I don’t know if what Jimmie is saying in this is entirely accurate or not, but if true it confirms what I have been saying, i.e. that the Republicans are very slowly and tepidly moving to the left of the neoliberals on economics due to their strategically necessary faux populism and Trumpian opportunism, with the progressives/social democrats largely serving no purpose other than to suck off the neoliberals.
For those who ever thought Alexandria was a serious radical or revolutionary, remember that she was an intern for Ted Kennedy, memorialized (as opposed to celebrating) the death of John McCain, and has never taken positions any more “radical” than do-gooder reformist and SJWish ones. She has never had anti-imperialism as a core focus of her politics, not even on the level of a moderate anti-interventionist like Tulsi Gabbard. She has never had much interest in class politics beyond conventional welfare statism. Her “Green New Deal” is, at best, an effort to shift the focus of state-capitalism/crony-capitalism away from Big Oil toward Big Green. And she seems to subscribe to the standard SJW paradigm on “social issues.” At what point has she ever called for dismantling, the overthrow of the ruling class, or global anti-imperialism? Nowhere, as far I can tell.
By Alex Thompson and Holly Otterbein
Soon after her upset primary victory against a Democratic Party boss in 2018, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez traveled to St. Louis to prove her victory wasn’t a one-off by campaigning for Cori Bush, who was similarly taking on a longtime Democratic congressman.
“What I’m asking for you to do is to support my sister, Cori Bush,” Ocasio-Cortez said at a rally. “It is so important what we did, we just came off of this win in New York, but people were trying to say, ‘It’s just one place.’”
Bush lost that race but is challenging Rep. William “Lacy” Clay again in an August primary. She has more money and higher name recognition, and earned the endorsement of Bernie Sanders. But Ocasio-Cortez isn’t helping Bush this time.
After her victory in 2018, Ocasio-Cortez encouraged progressives to follow in her footsteps and run for Congress with the backing of the left-wing group Justice Democrats, even if it meant taking on powerful incumbents. Sixteen months later, the Missouri primary isn’t the only one Ocasio-Cortez is steering clear of.
Because he doesn’t recognize who the real enemy is.
Guinan needs to stick to bartending.
It’s rather remarkable that a lame FDR liberal like Bernie is considered too much for the professional celebrities/neoliberal puppets at The View. That Bernie endorsed Hillary in 2016 (as opposed to, say, Jill Stein) is a blight on his record, not a brownie point.
Ideally, a serious anarchist movement in North America, as I have long argued, would be a “revolutionary left” that regards neoliberals as “the main enemy,” and “attacks the Left from the left,” by pointing out the historic treachery of the Marxists (First International, Kronstadt, Barcelona, etc), the historically reactionary nature of progressives (Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc) and the historic co-optation of social democrats (World War One), while cultivating alliances with anti-authoritarian, decentralist, anti-statist, and libertarian tendencies from all over the political, religious, cultural, and economic spectrum, nurturing anti-authoritarian tendencies everywhere, within the context of the broader anarchist principles of decentralism, federalism/confederalism, anti-statism, mutualism, free association, etc.
Unlike most anarchists in North America, I do not regard the “right-wing” as the main problem. The right-wing is a coalition of economic, cultural, generation, ideological, and generational forces that have been losing power for decades and are continuing to do so. For instance, the Republicans were able to win in 2016 only because an interloper stepped in and moved the party’s rhetoric considerably to the Left on trade, class relations, foreign policy, even gay rights, while the Democrats’ candidate was an avowed, unapologetic pro-ruling class candidate that generated reduced voter turnout, fewer minority votes, fewer working-class votes resulting in the loss of the Rust Belt, more votes for third parties, etc. Even then, Trump lost the popular vote and only won in the Electoral College.
“Right-wingophobia” is a losing strategy. Ask Hillary Clinton.
Yes. Since 2016, I have maintained that the real reason Trump won the election was that, rhetorically, he was the most “left-wing” (anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, anti-power elite) of the two candidates, even if he is personally just a carnival barker and has governed largely as a conventional Republican since taking office.
AOC embraces Megan McCain. Will she follow the standard social democrat to neocon trajectory?
The same pattern the US Left has followed since the 1970s.
A relevant observation from the comments section:
“I never drank the AOC kool aid. 90% of the interest in her derives from the fact that she’s a young woman of color and she’s from NYC, which we’re still supposed to believe is the center of the universe. If she had the same politics but were a white male from South Dakota, hardly anybody would know or care about her.”
An interesting discussion of Trump from November 2016, immediately after Trump’s election, that nails the essence of Trumpism fairly well, i.e. a symbolic triumph of populism against elitism where the principal division is social class. The speakers in this video are “conservative intellectuals” of the old-bourgeois variety, and you have to read between the lines to get the substance of what they are saying. But their analysis is consistent with something I have been thinking for a while, that the US has what are essentially three political parties, viewed from an ideological and constituency-based perspective:
1. The Neoliberal Party, which has two factions, “moderate” Republicans (e.g. Mitt Romney) and “moderate” Democrats (e.g. Chuck Schumer)
2. The Faux Populist Party, which has two factions, the old-bourgeoisie (like these speakers in the video) and the post-bourgeois proletariat (the sinking working to middle-class WASPs who actually take Trump seriously)
3. The Faux Social Democratic Party, which has two factions, the New Class (the left-wing of the middle class or lower strata of the managerial elite) and the labor aristocracy and left-wing of the petite bourgeoisie (business unions, the civil rights industries, and conventional welfare statists).
If I had to attach ATS to any particular social class, and if I believed in electoral politics, I’d say ATS would be the Lumpenproletarian Anarchist Party. with the mainstream anarchist movement being the “furthest left-wing of the Faux Social Democratic Party” or “most co-opted wing of the Anarchist Party.”
It looks like the “progressive” media and the “progressive” politicians are having a falling out. Excellent.
This year’s election is going to be even more hilarious than 2016,
1914 all over again. Never trust a social democrat. Fuck voting. Fuck reformism. Real radicalism is about overthrowing states, ruling classes, and empires.
Tucker Carlson predicts the DNC will replace Biden with Andrew Cuomo.
This is a must-watch. Jimmie Dore and Max Blumenthal describe how the “stimulus bill” is to the economy/class relations what the PATRIOT Act was to civil liberties and what the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was to foreign policy. And the entire spectrum of the political class, from the most liberal Democrats to the most conservative Republicans, have done nothing to stop it. And “progressives” have simply rolled over and played dead.
This video is over a year old, but it’s a good description of the neoliberal vs. populist division that is growing on the US right, just like there is a growing division between neoliberals and social democrats on the US left. The consequences of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama neoliberal paradigm are now obvious enough and have been since at least 2008, which is why populist-reformist movements have developed since then, e.g. Tea Party, Occupy, Sandernistas, Trumpians, AOC’s social democracy, Carlson’s “national conservatism,” etc. Regrettably, none of these movements have been able to get past the fixation on electoralism, reformism, statism, the capitalism/socialism false dichotomy, and culture war tribalism.
Some commentators, like the folks at Rising, keep calling for a realignment pitting left/right populists against left/right neoliberals, but that ain’t happening. Too much cultural tribal conflict is in the way. Instead, as the Democratic neoliberals and Republican neoliberals continue to try to out-scumbag each other, and left/right populists continue to fail, more extreme movements from the left and right will likely develop (for which creepy groups like the Antifa and Proud Boys are prototypes). I don’t think it will become a Weimar-like scenario with the liberal-capitalist center being threatened with outright communism from the left and fascism from the right. It will probably be more like Latin America or South Asia where the entrenched oligarchy holds its position against the impoverished masses, with left and right extremists engaging in terrorism on the margins. In other words, the US is becoming less of a modern post-scarcity middle-class oriented bourgeois society (as Sanders and Carlson are constantly lamenting), and more of a traditional society with a traditional class hierarchy in terms of wealth distribution. The good news is that it will largely be the end of the US international empire in the long run as multipolarity continues to develop.