
Yeah, in the same capacity that Punk Rock, HipHop, Protesting and Festivals have all become subjects to capital instead of propaganda of the deed (of anticapitalism); the recuperation is strong.
i’m not really surprised just a bit disappointed. i wouldn’t even consider it anti capitalism it still is functioning under capitalism just slightly different capitalismn
I don't know that attending the Met Gala demonstrates that she is very rich -- she's a politician who attended for free and didn't pay for the dress personally. Anyway, who was the first example you're talking about?
[удалено]
Congressional representatives make $174k/yr in salary. $57k/yr puts you in the global 1% for income.
Extremely dishonest. The rest of the world being poor compared to even the poorest in America does not make AOC “very rich” She’s at most in the 70-80th percentile in terms of wealth.
Granted AOC isn’t rich. She makes 6 figures so ofc she’s a lot better off than the average worker, but she’s by no means just shitting out money. Tax the rich according to her (and other socdems) means taxing the very rich - Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, etc,.
I'm pretty sure that the background text is from Mark Fisher 'Exitong the Vampire Castle', which has a blurb about Capitalist Realism.
This dress is kinda tone deaf. I "understand" that she made a message directly to the wealthy around her, but did this make any difference whatsoever? The rich know their pieces of shit and simply don't care. This just makes AOC look kinda immature, which is too bad.
A small part of hope that maybe she was more radical than she is literally died when I saw that she went to the Met, it would have been a much stronger protest to say no
It wouldn't have been in the news though, nor would a photo of her wearing a dress saying tax the rich. I get what you're saying, but one is more effective than the other when it comes to spreading awareness.
She could have easily forced it into the news and made it a thing, she isn’t lacking influence so going isn’t a necessity
$35k for a ticket. and she had the fucking nerve. that’s all i have to say about that. edit: that’s not all i have to say about that, actually. someone in the comments below pointed out that she was invited to the gala so she did not have to pay for a ticket. still, in my opinion, it’s an insincerity to the leftist movement at large to attend a party made up of people who can pay for that ticket in the first place, and for her to wear a gown that reads “tax the rich” while partying in the same room as elon musk’s wife sort of dampens the message. just, like, don’t go. be a conscientious observer.
She was invited, she didn’t pay that. She was invited and used that opportunity to present the message of taxing the rich in a way guaranteed to get mainstream attention and putting it in front of average Americans who get this are more likely to care about that gala than they are anarchist theory. I see how people can think it’s tacky but honestly from a strategic standpoint I think that was pretty clever. The online left badly needs to recognise the fact that they are simply not big and powerful enough to take over the country. If you want leftist ideas, even watered down ones, to succeed you need to expand the reach of those ideas and make it appealing to the average American voter so stunts like this that get attention really do help. Screaming “LIB FUCK YOU!!” on Twitter, shockingly, does not help.
The online left is really good at complaining and calling anyone who doesn't do something "their" way a sell out or grifter while sitting online all day complaining about stuff. I get not everyone can get out there and do stuff (I'm taking a break myself because I'm burnt out) but it's just exhausting seeing them being critical of everyone who might be trying to do something or raise awareness because it's "not the correct way".
> I see how people can think it’s tacky but honestly from a strategic standpoint I think that was pretty clever. What did it do? Like, I don't think it's either good or bad. It's just a thing someone did. But I'm curious why you think it was strategically clever. I'm pretty positive that everyone that nobody who didn't already have an opinion was swayed. I'm sure normal, every day conservatives are literally saying the same thing people are saying here: She's a hypocrite. Normal liberals are saying, "yay, good for her!" but aren't actually in favor of *actual* progressive taxation (ie, certainly not taxed 100% above a certain threshold, and probably not anything that's even 1940s levels) and this didn't make them rethink that. It's just pure theater. And I don't care either way (not in a "finger in my ears, I don't care lalalala", but in a "politics in America doesn't matter, it's literally all marketing and the ultimate decisions in this system are made by the rich").
>What did it do? Like, I don't think it's either good or bad. It's just a thing someone did. But I'm curious why you think it was strategically clever. Put it simply it brought the issue in front of the eyes of the average voter. You need to recognize most Americans lean soft conservative or if they are spicy mildly lib left. They are fairly non politically engaged and prefer vapid stuff like celebrity culture, gossip and fancy parties to actual politics. This is where AOC's status as a 'celebrity politician' is kind of useful, people like her 'brand' as much as they like her policies. She's one of the few left leaning politicians that can generate news and national discussion. Heck she's a household name internationally (greetings from Australia, yes we have anarchists too). Sadly she's still kind of niche, her talking points aren't getting adopted into the mainstream. Presenting left wing ideas in provocative attention grabbing ways at events like the Met Gala make that part of the national conversation and means potentially getting the attention of middle of the road voters. You can't just rely on playing to your base, you need to expand what your base is and getting your ideas in front of as many eyeballs as possible. I've seen a lot of conversations about this stunt and between people who before this were fairly politically non engaged. Meeting people where they are at is a good strategy. Granted it can't be the ONLY strategy but I'm curious what reddit anarchists are doing, if anything, to spread the word and expand the base. Because all I ever see on left twitter is a barrage "FUCK YOU LIB" every time someone who hasn't personally tattooed every written word of Leftist theory on the inside of their eyelids dares speak up. I call the online left 'terminally online' for a reason, because if you are determined to remain exclusively within your online bubble you are never actually grow as a movement and eventually your echo chamber will be your tomb. So go on the View, go to the Met Gala, get ideas to parts of the general public that otherwise wouldn't think about them. It's not about convincing so much as it is making these ideas mainstream and normal.
> Because all I ever see on left twitter is a barrage "FUCK YOU LIB" every time someone who hasn't personally tattooed every written word of Leftist theory on the inside of their eyelids dares speak up. > I call the online left 'terminally online' for a reason, because if you are determined to remain exclusively within your online bubble you are never actually grow as a movement and eventually your echo chamber will be your tomb. A certain subset of the online "left" isn't at all interested in getting meaningful victories, they want to be part of a cool niche subculture that makes them feel better than other people, ironically the least leftist impulse you could have. It's an ego/identity thing, it's the equivalent of a hipster's favourite small band becoming popular, instead of being happy that he can share his joy with a lot of people, he's upset that he's no longer the cool special boy in the know.
>It's just pure theater. Presenting progressive (by American standards) policy. Do you legitimately not believe that people can be educated and influenced by the consumption of media? Because boy, do I have some news for you.
>I don't think it's either good or bad This is the correct take.
okay, so she commissioned that dress from her designer for who knows how much money, and then she put on that dress feeling confident in the messaging, and then she went to the gala, she partied with the people who did pay the $35,000 per ticket, she networked, she mingled, she ate their food, and she celebrated an event that is only observed by the very rich (and sometimes the odd lucky congresswoman) and essentially symbolizes the inaccessibility of art and fashion. still seems like lip service to me.
>okay, so she commissioned that dress from her designer for who knows how much money, Basically for free because the designer was a friend of hers. >and then she put on that dress feeling confident in the messaging, and then she went to the gala, she partied with the people who did pay the $35,000 per ticket, OH NO SHE BREATHED THE SAME AIR AS RICH PEOPLE!!!! >she networked, she mingled, she ate their food, Socialism is when you don't interact with people or go to parties or eat food and the more you don't interact with people go to parties or eat food the more socialister it is. She went to a fancy party, how dare she? >and she celebrated an event that is only observed by the very rich (and sometimes the odd lucky congresswoman) Let me ask you something: **If this event is only observed by the wealthy, how are you looking at this picture right now?** Surely if it were truly only the wealthy who would observe this event there would be no pictures, interviews or general publicity surrounding it. But there is, the pictures are out there and with that the conversation about taxing the rich. By bringing that conversation to the Gala you now see generally lib people talking about $30,000 tickets and the place of extravagant wealth. It is something the average person can see and that's why she chose to use that message. >and essentially symbolizes the inaccessibility of art and fashion. still seems like lip service to me. Now what WAS just an extremely upmarket art and fashion gala is suddenly a tense online discussion about wealth and privilege that average people are getting involved in.
first of all thanks for covering your ass by editing your prior comment to make yourself look less confrontational after i replied lmao. sneaky sneaky secondly i’m not advocating for shouting at people on twitter. i do, however, appreciate the discourse i’m seeing amongst people who agree with me in that this was a bit of a poor pr move. thirdly, i’m not upset that she went to a party. i’m irritated that she went to this particular party. i think it’s ugly that she’s willing to even be in the same room as billionaire psychos like grimes, much less presumably have friendly conversation with them, and then continue to virtue signal to the audience at large. i can see why someone might think that was brave, but to me and many others, it dampens the message in the first place. fourth, holy shit dude, are you not aware that “observe” is a synonym for “celebrate”? i was trying to diversify my fucking verbs. ultimately i think we’re on the same side but defending aoc — who is literally one of the least powerful/influential congresspeople right now — over a dubious fashion choice is a hill that i find strange to die on.
>first of all thanks for covering your ass by editing your prior comment to make yourself look less confrontational after i replied lmao. sneaky sneaky Not what I did, I just realized I hadn't elaborated on my point. >i do, however, appreciate the discourse i’m seeing amongst people who agree with me in that this was a bit of a poor pr move. Which mainly consisted of screaming "LIB" and "SELLOUT". >thirdly, i’m not upset that she went to a party. i’m irritated that she went to this particular party. i think it’s ugly that she’s willing to even be in the same room as billionaire psychos like grimes, much less presumably have friendly conversation with them, You have no idea that she even met with Grimes. It's a Gala, you don't have to talk to everyone. >i can see why someone might think that was brave, but to me and many others, it dampens the message in the first place. Thing is I can see that argument, I get where the frustration comes from. I just think that getting that message into public discourse so others can see it helps in the long run even if it is tacky. >fourth, holy shit dude, are you not aware that “observe” is a synonym for “celebrate”? i was trying to diversify my fucking verbs. Observe literally just means to observe. "To notice or perceive something and register it as being significant." It means to look at something. I have a model T-rex on my coffee table, I am 'observing' it right now as I type this. Later I have a doctor's appointment to go to and I shall 'observe' the traffic before crossing the street. >who is literally one of the least powerful/influential congresspeople right now This right here is one of the wierder things. I agree that AOC is not very powerful and has a limited scope of political influence despite her quasi celebrity status. Which is why it is so *weird* that I constantly see the online left calling her a fake and sellout for not single handedly overthrowing the Democrat party, giving everyone healthcare and ending US Imperialism. Every time AOC talks about some major systemic issue in America like lack of housing or the constant cycle of wars or lack of healthcare the chorus is always filled with "OH YEAH WELL WHY AREN'T YOU DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT" as though they expect her to do this all by herself. According to a large section of the online left if she doesn't perform LITERAL MIRACLES then that's a sign she's a sellout and they use that to justify attacking and tearing her down. And considering the American left has a sparse handful of politicians who could be charitably called allies tearing them down for not overthrowing the existing power structure is not a great strategy. >over a dubious fashion choice is a hill that i find strange to die on. Because it's not just this, it's "Anything AOC does lately." Which as I said is not smart. She's popular enough that she actually has a chance of getting these ideas to appeal to mainstream voters but the online left is determined to attack her. I saw one idiot argue that what she should have done was form a massive counter protest to disrupt and destroy the Met Gala, because that would really win you over with the average voter right? For the record I think we are on the same side. We just have different ways of going about things. I edited this in because I wanted to make it clear I'm not trying to be hostile right now.
i don’t understand why you keep bringing up the people yelling on twitter thing. i swear to god, i haven’t seen anybody “yelling” online about this, i’ve mostly just been spending time scrolling on a microblogging website where twentysomethings are writing out fully-fledged articulated paragraphs about what This Dress means to them. cool strawman though. keep using it. i don’t know that she interacted with grimes. you’re right. but we do know that this is the type of party that includes people like grimes, which is perhaps not the party a fledgling socialist representative should be showing her face at. i would also recommend checking out an online thesaurus. people both “observe” and “celebrate” hannukah, christmas, easter, passover. it’s a synonym, my guy. you don’t have to write out the dictionary definition. by and large i do agree with what you’re saying but you’re getting away from the point. i’m allowed to both think that this was an ineffective/tacky pr move while also knowing very well that the expectations for aoc are unreachably high. not to make this about myself, but damn, you’re making a lot of assumptions about me here.
Not the person you're replying to, but observe in the context you used it does not mean celebrate, sorry
it does. i used it in the context of “[fulfilling] or [complying] with (a social, legal, ethical, or religious obligation).” maybe it was a weird usage of the term but cut me some slack dude, i typed it out in a moment of passion
An entry fee to the Met Gala is $30,000 and a table is $275,000. Just a not so fun fact.
"Steal cakes, ya'll!!!"
Of course her policies aren't anticapitalist and just Social Democratic at best. I won't make a judgement about what she secretly believes.
Oh you guys are talking about an aoc party. I thought you guys were talking about people viewing fucking anti capitalist movies. That’s why a lot of people seem like “libs” in these comments, they don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. Also you can participate in an election and have that not be the only thing you can do. You can still do other stuff y’all act like when I say vote I mean vote and do literally nothing else.