89
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2026
89 points (96.8% liked)
chat
8645 readers
369 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean, criticize the fuck out of them. These debates are happening within DSA, NYC is one of the most rightist branches in the country, and the right factions handling of controversy around electeds has always been extremely conciliatory. The branches are all buttoned up with realignment fetishists, although the left has become more organized recently. NYC DSA legit tried some local dues shenanigans that really appeared to be an effort to split from national, which is much more leftist and critical.
Running for mayor was always going to be a deeply contradictory and unprincipled endeavor. After decades of corruption, the concrete basis for socialist executive action just doesn't exist. There are pieces and parts, I think the mayoral run could move some things forward, but I also worry about how attractive electoral prospects have become to middle class progressives with a reformist/realignment theory of change. We won't really know what impact it will have until 2027 convention, which will be the largest convention ever. The Mamdani run is already having positive effects and changing mass perceptions about socialism.
But the basis still doesn't exist, we are moving from a highly sectarian period into a mass period which is going to test our movements in ways they've never been tested in our lifetimes. Did we prepare ourselves for the coming period? Or will we be left behind while dem realignment/reformists create a flawed and compromised basis for socialism that is easily discredited and brushed aside by liberals and fascists?
For me the question is, how do we engage with these electoralists? We need to dig deeper and build stronger roots in the more exploited layers of the working class. We got a large swath of the middle classes on board, great job! Now we have to build something that can serve as a counter weight to the confused individualism and idealism that is inherent to those privileged layers, before their "leadership" runs the ship aground, again, for 100+ years.
I recommend not placing too much focus on electoralists in day-to-day organizing. If we need to base build, the work for that is generally not electoral. If we need to build parties, that is generally not electoral. The common work is direct conversations, agitational events, educational programming, using coalitions to build alignment (and hopefully merge organizations), some level of labor integration, community embedding work (strategic mutual aid, community defense requested by the community, etc). Plenty to be done and plenty that builds.
In this kind of work electoralism comes up as things that liberals bring up when you talk to them. Generally you develop raps that redirect focus to the issues you're working on and the next event you're recruiting for while you sus them out, trying to charm them at the same time.
Sure, I definitely agree, as long as it doesn't lead to cutting off from members of the working class engaged in principled electoralism. Something interesting that happened in our chapter recently, is one of my comrades cochaired a campaign to change the way our city votes for city council. Currently they have 9 at large seats, we wanted the city districts to vote for their own reps. Currently city council is bought and paid for by developers who are destroying the public schools in order to get tax abatements for their gentrifying. This had real connections with existing social movement in our city, the launch discussion we had was one of the best experiences I've had in our chapter, as it brought in so many different perspectives, not just DSA people.
The start up to the campaign was long, and really difficult. It required building a coalition with much more liberal progressive groups, a painful and unstable process all the way through. Once it picked up steam and it was obvious that we were gonna get the sigs to make it on the ballot, city council starts trying to coopt, creates their own version that has 9 elected seats and 8 at large. They even name their initiative after our campaign. Obvs people don't go for it and eventually, city council gets it down to 9 and 4 at large.
We take this for a vote at a DSA general meeting. Keep in mind, we have many new and electorally minded members. Our chapter voted to accept city council's recommendation. We (that is the left which included one of the co chairs of the campaign) opposed it strongly, but many newer realignment minded members felt it was a good enough compromise.
So then, the campaign takes it to the progressive coalition. DSA members have already recommended to accept City Council's proposal. Against all expectations, the coalition voted against city councils plan, to continue to the ballot with the plan to change all city council seats to district vote rather than allow any at large seats. We were floored.
My point is, that the left's engagement in leadership from the beginning allowed us to shape the coalition, and keep the campaign on track. A lot of these people are individualistic in the way they conceive of politics, but their experiences inform them. If we can demonstrate another way, then the leaders of the existing working class, reformist and realignmentist that it may be, might decide to side with the people over the establishment, granted a principled left is capable of engaging the base and turning them out.
The problem with electoralism is that winning elections is the theory of change. However winning elections can still he an avenue toward change, given that it is contextualized within a Marxist revolutionary ToC. In that way, elections and campaigns are a quantitative measure, they are a means rather than an end. In the instance of our local campaign, we were able to like discipline the electoralists in DSA by making them face the reality that they had voted to the right of the politically active working class. None of that would have been possible by dealing with electoralism in the abstract.