So, for the record, the passage I quoted is not necessarily representative of my personal opinion. The person I responded to wrongly asserted that no one in DSA holds the position that AOC’s political engagement has, to one extent or another, been opportunistic.

I simply set about showing how that is not true, and that there are people in the org who very much do feel that way.

AOC hasn’t “retreated” from socialist politics. She’s had to adapt and be pragmatic since getting elected to serve in federal office, unlike anyone in that so-called “liberation caucus”. They sound like a bunch of backseat drivers to me

DSA has an internal system of caucuses, which are largely ideologically based, and act as political parties within the organization.

There’s Socialist Majority which is the big reformist caucus. Reform and Revolution is the Trotskyist caucus. Red Star is Marxist-Leninist, Libertarian Socialist Caucus is Anarchist, etc.

Liberation are the Maoist caucus, and so they largely reject electoral engagements with politics, preferring to organize the internally colonized sections of the American working class through labor and tenant organizing, and the like. They don’t think taking congressional seats, even if DSA were to win all of them, would make socialism happen.

But the reason I chose to quote them in particular, is because they represent what is probably the left-most position in DSA, regarding AOC. While much of the “DSA left” (left here being relative. Even the rightmost caucuses are to the left of mainstream American politics) holds a similar position, opposing an AOC presidential run, or otherwise being skeptical of her, they would likely frame it differently.

Reed Star, for instance, would frame their AOC criticism, less as overt opportunism, and more as being strategically flawed, as the org tailing an individual for her popularity, rather than putting forward a candidate with the intent to lead and educate/radicalize the masses.