Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Bigga said:
An interesting article from Jan has resurfaced about Ocasio-Cortez. Not sure why it was buried, but it can be taken two ways, both positive to some and wholly negative to others.

So, here's the dissection of the original article:

Make of it What You Will...
Click to expand...
Operation discredit the “left” because they aren’t left enough continues.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Sharp as a tack.
Click to expand...
I'm not impressed by AOC's intellect - at all.

I watched her for an extended period a few months ago during - I think - a 60-minutes interview. Not at all impressive. She seems to be of above average intellect but not brilliant - then again, perhaps one-on-one interviews fail to capture her true potential.

She's a bit too far left for me and intentionally confrontational at times.

Not a fan of AOC - this said as a centrist - maybe a bit left of center - Democrat who nonetheless strongly believes in capitalism.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
I'm not impressed by AOC's intellect - at all.

I watched her for an extended period a few months ago during - I think - a 60-minutes interview. Not at all impressive. She seems to be of above average intellect but not brilliant - then again, perhaps one-on-one interviews fail to capture her true potential.

She's a bit too far left for me and intentionally confrontational at times.

Not a fan of AOC - this said as a centrist - maybe a bit left of center - Democrat who nonetheless strongly believes in capitalism.
Click to expand...

Is it a religion?
 
Fode N The Hole said:
Capitalism. Strongly believe, do you not recognise any faults?
Click to expand...
Capitalism works when there is competition. Not when one or more players dominate markets.

Currently there's a lack of competitive pressure in many US economic sectors.

Which is when regulation must step in - to either break up monopolies/oligopolies - or perhaps to declare the sector under rule of government - when the monopoly/oligopoly is likely better for consumers than what pure competition might provide - but that sans government control the sector isn't as beneficial to society as it might be.
===
I'm pretty much an Adam Smith capitalist - but it's not, for me, capitalism at all costs - as it seems to be the case with numerous Republicans.
===
So yeah - I'm not a "religious zealot" capitalist - but, for the most part, I think that capitalism is the best means to promote maximum welfare for society.
===
Falling into the category for me of too little competitive pressure but current obvious societal benefit - is much of the Internet.

If, for example, we break up Amazon, are we going to be happier as a society? Or take apart Google - where do you go for searches? Youtube TV? Youtube itself?

Facebook - although I hate the company and don't have an account - if you want to participate in social media, isn't it best that you post to a single site to share with all your friends? What if there's a bunch of such sites with not dominance? Do you need to join each one? And then what about security of your personal information. Having joined 5 or 6 such sites, do you trust all 6 to be as safe as they can against cyber attacks?

For me, much of the Internet is dominated by companies that - although serving the better good of society - should fall under much stricter regulation since such companies enjoy either monopoly or oligopoly market positions with far too few restrictions in place.
 
Last edited:
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
I'm not impressed by AOC's intellect - at all.

I watched her for an extended period a few months ago during - I think - a 60-minutes interview. Not at all impressive. She seems to be of above average intellect but not brilliant - then again, perhaps one-on-one interviews fail to capture her true potential.

She's a bit too far left for me and intentionally confrontational at times.

Not a fan of AOC - this said as a centrist - maybe a bit left of center - Democrat who nonetheless strongly believes in capitalism.
Click to expand...
What do you class as far left?

I'd argue her beliefs are more social democratic from a European point of view.
 
mat said:
What do you class as far left?

I'd argue her beliefs are more social democratic from a European point of view.
Click to expand...
www.newsweek.com

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: 'Capitalism is Irredeemable'

"We should be scared right now because corporations have taken over our government," Ocasio-Cortez said.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

The above sentiment - is socialist - not social democrat - and is far left and is a position which I entirely reject.
===
Honestly there's a word soup of social, socialist and democrat - confusing the hell out of actual positions.

Social Democrat - is this term of phrase even necessary? Is there such thing as an anti-social Democrat? This phrase seems to mean, "Democrat." Although I suppose that it's the degree to which government intervention in society is believed to be warranted - the run-of-the-mill Democrat believing somewhat less in government intervention/regulation/control than the so-called Social Democrat. Whatever. The term "Social Democrat" for me is simply confusing.

Democratic Socialist - well, I suppose that this term does have meaning. But it seems to be unnecessarily confusing. As compared to Socialist. The only distinction being that Democratic Socialists do not support authoritarian rule whereas some subset of Socialists might (Democratic Socialists are however Socialists). Both Democratic Socialists and Socialists without qualification support government control of societal resources.

Elected socialist politicians in the USA are Democratic Socialist - without exception so far as I can tell. Would Americans really vote for someone espousing authoritarian, like-it-or-not, socialist rule?

And quite honestly, I think that Sanders is further muddying the waters with these terms.
 
Last edited:
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Capitalism works when there is competition. Not when one or more players dominate markets.

Currently there's a lack of competitive pressure in many US economic sectors.

Which is when regulation must step in - to either break up monopolies/oligopolies - or perhaps to declare the sector under rule of government - when the monopoly/oligopoly is likely better for consumers than what pure competition might provide - but that sans government control the sector isn't as beneficial to society as it might be.
===
I'm pretty much an Adam Smith capitalist - but it's not, for me, capitalism at all costs - as it seems to be the case with numerous Republicans.
===
So yeah - I'm not a "religious zealot" capitalist - but, for the most part, I think that capitalism is the best means to promote maximum welfare for society.
Click to expand...

There are other faults in capitalism you haven't mentioned. The modern reliance on consumerist throwaway culture to continue to keep the economy moving.

The current dominant theory of management, business corporate responsibility i. e. only having a responsibility to their shareholders and not wider society is something that must be replaced.

The theories and methods of controlling capitalism to the benefit to the social good of society rely on people in those positions actually wishing to do so, and being of a reasonable mindset and background that their position on what is best for the whole of society isn't detached from reality.

As we have already seen in both our countries, governments and legislatures have been co-opted by interests of big capital and ever-greater detached elites.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
There are other faults in capitalism you haven't mentioned. The modern reliance on consumerist throwaway culture to continue to keep the economy moving.

The current dominant theory of management, business corporate responsibility i. e. only having a responsibility to their shareholders and not wider society is something that must be replaced.

The theories and methods of controlling capitalism to the benefit to the social good of society rely on people in those positions actually wishing to do so, and being of a reasonable mindset and background that their position on what is best for the whole of society isn't detached from reality.

As we have already seen in both our countries, governments and legislatures have been co-opted by interests of big capital and ever-greater detached elites.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Adam Smith himself recognized the "tragedy of the commons" - where economic gain of an individual or of a corporation did not reflect the true cost to society for the factors you have mentioned - and others as well.

Which isn't per-se a defect of capitalism as I espouse - rather it reflects the difficulties of channeling capitalism to the greatest good.

What I will say - is that the pure socialism, as an alternative - seems, to me, to be fraught with outright disaster or at best, mediocrity - whenever it's been tried.

People perform best when given motivation - and capitalism does just that. Placing appropriate controls on capitalism is challenging - but it doesn't take away from the fact that free competition and proportional reward for success far outstrips a shared, non-competitive arrangement when seeking to drive maximum societal benefit.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
www.newsweek.com

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: 'Capitalism is Irredeemable'

"We should be scared right now because corporations have taken over our government," Ocasio-Cortez said.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

The above sentiment - is socialist - not social democrat - and is far left and is a position which I entirely reject.
===
Honestly there's a word soup of social, socialist and democrat - confusing the hell out of actual positions.

Social Democrat - is this term of phrase even necessary? Is there such thing as an anti-social Democrat? This phrase seems to mean, "Democrat." Although I suppose that it's the degree to which government intervention in society is believed to be warranted - the run-of-the-mill Democrat believing somewhat less in government intervention/regulation/control than the so-called Social Democrat. Whatever. The term "Social Democrat" for me is simply confusing.

Democratic Socialist - well, I suppose that this term does have meaning. But it seems to be unnecessarily confusing. As compared to Socialist. The only distinction being that Democratic Socialists do not support authoritarian rule whereas some subset of Socialists might (Democratic Socialists are however Socialists). Both Democratic Socialists and Socialists without qualification support government control of societal resources.

Elected socialist politicians in the USA are Democratic Socialist - without exception so far as I can tell. Would Americans really vote for someone espousing authoritarian, like-it-or-not, socialist rule?

And quite honestly, I think that Sanders is further muddying the waters with these terms.
Click to expand...

You have complained about language at the start and of your post and then promptly gone on to mangle it yourself.

Most elected politicians in the USA cannot be democratic socialists when the Republican party is obsessed with degrading the effectiveness of government in counteracting the excesses of capitalism, and firmly against a socislised healthcare system.

Just take the time to look the terms up yourself.

I've never considered Sanders as a "democratic socialist", as Chomsky says, he is basically a new dealer.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
You have complained about language at the start and of your post and then promptly gone on to mangle it yourself.

Most elected politicians in the USA cannot be democratic socialists when the Republican party is obsessed with degrading the effectiveness of government in counteracting the excesses of capitalism, and firmly against a socislised healthcare system.

Just take the time to look the terms up yourself.

I've never considered Sanders as a "democratic socialist", as Chomsky says, he is basically a new dealer.
Click to expand...
I fail to get your points at all.

>> Most elected politicians in the USA cannot be democratic socialists when the Republican party
For starters, what does the fact that Republicans don't claim to be Democratic Socialists have anything to do with this? It's a crazy supposition. And what on earth does this remark have to do with my observation that the terms - Democratic, Social, and Socialist - constitute a "word soup"?

I have not at all engaged in the promulgation of this "word soup" in my post above - far from it - I've attempted to remove the bullshit nebulosity.

Reread my post - carefully. You obviously do not understand my remarks at all - in the slightest bit.

Then there's Sanders - who time after time after time claims to be a Socialist. I'm actually not sure - I think he's a left-leaning Democrat in fact. Who is attempting to brandish the label "Socialist" for perceived political gain.
===
Look - Fode - if you are a Socialist - I get the sense that you are - then state so.

I disagree with your position - but - for the record - I'd rather see a Socialist in the ilk of AOC in office as President than Trump. Because AOC at least seems to care for the well being of others. And makes her decisions accordingly. And, of course, for me, AOC is on the right side of nearly every single social issue I care about - gun control, abortion, woman's rights, voter rights, gay/lesbian/transsexual rights... climate change... and on and on and on.

Though I strongly disagree with AOC about capitalism - I'd vote for her over Trump 100%.
 
Last edited:
I'm always amused when Americans start accusing their own politicians of being communists. They clearly have no real idea what true communism (as written about by Marx and Engels etc.) actually is - e.g. control of the means of production by the workers etc. It just seems to be an insult to be thrown about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
Gremlin said:
I'm always amused when Americans start accusing their own politicians of being communists. They clearly have no real idea what true communism (as written about by Marx and Engels etc.) actually is - e.g. control of the means of production by the workers etc. It just seems to be an insult to be thrown about.
Click to expand...
It's not at all amusing to me - as an American.

In fact, it's outright fucking bullshit foul play.

Labeling politicians as "communist" is simply a tactic of Republicans seeking to gain office.
===
Sadly, Republican politics in the USA are no longer based on truth or facts - it's simply based on striving for a huge, base-support emotional appeal, hoping that voters will turn out and continue the bullshit non-truthism.

Such Republican positions are already in the minority - and hopefully, over time, enough voter sentiment will change to overcome Republican jerrymandering, over-representation in under-populated parts of the country/states, over-representation in the Supreme Court and other courts, and so on.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
I fail to get your points at all.

>> Most elected politicians in the USA cannot be democratic socialists when the Republican party
For starters, what does the fact that Republicans don't claim to be Democratic Socialists have anything to do with this? It's a crazy supposition. And what on earth does this remark have to do with my observation that the terms - Democratic, Social, and Socialist - constitute a "word soup."

I have not at all engaged in the promulgation of this "word soup" in my post above - far from it - I've attempted to remove the bullshit nebulosity.

Reread my post - carefully. You obviously do not understand my remarks at all - in the slightest bit.

Then there's Sanders - who time after time after time claims to be a Socialist. I'm actually not sure - I think he's a left-leaning Democrat in fact. Who is attempting to brandish the label "Socialist" for perceived political gain.
===
Look - Fode - if you are a Socialist - I get the sense that you are - then state so.

I disagree with your position - but - for the record - I'd rather see a Socialist in the ilk of AOC in office as President than Trump. Because AOC at least seems to care for the well being of others. And makes her decisions accordingly.
Click to expand...

Yes apologies, I misread you on that point.

Wider point about language still applies to your point about social democrats though. The nordic model is the example of social democracy which most social democrats cite as something they would like to incorporate. It is a coherent term in this context.

I agree on the point about Sanders. Paul Krugman (a left-leaning centrist) recognised this and implored him to stop calling himself a socialist because he was worried about the negative connotations in the USA.

That is fair enough. Trump has no political idealogy besides his own self-interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top