Shad
Veteran Member
No I am talking about actual socialists not the UK. Cortez is a member of a Socialist party as in "means of production".
UK is a social democracy.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Antifa
- Thread starter Epic Beard Man
- Start date
No I am talking about actual socialists not the UK. Cortez is a member of a Socialist party as in "means of production".
UK is a social democracy.
Is there any evidence of this?
Shad
Veteran Member
Laughable. Some of those incidents had nothing to do with supremacy itself. One of those cases the other perpetrator was a black man. You didn't fact check ADL. You make a good drone.
Loviatar
Red Tory/SpongeBob Conservative
I assume what he's referring to is her membership in Democratic Socialists of America. Its members tend to make a lot of historically blind statements on economic issues, including Ocasio Cortez, but only some of them are actual socialists in the "seize the means of production" sense. Many are social democrats, favoring a mixed economy with strong state involvement.
I wouldn't vote for either; I'd worry even the soc-dems would adopt a very rosy view of movements like Bolivarianism in foreign affairs based on their close association with its sympathizers, and their economic policies are to the left of ones that demonstrably made the '70s crash worse in my home country. But, they aren't a serious revolutionary risk, and framing them as "seize the means of production" communists is making the same mistake as lumping the alt-lite and alt-right under the same umbrella. It gradually radicalizes the former into the latter by wedding their interests together.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
Yes go look up the party she is a member of and it's manifesto. Go look at their history, their beliefs, etc.
Last edited:
She is a member of the Democratic Party. Are you saying the Democrats want to control the means of production?
Then I ask you what a I asked him. Is there any evidence she is a member of this party? And is there any evidence that this party wants to control the means of production?
Loviatar
Red Tory/SpongeBob Conservative
It's not a party, it's a political organization. But yes, she's openly a member of it. As I said in the previous post, some of them are socialists, some are on the left of social democracy; so the claim that they all want to control the means of production is false, but if she doesn't she definitely closely associates with people who do. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a Democratic Socialists of America member. Here’s what that means.
Shad
Veteran Member
I am talking about Democratic Socialists of America. She even calls herself one.
But she is running as a Democrat.
Thank you.
Shad
Veteran Member
DSA believes in taking control of production via workers. It was on their website and manifesto. Im not buying it as I read it months ago. You can believe what you want.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I should've paid closer attention. My apologies.
Shad
Veteran Member
So? Communists and Socialists bandwagon with Dems for support and have for decades. She was a member of DSA long before her primary. Just as Neo-Nazis bandwagon with the GOP. Neither changes those core beliefs by joining a party.
Loviatar
Red Tory/SpongeBob Conservative
They believe in a greater degree of community control over production, "workplace democracy." What that translates into is up to the individual member, since they aren't a top-down organization. Their membership seems to range from people advocating a state-run economy, to old-fashioned Clement Attlee-style social democrats, to advocates of bottom-up workers' cooperatives. Most seem to be some incoherent mix of all three, from my interaction with their members online and on campus.
It's a very diverse bunch, and even aside from her strange comments on financial issues and very hard-left immigration stance, I wouldn't vote for her due to the association. But not due to their advocacy of workers' cooperatives, that's something Catholic social doctrine advocates too. Instead, due to the fact that membership in it implies close association with state socialists and Bolivarians.
None needed.
Shad
Veteran Member
Not greater. Total control by workers or the state. They are anti-capitalist.
Their manifesto said otherwise. As do the chapters of the organization. The people you talked to some like rubes that didn't read anything before becoming a member.
For me it association alone as it requires massive state involvement. Her talking (PBS) was just icing on the cake.
Loviatar
Red Tory/SpongeBob Conservative
They are anti-capitalist as a matter of policy, yes. The definition of that is pretty muddied though. Most European social democrats, and even many Christian Democrats, would describe themselves as "anti-capitalist" by which they mean "anti-unfettered market" and "historically anti-corporate control - but within the bounds of what works given the horrors of state socialism." In the former case "has bottom-up workers' democracy sympathies but prefers an evolutionary path to it," in the latter case "has distributist/socially conservative workers' democracy sympathies but prefers an evolutionary path to it." I'm anti-capitalist in the latter sense, for example, and am a European conservative. The evolution of Christian Democracy/Red Toryism from distributism was a direct one.
DSA seems to, at tamest, be the former of those; evolutionary social democrats, whose outlook ultimately came out of the socialist workers' movement. It also seems to encompass state socialists, workers' democracy advocates who prefer a more revolutionary or violent path, and confused mixes of the three. In short, it seems like a wide swathe of people who want to pull the Democratic Party leftward, with various end goals. They're not a top-down organization, so they seem perfectly happy to have members of various stripes united under that common cause.
I agree that her PBS interview was terrible, she's the prime example of polarization and kookiness not just being slanted to one party.
Last edited:
A DINO, eh.
On the contrary, I think time will show it is the corporate democrats that are the dinosaurs.