[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble
ReturnCatalogBottom

File: 1627327074061.jpg ( 181.99 KB , 720x712 , Hatsune Miku 2.jpg )

 No.403542

(TL;DR at bottom of post)

Introduction

A long-running debate among American socialists is whether or not they should run for public office as Democrats or as third parties. The main argument from those who advocate for running as Democrats is that is nearly impossible to win elections on a third party ballot, while the main argument from those who advocate running as third parties is that running as Democrats will inevitably dilute a given candidate's radicalism and cause them to sell out to the political establishment. While there is merit to both arguments, the fact of the matter is that neither strategy has yielded much success. The United States is still locked in a two-party system, with neither of those parties representing the working class.

I know of at least one proposal that has been made to reconcile these two approaches, that being the dirty break strategy. The dirty break strategy proposes that socialists run as Democrats until they are strong enough to be able to win elections on third party tickets, at which point they would switch to a third party. However, I have so far seen neither any serious effort to carry out this strategy nor any specific criteria for when the "dirty break" should be made.

With these issues in mind, I would like to propose a new (or at least new to me) strategy: pseudo-parties. How does a pseudo-party operate? Two main parts: running on a Democratic Party ticket (at least most of the time) and strict control of elected pseudo-party members by the pseudo-party.

Strict control of elected officials

One issue that seems to exist with most or all elected progressive Democrats right now is that they generally seem to be reluctant to play hardball with the Democratic Party establishment. While right-wing Democrats, like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, are willing to torpedo bills backed by the Democratic Party and force concessions, progressive Democrats, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, seem more reluctant to do so. The Force-the-Vote drama from a few months back is one example of this. My suspicion here is that they have little incentive to play hardball — the political cost (estrangement from the Democratic Party establishment) is too high and the political gain too low (likely to be re-elected whether they play hardball or not).

My pseudo-party proposal aims to increase the incentive for progressive politicians to play hardball. Here's the basic process. First, pseudo-party members who are eligible to vote for a particular office draft and approve a platform for that office. Next, the pseudo-party members hold a sort of "pre-primary" and endorse a candidate for the office in question. That candidate (usually) then goes on to the Democratic primaries, with their campaigns being managed and largely funded by the pseudo-party. If they manage to win both the primaries and the general election, they then get serve in that office. However, the process does not stop here. Once elected, the pseudo-party will expect them to carry out their platform (which may be revised periodically by the pseudo-party as it sees fit). If they violate their platform too many times, the pseudo-party can withdraw their endorsement and give it to someone else. This way, socialist/progressive politicians will always have a great deal of pressure on them to pursue a radical agenda, at least if the pseudo-party wants them to. The goal would be for the influence of the pseudo-party to outweigh the influence of the Democratic Party.

In order to minimize the influence of elected politicians in the pseudo-party, anyone holding public office will be forbidden from holding leadership positions within the pseudo-party, and anyone holding leadership positions within the pseudo-party will be forbidden from holding public office.

Another thing to note is that, while pseudo-party candidates will usually run as Democrats (at least at first), they may also run as third parties should it be reasonably possible to do so and win. The pseudo-party may even seek to make a complete break with the Democratic Party at some point, and thus incorporate the dirty break strategy outlined above. In general, the idea is to run as whatever party is most practical to run as at a given time.

Possible pitfalls of this strategy

One possible issue with this strategy is that it may be difficult for the pseudo-party to effectively control their politicians. If the influence of the pseudo-party is fairly weak, a politician may be able to lose its endorsement and still get reelected. The pseudo-party has to be able to make or break a politician's reelection bid, which could be especially difficult with high-profile politicians like AOC and Bernie Sanders.

Another possible issue is figuring out how to create this pseudo-party in this first place. It has to have a lot of clout in order for it to work, so it may not be a good idea to create one from scratch. It would probably have to be created from pre-existing progressive/socialist organizations, like DSA, the Green Party, labor unions, the Sunrise movement, Black Lives Matter, and others. Ideally a wide range of notable left-wing organizations would support this pseudo-party effort and agree to give and retract endorsements for candidates when the pseudo-party does so. Building this level of cooperation could prove quite challenging.

TL;DR
I have proposed the pseudo-party strategy to be tried where entryism and third parties have failed. While pseudo-party candidates may often run as Democrats, they will be strictly controlled by the pseudo-party and risk losing its endorsement if they do not follow its platform and, in turn, risk losing re-election. Actually implementing this strategy could prove rather difficult though.

What are your thoughts?
>>

 No.403648

>>403542
What you described is literally just entryism, where you have a covert party-within-a-party. The Trotskyists have already tried this, and while their greatest success was getting a couple Labour MPs, they got pretty quickly crushed.
>>

 No.403665

I like that Miku pic, you have more red Mikus?
>>

 No.403677

American exceptionalism again huh
>>

 No.403706

>>403542
Cosmonaut magazine / blog / website has run several articles on this topic. See this one for example: https://cosmonautmag.com/2021/05/why-run-independents-a-response-to-collective-power-network/

I'll admit I haven't seriously thought about this question too much, right now I'm focused on theoretical wank about the nature of the USSR / PES. For a long time I was a passive supporter of the "pseudo-party" idea because it seemed like the best of both worlds. You could use the Democrat party ticket to get past anti-democratic ballot access laws and also get the automatic support of the millions of clueless grannies who circle blue no matter who, but by forcing elected officials to follow your political program you could pursue ambitious revolutionary demands.

I lost some of my enthusiasm for the pseudo-party idea when I realized what you mentioned as a "possible pitfall", basically that it will be very difficult to actually pressure elected officials to follow your revolutionary program. It's a double-edged sword from the first advantage: clueless grannies will continue to vote blue no matter who, and fundraising is conducted through the candidate's cult of personality through ActBlue spam instead of the pseudo-party. At this point elected officials are free to cuck out to "Mama Bear" and get sucked into the political machine of vote-buying coalitions and everything else we detest about bourgeois "democracy". If you want elected officials to follow your own socialist program instead of the dictates of corporate funded think tanks, you will need a "brand" that's strong enough to kill a campaign if we withdraw our endorsement.

That's the major disadvantage of the Pseudo Party strategy. However, I also have my doubts that we'll ever be able to build a third party strong enough to build lasting electoral support in a two-party electoral system. I'm reminded of the Socialist Equality Party's lol presidential campaign for Joseph Kishore last year - they produced articles shilling for him every other day in the WSWS, which has a quite impressive daily readership if their own statistics are to be believed, certainly bigger than any other explicitly Marxist site. Despite this, he got an absolutely pathetic amount of votes, just barely over the "literally one in a million voters" mark, and they wouldn't have even reached that if it weren't for salaried SEP cadre voting for Kishore. A better program that focuses on real issues instead of pseudo-left Pabloite revisionist renegades would have definitely improved those numbers, but reaching a level of support where your vote could plausibly make a difference seems like a very steep hill to climb.

>>403648
The pseudo party strategy in the US would be quite a bit different from what the Militant Tendency did in the UK. The only reason the Militant Trots were able to be kicked out in the first place was because the Labour party was a mass membership organization that was at least nominally bound to the party constitution and program. The US Democrat party on the other hand is an extremely loose fundraising coalition and the DNC has no legal authority to stop even a self-proclaimed "democratic communist" from running on its ticket.
>>

 No.404264

File: 1627355754212-0.png ( 22.46 KB , 600x463 , USAav2004.png )

File: 1627355754212-1.png ( 17.19 KB , 600x463 , USA2range2004.png )

File: 1627355754212-2.png ( 11.61 KB , 600x463 , USA2plur2004.png )

>What are your thoughts?
My thoughts are third parties of all politics need to fucking pay attention to voting methods already.
>>

 No.404306

party strategies are only useful if you already have a party wich is exacly what the american proletariat does not have
>>

 No.404328

>i know it looks dire guys, but here's how electoralism can still get us to communism
no, fuck off
burn everything
>>

 No.404348

>progressive Democrats, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders
These people are frauds and never had a socialist agenda, as comrade Dore exposed. They got there because DSA leadership are frauds. If we have our people in charge of the DSA, we could get leftists in the primaries and do what you suggest.

Instead of a pseudo-party in the Democratic Party, why not a pseudo-party in the DSA? It's a smaller organization, so it should be easier to control, plus the rank and file members are more likely to agree with our pseudo-party than general Democratic members. So instead of trying to control Democratic nominations directly, we control DSA nominations to the Democratic Party, then use DSA's membership base to support us in the primaries.

>>403706
Why is there so much focus on presidential elections by the left? It's the hardest race to compete in, we don't stand a chance right now. There are about 20,000 state and federal politicians in America, let's get socialists into state legislatures first because some of those 20,000 races are much easier for us to win.
>>

 No.404358

>>404348
>Why is there so much focus on presidential elections by the left?
They're a focus in general for third parties because presidential ballot are often critical for them to garner enough votes to stay on the ballot in the next election due to the US's incredibly repressive ballot access rules.
>>

 No.404364

>>404328
You're half right: electoralism cannot get us to communism because of the anti-democratic "checks and balances" of the liberal constitutional regime. That doesn't mean we should abandon electoral politics in favor of exclusively street actions though, because that strategy has failed for many decades. Instead we need to use electoral politics specifically to expose the corruption of the "liberal democracy" and demonstrate why revolutionary change is needed.

>>404348
Basically >>404358, the hopeless presidential campaigns are needed to secure your party's spot on the ballot for races you could plausibly win.
>>

 No.404407

File: 1627361366873.jpg ( 400.16 KB , 767x767 , Hatsune Miku 1.jpg )

>>403665
I also have this one

>>403677
What does this have to do with American exceptionalism?

>>403706
>It's a double-edged sword from the first advantage: clueless grannies will continue to vote blue no matter who, and fundraising is conducted through the candidate's cult of personality through ActBlue spam instead of the pseudo-party.
I don't think the vote-blue-no-matter-who types are really much of an issue, as a pseudo-party's main challenge will be winning the primaries. As for fundraising, my thought is to give the pseudo-party as much control over campaigning and campaign financing is possible, so that if the politician loses the pseudo-party's endorsement, they lose most of their campaign staff and funding too. I am not sure how easily they would be able to recuperate their staff and funding through other means. If they start to turn to corporate donors, that could be used as ammunition by the pseudo-party's new endorsee when challenging the old endorsee's reelection.
>If you want elected officials to follow your own socialist program instead of the dictates of corporate funded think tanks, you will need a "brand" that's strong enough to kill a campaign if we withdraw our endorsement.
My thought would be to get as many socialist and progressive organizations to back this pseudo-party as possible. This would serve several purposes. Firstly, it could give more legitimacy to the pseudo-party, or improve the "brand" as you say. Secondly, they could provide funding the the pseudo-party, which could strengthen its ability to fund political campaigns. Thirdly, they could coordinate their endorsements with the pseudo-party's endorsements, thus placing even more pressure on elected pseudo-party members to stick to the program. There would probably need to be some sort of convention in which representatives from a wide range of socialist and progressive organizations get together and discuss forming such a pseudo-party. I am not sure how to go about starting such a convention.

>>404264
I think changing voting methods is a good idea, but, since changing voting methods seems rather difficult, this pseudo-party strategy may have to suffice in the meantime.

>>404306
The idea is for this pseudo-party to act as a substitute for a working class party.

>>404328
If you want to "burn everything", you need to first build up a movement capable of doing so. In general, I find myself agnostic on the reform-or-revolution question. Do reform when you can and revolution when you must.

>>404348
>These people are frauds and never had a socialist agenda, as comrade Dore exposed.
Well have to figure out why they're "frauds". I doubt they're just evil people that are trying to dupe the working class; rather, they seem to have strong incentives to tone down their militancy, incentives that must be countered.
>They got there because DSA leadership are frauds. If we have our people in charge of the DSA, we could get leftists in the primaries and do what you suggest.
>Instead of a pseudo-party in the Democratic Party, why not a pseudo-party in the DSA? It's a smaller organization, so it should be easier to control, plus the rank and file members are more likely to agree with our pseudo-party than general Democratic members. So instead of trying to control Democratic nominations directly, we control DSA nominations to the Democratic Party, then use DSA's membership base to support us in the primaries.
I suppose forming a pseudo-party within the DSA could be a start, although I don't know enough about how the DSA operates to say whether or not this would be necessary. I do think that DSA members should push their organization adopt this pseudo-party strategy though, as DSA arguably is the best positioned org to form the foundation for such a pseudo-party.
>>

 No.404496

File: 1627365088011.mp4 ( 1.79 MB , 640x360 , Papa John is NOT okay (low….mp4 )

>>404407
>I don't think the vote-blue-no-matter-who types are really much of an issue, as a pseudo-party's main challenge will be winning the primaries.
The existence of the vote-blue-no-matter-who voting block is pretty much the whole point of the pseudo-party strategy to begin with. Winning the primaries isn't the main challenge, winning the election is, and winning the election is extremely difficult without the support of voters who fill in the (D) for names they don't know. All the self proclaimed "democratic socialists" in elected office right now did so by leveraging a core of left activists to vote in low-turnout primaries, winning with typically only 5-10% of the voting population of the district. That activist core can be enough to win the primary by itself, but not the general election.

>As for fundraising, my thought is to give the pseudo-party as much control over campaigning and campaign financing is possible, so that if the politician loses the pseudo-party's endorsement, they lose most of their campaign staff and funding too… I am not sure how easily they would be able to recuperate their staff and funding through other means.
I agree that we should strive to give the pseudo-party control over campaign finance, but ultimately it's going to be very difficult, especially once the candidate is in office and has name recognition. The problem is that you'll never have enough money to finance a campaign based on monthly (pseudo) party dues; ultimately you will have to rely on big individual campaign donations (I don't think direct corporate sponsorship is very likely). I haven't studied this topic much but I get the impression that campaigns are heavily dependent on "whales", the type of people who donate $27 with every spam email and ultimately spend thousands on political donations. If the pseudo-party withdraws support, those people have to be convinced not to support the candidate they like directly through ActBlue and the like. This brings me back to the problem of the (pseudo) party "brand" - when the elected official sells out, the party needs enough influence to persuade at least these donors to stop donating. This will be very difficult though, because running a primary challenger against the renegade candidate isn't much of an option - not only is success extremely rare, in FPtP voting this also opens a line of attack for the Corporate Democrats to launch their own challenger in hopes of a split left vote.

>I do think that DSA members should push their organization adopt this pseudo-party strategy though, as DSA arguably is the best positioned org to form the foundation for such a pseudo-party.
You might be interested in the Marxist Unity Slate project. Basically its objective is to promote resolutions at the upcoming DSA national convention in order to turn it into a disciplined socialist party united under a common political platform (the "Erfurt" model of the Second International if you're familiar). I think they're still split on whether or not to use the Democrat Party ballot line however.
>>

 No.404499

>>404407
>Well have to figure out why they're "frauds". I doubt they're just evil people that are trying to dupe the working class; rather, they seem to have strong incentives to tone down their militancy, incentives that must be countered.

They both trashed Cuba, trashing Cuba (as in one of the few actually socialist states that survive) is a NO-NO.

And let's be honest here,a lot of people voted for AOC for her tits, not for her succdem program.
>>

 No.404508

First, there has to be a far more disciplined organization that can hold the official line instead of this current cuckery where the least bit of hysteria over the Jan. 6 riots or whatever means to voot bloo and not primary so called progressive Democrats. At the moment organization is quite weak and oftentimes the hyped up membership is extremely armchair focused. There is the whole problem of whether dues should be required, to give one example, which shouldn't even be a question to anyone who actually intends to effect a revolutionary program. And there is the whole problem of enforcement of the demands of the base onto the elected representatives, which is currently a major problem also. Quite unfortunately the idea that socialism is but another brand holds too much sway in burgerland.
>>

 No.404517

>>404496
>winning the election is, and winning the election is extremely difficult without the support of voters who fill in the (D) for names they don't know.
Well in most primaries, all other Democratic candidates will be knocked out by the time you get to the general election, leaving only Republicans and third parties as competition. As long as you're not running for swing seat, you can be pretty confident you can win the general election after you've won the primaries. Swing seats can be difficult though, and I am not sure how best to handle them.
> The problem is that you'll never have enough money to finance a campaign based on monthly (pseudo) party dues; ultimately you will have to rely on big individual campaign donations (I don't think direct corporate sponsorship is very likely).
The pseudo-party could probably boost its campaign spending cash pool by 1) getting more members and 2) getting money from other progressive/left-wing organizations. But yeah, until then, candidates may rely more on individual donations, donations that the pseudo-party may have little control over.
>You might be interested in the Marxist Unity Slate project. Basically its objective is to promote resolutions at the upcoming DSA national convention in order to turn it into a disciplined socialist party united under a common political platform (the "Erfurt" model of the Second International if you're familiar). I think they're still split on whether or not to use the Democrat Party ballot line however.
Interesting, I hadn't heard about this.

>>404499
wat

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/15/aoc-cuba-tweet-florida-dem-499802
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/24/bernie-sanders-cuban-revolution-117279
>>

 No.404524

>>404517
Those are old,Check out the tweet and the message of AOC regarding the Cuba protests.


>We support the (counterrevolutionary obviously CIA backed) protesters
Just when people started calling her AOCIA she deleted the tweet and added.
>B-but end the embargo too pls

A total sellout.
>>

 No.404526

>>403542
Not true, our tactic should be to shitpost on ,4chan
>>

 No.404529

>>404496
>The problem is that you'll never have enough money to finance a campaign based on monthly (pseudo) party dues;
I don't disagree with this statement, but the recurring donations model makes members engaged and more likely to support your campaigns in other ways.
>>

 No.404539

File: 1627368916827.jpg ( 41.99 KB , 699x448 , Cadre Leninist fundraising.JPG )

>>404529
Oh, definitely don't construe that statement as being against monthly party dues, I'm very much in favor of making them the primary source of funding for left organization. Unfortunately however I don't think that dues alone are enough to fund electoral campaigns, unless you crank them up to "Leninist" levels that will scare away all but the most devoted activists from the party.

Another key lever of influence that I don't think has been mentioned yet is to create independent working class media that is funded by readers and viewers instead of advertising and direct sponsorship from capitalists. We've seen several coordinated smear campaigns from the corporate media succeed in bringing down leftist candidates lately: Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite, Bernie Sanders is an unelectable misogynist, etc. We need alternative media to be able to counter these coordinated smear narratives.
>>

 No.404540

I think it makes more sense to run under both the Democrat party and the Republican party at the same time as a cryptosocialist. Propose same policies but with different rhetoric arguments for them appealing to the usual idpol trash but the solutions aren't actually idpol but of course with different level of focus between parties to avoid it being too obvious.
>>

 No.404541

>>404540
The bougies are stupid but not that stupid, even if you veil class rhetoric and wealth redistribution under populism, they will still notice it and kill your campaign.
>>

 No.404544

Hot take: socialists have a better chance at winning elections by co-opting the republican party than by dealing with democrats.
>>

 No.404547

>>403648
entryism works better in a US style system where anyone can call themselves a member of a party and its difficult to impossible to kick them out
>>

 No.404548

>>404544
Literally just contrarianism
>>

 No.404551

>>404521
>>404525
Thanks for the information

>>404524
Sounds like she has mixed feelings regarding Cuba. Also looks like she managed to piss off conservatives and socialists simultaneously, which is interesting.

>>404539
>Another key lever of influence that I don't think has been mentioned yet is to create independent working class media that is funded by readers and viewers instead of advertising and direct sponsorship from capitalists. We've seen several coordinated smear campaigns from the corporate media succeed in bringing down leftist candidates lately: Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite, Bernie Sanders is an unelectable misogynist, etc. We need alternative media to be able to counter these coordinated smear narratives.
There's already Jacobin Magazine, Means TV, and a whole slough of other left-wing media outlets. The main issue would be getting people who aren't already committed socialists to be exposed to those outlets.

>>404540
The average Republican voter is far more hostile to socialism than the average Democratic voter, so I am not sure it would make much sense to run as a Republican. Even if you tried to avoid using socialist-sounding rhetoric, MAGA schizos will probably brand you a commie.

>>404544
See above
>>

 No.404554

>>404551
The right will embrace Jimmy dore and Glenn greenwald anyday over the democrat party willingness today.

Depends what type of leftist you are. If you want to shove in everyone's face how Stalin did nothing wrong and tell they must accept mao is amazing yeah you are going to fail tremendously. If you are anti establishment person who is able to postulate your ideas in popular fashion you will be accepted today by right
>>

 No.404555

>>404554
In populist fashion*
>>

 No.404564

>>404551
>There's already Jacobin Magazine, Means TV, and a whole slough of other left-wing media outlets.
The vast majority of those publications are more political magazines than media outlets. Not that those are bad at all, but there's a critical lack of leftist news sources that can replace reading Porky's press entirely. The only leftist outlet right now that can claim to do this is the WSWS, which is decent but chained to a hopelessly sectarian Trot party. Back during the SPD's heyday at the start of the 20th century, nearly every city in the German Reich had its own socialist paper for daily news, and I think this is a goal worth pursuing.

>>404544
>>404551
>>404554
The pseudo-party strategy as it stands right now depends on low turnout in the primaries. The second you announce your candidacy in the Republican primary a right wing talk show host will warn of the "communist plot" and prompt a stampede of petty-bourgies to the polling station. The Democrats will try the same thing of course, but they won't attack your socialist program directly, rather they'll try to smear you as an anti-semite and the like.

Also, while I recognize that the crypto-communist act arguably worked for Bernie Sanders, if we want to build a national level movement we can't hide our politics. I would avoid obvious trigger words like "the dictatorship of the proletariat", but in principle communists should openly disdain to conceal their views and aims.
>>

 No.404569

>>404564
You are going to have no success doing this. I'm a right winger. This is the equivalent of people on my side who want to walk around saying heil this heil that and think optics are dumb. Meanwhile the populist right people who keep things toned down and try to build alliances have far more success while the wignats get absolutely nowhere.

Learning how to socialize with people and get your message across as effectively as possible in a way it will be pleasant for them is far more important than trying to look the most communist or something like that
>>

 No.404570

At this rate, the Stalin dindu nuffin line probably could get more normies who are frustrated than the ultrawoke barrage that has gone on as of late?
>>

 No.404571

>>404551
>The average Republican voter is far more hostile to socialism
I don't think it's impossible with proper phrasing. Most Republican voters like Democrat voters prefer employee owned companies (I know not socialism but helps show where their minds really are at) and while I can't find the article there also has been a lot of Republican voters joining co-ops too. I also have my own experience talking to a drunk Republican voter I know I basically got him to start ranting about capitalists by avoiding the word and leading the discussion of how they use people and take what they earned from them.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190524005008/en/72-Of-Republicans-and-74-of-Democrats-Agree-on-This-They-Prefer-to-Work-for-an-Employee-Owned-Company
>>

 No.404575

>>404571
Right wing here again.

>By avoiding the word

Yes that is the key to it all. Do you care more about getting the heart of your message across most or do you care most about saying a specific saying to someone? The first one should be more important.

If you can lead someone to the water hole in a different method it's the better method. The end game is what matters
>>

 No.404589

>>404570
I don't think that most Americans are really bothered by "wokeness" that much. They might be put off by Tumblr types, but things like Black Lives Matter and transgender rights are pretty palpable to most Americans.

>>404571
Perhaps you can make it work with enough effort. I do think that it is important to tailor your message to your audience.
>>

 No.404592

>>404544
This will work in rural areas and the rust belt. You've got people that are seeing government services cut, like the post, and they want it back. They're open to the formation of co-ops, in fact it's easier to sell co-ops to Republicans than Democrats. Just call it American owned or community owned and Republicans will flock to the idea.

The Republican party structure isn't as top-heavy and there's less bullshit with them.

The good thing about the pseudo-party is we don't need to be loyal to any of the mainstream parties. We could run our candidates in both Republican and Democrat primaries.
>>

 No.404599

File: 1627373192096.jpg ( 44.59 KB , 640x360 , i1tmhylr7t971.jpg )

>>404592
>>404589
>>404571

https://echeloninsights.com/in-the-news/june-omnibus-quadrants/

Here scan thru this polling. (Yeah i know you may not like faces they chose there)
>>

 No.404620

>>404525
<#24: Towards Size Inclusivity

<Authors: Patrick A. (Milwaukee)

<WHEREAS 68% of women and half of men in the United States are considered “plus size”; and

<WHEREAS, as of the writing of this resolution, store.dsausa.org offers only one item in a 4XL and none in sizes larger than that, while at the same time non-specialty retail stores like Hot Topic offer many items in sizes 3XL-5XL; and

<WHEREAS the DSA is trying to build a movement of the working class and that includes fat people;

<THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the National DSA store will only offer clothing if the clothing can be offered in all sizes XS to 5XL.
>>

 No.404623

>>404620
https://youtu.be/_NdE9CjkvTY

Please watch to see DSA as it's finest
>>

 No.404632

>>404620
Sounds kinda funny, but I can see why they'd do that.

>>404623
Why do people always post that video on this site? It's literally just a bunch of cherrypicked clips compiled by a fucking conservative YouTube channel to caricature socialists as a bunch of weak snowflakes.
>>

 No.404634

>>404632
They absolutely are weak snowflakes
>>

 No.404635

>>404634
The DSA people that is
>>

 No.404639

>>404634
>>404635
Yeah I'm sure that all of their meetings are just like that compilation /s
>>

 No.404641

>>404639
People can attend DSA meetings locally and see for themselves and you can watch these entire events in their entirety that are hours long.

DSA members are disconnected from working class people and there's no way they'll form a bond with them on everyday issues and understanding.

The DSA is filled to the brim with wealthy urban people who are just extremely online living in bubbles

>Nearly a third of [DSA] members (29%) earn over $100,000 a year.

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/05/which-way-forward-for-the-democratic-socialist-left

https://twitter.com/The_Bellows_/status/1259928657641996291?s=20
>>

 No.404663

>>404632
>>404623
>>404634
>>404639
For what it's worth, pretty much every clip highlighted for mockery in that video was related to accommodations for autistic people. Things like the ban on clapping were meant to allow autists to participate who otherwise couldn't due to sensory overload problems.

I get the reasoning behind this but I still think it's excessive to ban loud noises and banner waving at a goddamn political convention. Have the quiet rooms so autists can take a break, even ban "aggressive scents" within those rooms, but let people clap in the main convention hall.
>>

 No.404710

Running in literally the world's oldest capitalist party is always going to end in tears because the party itself is organized like a capitalist business. You either compromise your principles to get elected and then have to parlay with lawmakers once in office or you get utterly crushed by the real power in the party. Stop making this mistake, we have over a century of data now demonstrating what a terrible tactic it is. Required reading for electoral strategists:
https://popularresistance.org/from-the-bottom-up-the-case-for-an-independent-left-party/
>>

 No.404712

Or, even more insidiously, the people you get to run as candidates are fraudulent social climbers like AOC who will betray the "movement" that got them elected the moment they step into office. How do you differentiate the sincere from the fraudsters and hold them accountable?
>>

 No.404715

1)Electoralism has only proven itself viable to build local power, so forget national politics.
2)Third party is not negotiable.
>>

 No.404724

The Democratic Party has a Left, a Right, and a Center.
The Right wants to move to the right, but will caucus with the Center to get stuff done.
The Center wants to stay in the center, but will work with the Right to get stuff done.
So where does that leave the Left? Either they tack to centrism (i.e. AOC, Bernie, etc) or they become politically isolated and get primaried out of office, as has happened to many a politician in the past.

>>404641
>>404663
DSA's 2021 Convention is like next week, I'm looking forward to whatever shitshow it turns out to be.
>>

 No.404731

I would like to see a Mike MacNair-style neo-Kautskyist strategy in the US where party candidates actively campaign on refusing to do anything once in office, only serving to deligitimize the system until a critical mass is reached for a new constitution/revolution, but approval or score voting and proportional representation first must be won to make that tactic possible.
>>

 No.404777

>>404599
>woke shit polls as strong as environmentalism
America is a lost cause.

>>404641
<Nearly a third of [DSA] members (29%) earn over $100,000 a year.
It would be interesting to know what jobs these people have. Are they doctors and engineers, or are they university administrators, diversity consultants etc. (because there is a shitload of money in this crap.)

>>404712
>How do you differentiate the sincere from the fraudsters and hold them accountable?
I like OP's solution, make sure no elected representative is high up in the pseudo-party and cut all ties with the representative if they are a fraud.
>>

 No.404786

Dude you saw 2020. American elections are dunzo. The remaining forms of the republic are gonna get swept away real soon. The libs are already trialing what they could do if they converted the constitution into toilet paper and ruled entirely by pure diktat. If you think the solution is voting in rigged elections, you're way behind the times. That might have worked before 2000, but by 2008 it was over. CIA put their guy in the white house and every political office is stacked with the most rancid ghouls you can find in the country. Any politician that shows even a shred of decency or political competence gets thrown out. You have a handful of somewhat competent people, but they're people like Mitch and even those people are over it. Why bother with the pretenses when the oligarchs can just run the country in an outright corporate dictatorship?
>>

 No.405109

>>404407
there is no substitute for a working class party
>>

 No.405160

>>404599
>labor
>>Joe Biden
>>

 No.405247

>>404641
>>Nearly a third of [DSA] members (29%) earn over $100,000 a year.
How much different is it in other socialist orgs? Bear in mind that more affluent people are usually the types have time and money for these sorts of things. I've heard that PSL charges pretty high dues, thus making it hard for a lot of poor people to participate.

>>404710
I've already read that. I sill don't think doing a third party right out the gate is a winning strategy at this point, considering how that has been tried and failed for decades as well.

>>404712
You revoke your endorsement if they don't follow your program. It thus wouldn't matter if they're "true" socialists or just "frauds".

>>404715
>>405109
In other countries, yes. However, the American electoral system requires a different approach.
>>

 No.405255

File: 1627409843236-0.png ( 21.46 KB , 561x556 , duvergerslaw.png )

File: 1627409843236-1.png ( 142.19 KB , 678x414 , voting systems comparison.png )

>>405247
>the American electoral system requires a different approach.
And that approach is a massive coalition to demand a competitive voting method and proportional representation. When New York City adopted proportional representation for its city council during the Depression almost immediately two Communist Party members got elected. Democrat entryism is a quixotic dead end.
>>

 No.405272

>>405255
As I stated earlier, I do think changing the electoral system is a good idea. However, we must figure out what to do under our current system, as implementing new electoral system could take some time.

I don't think Democratic Party entryism is inherently bad, although it is not ideal. I think if you take measures to minimize the influence of the party on your politicians, you should be okay.
>>

 No.405352

File: 1627413932422-0.jpeg ( 325.79 KB , 1200x1200 , 17048.jpeg )

File: 1627413932422-1.jpg ( 25.48 KB , 638x502 , OLDBIDENBERNIECHART-e15839….jpg )

File: 1627413932422-2.jpg ( 50.04 KB , 692x362 , screen_shot_2018-08-01_at_….jpg )

American Class Consciousness is at an all time high. Sanders/AOC are leveraging the 2008 crisis, 2001 AUMF abuses, and the 2020 pandemic to discredit the liberal consensus upheld by both captured major parties. We can anticipate a cavalcade of fresh outrages from both parties sufficient to supply their guns.

The Republican elite are as far gone as the "liberal' elite. But the pro worker pro union right can be reached as easily as the peasants of 1917 were. Fuck their kulak masters and they will cheer, whinge that >they< have to do still more >work< to accommodate others and they will withdraw.

Liberation is not work, it is fun for everybody and deeply uplifting in the moral sense to serve others in breaking their chains. Fellowship will arise organically from class alignment.

"Conservatives in their Master's Den"
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jthr_9gIkKo

This is useful for revolution, their (AOC/Bernie's) personal sainthood or 'goodness as people' is irrelevant 'personalities' bullshit.

Labor strikes have begun again as the rank and file begin to feel their power anew after purges, show trials, arrests, mass censorship, and hangings in the last century.

Wikishit for the toplevel only, real research is for winners.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Harris_Jones


1,100 man Ruby Red Republican Alabama Coal Strike
>https://www.laprogressive.com/coal-miners-strike-in-alabama/
Frito Lay Strike
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIX2DkZh6s8

The correct tools of the revolution are those that are available. Electoralism's purpose is not to convince mommy and daddy bourgeois to 'enact' your policy.

Read some fucking Lenin you pseuds.

State and Revolution - I can't read edition
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrfLQsyUYig
And in print
>https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

The purpose of the fight at this stage is to inform the otherwise uneducated masses of alternatives to their shitty abusive parents. Then they will make the new system. Not you the vanguard, and not boss mommy and daddy dom elected official that serves in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

To this end, the major parties having larger platforms means they should be entered. 3rd partyism would actually slow the revolution of people's liberation at this point by increasing noise.

The numbers are showing a catastrophic shift in the ideology of the people generally that is not explainable in any other terms than a willingness to break with a system that does nothing and can do nothing to better the lives of its own people because it is obsessed with padding the nest of its dying elite and cannot understand the reasons for the break.

Revolutions Podcast
>http://www.sal.wisc.edu/~jwp/revolutions-episode-index.html

While the guy above is not a Marxist, he inevitably covers the 'impartial' history of almost every revolution from Rome through America, France, and Russia.

The story of the Jacobins slide from Lafayette and Mirabeau demi-monarchists to power being held by Danton and Robespierre flaming leftists is instructive as to how 'electoral politics' are ultimately governed by the people's view. It is our duty to ensure they get signal, not noise. All else is defeatist nonsense or personality cult bullshit that will lose all ability to govern with the death of the individual person.

Washington himself ended a second revolution to protect the gains of the bourgeoisie revolution. Probably because he had the example of the English civil war in granpappy's memory to draw from. Again for worker's pay, again against the legislature that denied them.

"Gentlemen, you must pardon me. I have grown old in the service of my country and now find that I am growing blind"
>https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/newburgh-address/

The American soldiers, unlike the English and the American WWI Bonus Army after, finally got paid.

As for those who's wounds are best salved by shitting on this group or that, shut the fuck up and do something instead of the naval gazing you too often accuse 'the Trots' of indulging in. What is right is infinitely more important that who is right.
>>

 No.405801

miki is gay
>>

 No.406550

>>404575
Unfortunately I didn't fully get him to change his viewpoint because he didn't remember the conversation after sobering up. He used to be homeless and thinks welfare shouldn't exist because he sucked enough dicks to get out of that so everyone can in his mind. Even when in a drunk he still had that view. Hes an angry drunk though so maybe drunk was not best approach in that instance.

>>404589
Yes that's the point is tailoring the message to the audience. By taking it on the two major parties simultaneously it helps shift the narrative in people's eyes where they may start ageeeing on things more. Also if one were to win party nomination in both parties it becomes a win win scenario no matter who wins.

>>404599
Polls show different results with different phrased questions. For example "residents on overstayed visa" sure would not rile people up like "illegal aliens". Being descriptive and avoiding politicized words helps shake up beliefs.
>>

 No.406571

>>403542

Electoralism is destined to fail every time. The government must be overthrown to question the powers that be. After a overthrow of the government, then we can get a socialist party elected.
>>

 No.406628

The constitution has to be changed for sure, because it is megaporked and meant to counter any popular calls to redistribute. It's literally written almost in the papers of the framers that the majority must be restrained from expropriating the wealthy of their property. This also is difficult to do because of all the spooks around the sacred texts and the onerous process to ratify any amendments.
>>

 No.406653

File: 1627453440280.png ( 83.84 KB , 1200x800 , Number of striking workers….png )

>>405352
>Labor strikes have begun again as the rank and file begin to feel their power anew after purges, show trials, arrests, mass censorship, and hangings in the last century.
I've gotten mixed signals about organized labor. There was a big spike in strike activity in 2018 and 2019, but it dropped back to pre-2018 levels in 2020.

>>406571
Revolution isn't really an option at the moment. We first have to build a movement, and only once that movement is built can we figure out if trying to overthrow the government is worth the effort. Building that movement will require electoral activity, as it will have difficulty getting publicity otherwise.

>>406628
Changing the constitution would be nice, but very difficult. We first need to build a movement.
>>

 No.406657

>>406628
To change the constitution entirely would mean regime change, which is extremely difficult, unless if you run for president. Even if you run for president you still need to deal with the lower houses and stuff.
>>

 No.406679

File: 1627455681459.epub ( 151.79 KB , Senator Mike Gravel - The….epub )

>>406657
>To change the constitution entirely would mean regime change, which is extremely difficult
Mike Gravel didn't seem to think so. He makes a case in this that you can do it by forming what is basically a parallel citizens' organization that can eventually force the current regime to adopt the new constitution. The precedent is that the Philadelphia Convention didn't really respect the Articles of Confederation when the constitution was drafted and adopted, they "just did it".
>>

 No.406684

>>406679
Do you have this in pdf format?
>>

 No.406685

>>406684
No, and it's a pretty short read without a whole lot of substance frankly. I managed to summarize the main takeaway from the book in two sentences.
>>

 No.406702

run as a republican, they actually have fair primaries
>>

 No.406767

>>404731
>>405255
>And that approach is a massive coalition to demand a competitive voting method and proportional representation.
What would that "massive coalition" look like? You're certainly not going to get the support of the Republican or Democrat parties, hell the Dems refused to challenge the senate filibuster for many decades despite only needing a simple majority to abolish it. The filibuster allows for senators representing as little as 11% of the population to veto any legislation, yet the "democratic" party remained silent about this affront to democracy.

I don't think that concealing our communist views and aims by running solely on electoral reform is a good idea either. Most people don't give a fuck about abstract voting procedures and congressional apportionment, they care about real issues effecting their lives. Draw people in with reforms promising guaranteed employment, massive wealth taxes, etc, THEN point out that an anti-democratic constitution is what is keeping them from being enacted. The electoral reform legislation will be kept separate from the communist stuff, but the Democrats will inevitably refuse to support democracy because of the class interest of their donors.

>>406679
>The precedent is that the Philadelphia Convention didn't really respect the Articles of Confederation when the constitution was drafted and adopted, they "just did it".
The issue here was that the same ruling class held power politically and economically between the two conventions. The ruling elite realized they fucked up and needed a better legal framework to "protect the opulence of the minority against the great minority", so they drafted a new one without much controversy.
>>

 No.406772

>>406767
Typo, I meant to say "great majority"
>>

 No.406786

File: 1627461022552-0.png ( 35.93 KB , 720x400 , Gallup third party demand.png )

File: 1627461022552-1.png ( 32.38 KB , 720x372 , Gallup independent identif….png )

>>406767
>I don't think that concealing our communist views and aims by running solely on electoral reform is a good idea either.
Who said anything about concealing? Wide swaths of the public are simply fed up with this fucking bullshit two-party system whether they agree with the rest of our politics or not. I am simply confident that such electoral reforms will work out to our benefit more than any others.
>>

 No.406801

File: 1627461689869.png ( 702.86 KB , 942x868 , trump3.png )

I'm sorry OP but this is the most retarded strategy I've heard.

Why would anyone expend finances and resources to create a pseudo-party that has no historical influence? Nobody's gonna give a shit what some random fringe group is gonna endorse or not endorse, they will be completely ignored.

What the left needs is a tea-party movement similar to the one run by republicans. That's where the fascists all gained ground and funneled libertarians and progressive republicans towards fascist idolatry.

So anons, what should the leftist tea party look like?
>>

 No.406878

>>404731
Why would anyone vote for a candidate that promises to do nothing?
>They need to prove that reformism doesn't work and we need a revolution
Only people who are already convinced that a revolution is necessary would vote for that sort of candidate. Most people are more interested in healthcare and housing than they are in abstract concepts like "socialism" or "revolution". Thus, it would be more-or-less useless for getting more people to support a revolution.

>>406767
Well the pseudo-party could help organize this coalition. Perhaps a grouping of progressive and socialist orgs could spearhead the effort.

>>406801
>Why would anyone expend finances and resources to create a pseudo-party that has no historical influence? Nobody's gonna give a shit what some random fringe group is gonna endorse or not endorse, they will be completely ignored.
It would be created by pre-existing organizations, like DSA, the Green Party, labor unions, environmental groups, civil rights groups, and others. It would not just be a bunch of randos creating a new organization from scratch. Now I doubt any of these organizations individually has enough clout to make meaningful endorsements and campaign contributions, but having a number of these groups make coordinated endorsements, lead by the pseudo-party, could help. My thought would be for a bunch of socialist and progressive organizations hold a convention to construct this organization. Perhaps some sort of shared dissatisfaction with the current Democratic Party entryist strategy could be used to bring them together.
>>

 No.406880

>>406801
>>406878 (me)
Also, see these posts
>>404496
>>404521
>>404525
They discuss a proposal within DSA to adopt a strategy similar to the one I outlined in my OP
>>

 No.406889

Communists couldn't win elections in eastern Europe post Ww2 while the countries were occupied by the red army
>>

 No.406891

>>406889
Who said anything about communists? I advocate for a big-tent organization for a wide range of leftist tendencies. If you broaden your focus from "communists" to "leftists", then plenty of leftists have gotten parliamentary majorities in capitalist countries.
>>

 No.406908

File: 1627469747849.jpg ( 111.33 KB , 1000x485 , hoth-atat.jpg )

>>403648
>What you described is literally just entryism, where you have a covert party-within-a-party. The Trotskyists have already tried this, and while their greatest success was getting a couple Labour MPs, they got pretty quickly crushed.
There was also the case of the entryists in SSU, the youth wing of SAP during the 80s in Sweden. It's still a kinda legendary thing here.

And then there's GOP. They are facing a frontal assault, as subtle as a blizzard.

https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1419868621312991240
>>

 No.406910

File: 1627470074826.png ( 481.91 KB , 500x500 , 30dpu1.png )

>>404364
>You're half right: electoralism cannot get us to communism because of the anti-democratic "checks and balances" of the liberal constitutional regime. That doesn't mean we should abandon electoral politics in favor of exclusively street actions though, because that strategy has failed for many decades. Instead we need to use electoral politics specifically to expose the corruption of the "liberal democracy" and demonstrate why revolutionary change is needed.
Sounds like an "Anytime soon now!"-moment.

And yeah, communism has a serious branding problem. States that called themselves communists had constant brain drain etc. For instance, soviet fighter planes had the absolute minimum of fuel storage in order to stifle defections. But hey, there's always [spoiler]the argumentum ad false consciousness[/spoiler] when everything else fails. :^)

Unique IPs: 38
[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome