Ocasio-Cortez criticised for wearing a jacket - Polidicks

I think we can all tell about the quality of the tweet when one of the people responding to Scarry was... https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1063189124503416833?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1063189124503416833&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailydot.com%2Flayer8%2Feddie-scarry-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-clothes-ratio%2F This bad boy. Even if she belonged to the middle class and was a socialist, what's the big fucking deal? I grew up around middle class white females (close enough description that gives a large pool of people to choose from) that were all over the political spectrum (including the empty void of "what are politics?"). Picking at people who are different than you doesn't give you the right be an ignorant moron. Add this guy to the list of Twitter creeps that should be cleaned off the site and move on...

A prole is anyone who can only sell their labor in a capitalist economy. I thought for such a verbose guy you would know this, but apparently not. She isn't dirt poor so your point is... what exactly? That she's not "pure" enough to be left-wing? Seems to be like typical smearing "look at this SOCIALIST who OWNS things!" You're a fucking child.

What's your goal here?

"small business" that's literally the working class what the fuck are you doing lol

"bartending to pay off college debt" is like a working class trope.

Not only that but "having entire debt payed off by inheritance and still owning three homes" is like the upper class trope

https://twitter.com/eScarry/status/520588459720081408 seems like a normal guy to me

Meanwhile, in the UK: Jeremy Corbyn is getting shit-talked in the media for wearing a jacket that wasn't expensive enough on remembrance day. So if you dress like a member of the working class you are disrespectful and shabby, but if you put in some extra effort to look the part of a politician, you can be decried as a poser instead?. It's almost like progressives are damned no matter how they decide to present themselves.

I didn't criticize her for not being poor. All I did was say she isn't what she claims to be. It grounds a socialist views of things. Because our politics has broken down into divisions of class, race, gender, and region/state, where it is important to note that the political character of a person is based on a combination of these things since they can only accurately represent that part of society. As part of today's political culture, we pointed out the irony of a millionaire from New York being a populist in order to show how absurd that is. We mocked Hillary for her detachment. Additionally, the old fogey Corbyn caught a lot of flak for inertia towards condemning Brexit because of how popular it could be among working class people, especially males like him. Bernie came off like a relic from the 60s with no broad connection to today's Democratic base, and actually some disturbing crossover with blue collar Trump voters that accentuated a view of him as an outsider threatening the split the party. Sure, but that strict Marxist definition has fallen out of use as socialists tried to explain why more and more proles, especially the skilled, first world, suburban, and unionized among them, had a disconnect with the left (which ironically led to things like this, where right-wing proles beat up student leftists). Most of those socialists just ended up abandoning more old left ideas of class altogether, and the Democratic party became more disconnected from its comparatively conservative blue collar base over time. That directly influenced how the rust belt would weigh hillary vs trump. If we define proles as the non-college educated blue collar, they're not necessarily left-wing and many of Ocasio-Cortez's policies would actually hurt swathes of them. If you look at labor history in the US, it's largely not leftist in the sense we think of it. Labor could actually be pretty right-wing. Nope, it's a modern middle class trope. A working class trope is falling to the wayside and becoming noncompetitive because you are not college educated, are too expensive to hire, and are not part of the more dynamic, forward-looking parts of the country as it leaves behind an older kind of economy. Ocasio-Cortez, like many self-identified progressives (pdf page 145), is middle class. I really like debating.

Dude, what the fuck are you doing? It's like you're going out of your way to completely miss the point. The point is that even if she had things better than most of us, she's still not part of the same class as 99% of Congress and actually understands the struggles of normal people. Getting caught up on stupid bullshit like whether she had it a bit easier than most of us is digging on completely irrelevant details and you're kinda making yourself look like a total asshole in the process.

I thought the tweet was mocking her claim that she can't afford her housing in DC until her congressperson salary kicks in, in addition to all of the shade the Right has been throwing at her for being female, a minority, young, and frighteningly popular

non-college educated blue collar worker here to tell you you are full of shit. I mean, that kinda sounds like what happened reading her wiki article After college, Ocasio-Cortez moved back to the Bronx, while she worked as a bartender in Manhattan and as a waitress in a taqueria.Her mother, meanwhile, cleaned houses and drove school buses. After her father's death, Ocasio-Cortez and her mother struggled to fight foreclosure of their home It seems like you are simultaneously splitting the hairs and moving the goalposts by saying that she doesn't come from a working class background and is instead middle class. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Maybe they are in Marxist thought but her situation aligns almost word for word with what the American concept of working class would be. This feels less like a debate and more like a really sloppy character assassination attempt.

The vast majority of the middle class do not own any means of production. They are as prole as they come. How could you possibly characterize someone working in the *service industry* to pay off loans as bourgeois?

Yeah I feel like if you are going to shit on for Ocasio-Cortez for not properly representing the working class I feel like you probably have bigger fish to fry. Like uh, literally every politician in D.C to start.

Do working-class people live in dumpsters where you're from or something? Posts like this make me wish there was an additional "dipshit" rating. If by "debating" you mean taking a greasy, runny shit all over the thread because of your incredibly mis-guided notion of what it means to be "working class", then I guess you're on the right track?

I agree she's not part of the same class as much of Congress, although many on both sides of the aisle have humble backgrounds, but that wasn't my point. My point was she's part of a long line of socialists remarkably removed from the classes they claim to represent, and almost always end up holding in contempt because these are often among the least progressive parts of society. The relevant Orwell quote I mentioned: The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that Socialism, in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the middle classes. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years' time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white- collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting. This last type is surprisingly common in Socialist parties of every shade; it has perhaps been taken over en bloc from. the old Liberal Party. In addition to this there is the horrible--the really disquieting--prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. [...] To this you have got to add the ugly fact that most middle-class Socialists, while theoretically pining for a class-less society, cling like glue to their miserable fragments of social prestige. I remember my sensations of horror on first attending an I.L.P. branch meeting in London. (It might have been rather different in the North, where the bourgeoisie are less thickly scattered.) Are these mingy little beasts, I thought, the champions of the working class? For every person there, male and female, bore the worst stigmata of sniffish middle-class superiority. If a real working man, a miner dirty from the pit, for instance, had suddenly walked into their midst, they would have been embarrassed, angry, and disgusted; some, I should think, would have fled holding their noses. You can see the same tendency in Socialist literature, which, even when it is not openly written de haut en bos, is always completely removed from the working class in idiom and manner of thought. The Coles, Webbs, Stracheys, etc., are not exactly proletarian writers. I don't see how I'm any more of an asshole than I would be if I pointed out the absurdity of a millionaire populist. A national minimum wage hike would exacerbate the regionally uneven nature of post-recession recovery and future growth under globalization, it can only be tolerated by the higher parts of the country like its big businesses, major cities, coasts, etc. which in turn would be more in bed with a state that is disproportionately led by the few "dynamic, forward-looking" (quoting Hillary on her archipelago vote) parts of the country which drive its economy. It would increase internal inequality while heightening political tensions between two increasingly culturally divorced parts of the country, especially if we abolished the electoral college, one of which would be less funding of state programs and therefore more dependent on the other under massive social program expansion. Similar arguments apply to her view of the environment and transitioning the country to an entirely renewable energy-based system, inventing new 'rights' to housing and healthcare, relaxing immigration and citizenship law, tuition-free college, correction of a contested gendered wage gap, and support for restoring Glass-Steagall/Dodd-Frank which hurts [2] small/community banks and is adored by the Wall Street she hates. This is despite the fact she wants to expand access to loans to poor communities. Her ideas have no applicability to the nation as a whole and would worsen many of its internal problems by making less viable the economic life of parts of the country while increasing regulatory capture. She will largely fail to reach past her immediate urban environment just like progressives 100 years ago. I am not necessarily against the spirit many of her ideas, but applied to a union of this scale they will fail and ironically split the lower classes of the country. Our size is one of the reasons we are far more economically liberal and emphasizing of local-central government balance than Europe. I guess it's locally defined. In my state, if you go to a selective college and come from a suburban family that owns a small business, you are not working class. You are middle class or, if you want to get fancy, 'petit-bourgeois' because her father's white-collar standing allows him to self-employ and run his own business. Generally, proles can't self-employ because they are trapped in a seller's market for labor because of their low-education and low-skilled status. They are a victim of their own numbers. They have no savings which is what you need to run your own life, they are very vulnerable to competition and need unions to make gains for themselves, their marriages fail, and they never own property. That doesn't describe Ocasio-Cortez's background or a significant part of the left to be honest. You can go ahead and define prole as anyone who gets their income from working, but that's a stretched plain-text reading which would comes at the cost of undermining all the arguments that Trump has no working class appeal and only speaks for middle class whites who fear not living like previous generations.

Its like being mad at homeless people for having phones, just because you had enough to buy something decent doesn't mean you're a Rockefeller. This is where Republicans fall apart, they believe that all Americans, including their poor ass selves, are rich, and anyone struggling should just deal with it, unless of coarse the opposite benefits them.

eddie scarry sounds like the name of a character from a children's storybook about monsters hiding under your bed.

https://twitter.com/eScarry/status/944701570066903045 He already is though

If she was a true liberal, she'd be letting herself freeze in the mid November cold smh

I'm working class and I can afford a coat like that. unless that coat is made by fucking Chanel and immediately costs 3000 dollars because Chanel Just like a burlap sack by Chanel could be 1000 dollars because its trendy and its Chanel, get it?

Scandalous that a woman would wear a coat in the middle of winter.

what the fuck

You are terribly out of touch

You can be poor and go to college.

Everyone, pay attention to this man. Not because he's right, but because THIS is the example of someone existing in an echochamber, and only ever repeating talking points they like. Be cautious of being like this person, because being like this person will poison the well of any discussion you choose to have.

This just in, the middle class is the new bourgeoisie, not literal millionaires that own more property than a small community.