ThatVeganYouHate comments on Kshama Sawant Blew It - Ideological purity remains a dead end for the left.

Kshama Sawant Blew It - Ideological purity remains a dead end for the left. (www.joewrote.com)

submitted 1 month ago by free_casc@hexbear.net to c/electoralism@hexbear.net

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ThatVeganYouHate@hexbear.net 21 points 1 month ago (17 children)

Reading this made my mind numb. Of course she couldn't do the impossible. I the end of the day I don't believe in electoralism and like the Bolsheviks leftists need simply to be organized and ready to seize in a crisis instead of trying to win votes in a bourgeois government structured to prevent shifts in power. If it weren't for the crisis in the second government and the first world war they would have never seized power and established a Communist government. The same is going to have to happen in the US with the collapse of the US financial empire.

hideshow 17 child comments

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 9 points 1 month ago (13 children)

The Bolsheviks seized power from the reformists, if the American left abandons electoralism for doomsday prepping than when the crisis hits it'll be the fascists in charge, the equivalent of the White Army already installed in Moscow, that's not a recipe for a Soviet Union, that's how you end up with Indonesia 1965

For the socdems to fail and hand the socialists the golden ticket, the reformists first have to be in government

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] starkillerfish@hexbear.net 10 points 1 month ago (12 children)

Except the Bolsheviks didn’t waste their time electing reformists. Their whole point was pointing out how useless the reformers were. Don’t pretend as if Bolsheviks endorsed the SRs or kerensky

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago (11 children)

And yet if the reformists were not in power the Bolshevik revolution would've failed because they would've been DEAD or still in exile, the weakness and "uselessness" of the reformers was the catalyst that birthed the Soviet Union. Pointing out uselessness only become effective when they were in power

Examining and replicating that dynamic for the modern conditions of the imperial core is an important benchmark for any socialist party that comes to terms with the fact it lives in the west, the socdems regardless of conditions and hypothetical victories are structurally locked in to failure and collapse, that makes them a constant engine of opportunity for emergent western socialist movements

But that opportunity will never emerge if fascists and neolibs win every election

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

Ok, but electing socdems is also how we got Nazi Germany. As far as I can tell, the Bolsheviks actually winning was essentially a fluke that has never been replicated, with each successful revolution occuring under it's own circumstances.

Pretending that there is a clear strategy to pursue here as if history is simple doesn't seem like a recipe for success.

All I know is, attaching yourself to the electoral Democratic Party, is and continues to be, a recipe for electing fascists in the U.S. The centrists will always scurry back to being fascists as soon as a Dem get elected.

I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue some amount of electoralism as part of a larger comprehensive strategy, but pretending that we know it is THE strategy is silly and doesn't mean we ever needed to root for an obvious stooge like Platner.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

No strategy is airtight and defeat is always a hairsbreadth away and I don't disagree with your assessment about the relevance of orthodox Leninism in the modern era, I was being charitable and indulgent so the local lemmygards don't throw a fit

But I disagree with the strategy not being clear, I base my assessment on empirical results and ironclad conditions; the military power of the United States is overwhelming on the domestic end, socialists are hard locked into a legalist mode otherwise it's prison or death, third partyism is a solid dead end for the left and has been for 75 years, Kshama Sawant eating shit is another data point confirming that

The immediate goal of the American socialist left should be the destruction of the two party system, the thesis is simple; socdems win elections under the empty democratic banner which leads to the neolibs pushing the self-destruct button on the party, "The centrists will always scurry back to being fascists as soon as a Dem get elected"

This results in the mass disillusionment of millions of liberals and makes third party bids viable as the former democratic base will have to desperately search for an alternative, THAT IS the window of opportunity for an independent worker's party to emerge

For this strategy to work it requires socdems to win elections and remain popular afterward, Mamdani provided a useful template in that regard

And for both the socdems and neolibs to act according to their nature; socdems will remain naive and idealstic and never see the sucker punch coming, the neolibs will remain ideological fanatics who will not tolerate a return to Keynesianism and will sacrifice the two party system to gurentee it never happens

This isn't the Golden Path, but it's the best articulable roadmap I've yet seen accounting for current conditions, unless anyone else has an alternative plan?

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

I don't think they will sacrifice the two party system, simply because there is no two party system to sacrifice. It's a one party system with two sides. They will simply become Republicans.

Not only that, but they have the resources to continue this song and dance forever, and will never give up control of the reins of the DNC, no matter how many elections Demsocs win. Winning elections never fucking mattered anyways, it was just an excuse.

What is necessary is actually radical movement that actually threatens those in power that forces the U.S. to focus more of its dwindling resources on it's internal enemies than external. They already think and act like that level of radicalism and organization exists. Why not actually deliver on it? You say we are stuck in legalism because we could be made illegal, but wasn't that always the case? And will it not become the case eventually anyways?

We have to think much more broadly, and much more long term.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

I don't think they will sacrifice the two party system, simply because there is no two party system to sacrifice. It's a one party system with two sides. They will simply become Republicans.

That's perfect! That's one way to blow up the two party system, whether they make participating illegal or third parties emerge, the results still end up with our numbers swelling and the radicalization of millions of Americans, DNC neolibs becoming Republicans is the best case scenario, they'd lose most of their base and it would destabilize the Republican party

And the necessary radical movement that could contest the powers of the US leading to a focus on internal politics simply doesn't exist and likely won't for decades; that's a question of pure military logistics, the left would need numbers that could sustain and absorb military casualties exceeding the levels of the Spanish Civil War at the least, that's requires a base of tens of millions, not hundreds of thousands of dispersed online radicals

We are stuck in legalism because to do anything else will see an individual in the trunk of a burning car with bullet holes in it, the fates of the first BLM organizers should be in every leftists mind because those are the stakes and yes I will tolerate socdems getting elected if it means the left can grow to the point where those deaths come with a hefty price for the state

We have to think much more broadly, and much more long term.

I agree, this plan is merely the first step, going from zero to one, the emergence of an independent Worker's party with national reach doesn't imply anything about it's success or it's ability to actually contest power, the only benchmark now in 2026 is mere existence

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago*

They will just become Republicans and maintain control of the DNC, is my point. As well, we already have a one party system with two faces.

That's my point is that if the consequences of organizing BLM are the same as the consequences of radical action, then don't plan for BLM.

parent

[–] starkillerfish@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

your theory only makes sense if your ends are to win in liberal democratic elections

unless anyone else has an alternative plan?

i feel like dozens of people at this point replied to you at various points over the past year with alternative positions/plans. but you are still stuck on your DSA-right agenda. im fine with that, but then you have to own your defence of socdems. you cant advocate for a communist party, a socdem party and left-lib party at once.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

If winning liberal democratic elections blows up the two party system, then yes my theory makes sense

i feel like dozens of people at this point replied to you at various points over the past year with alternative positions/plans

Cool, pull up the best one you agree with, let's see these profound empirically backed plans that will bring about socialism

you cant advocate for a communist party, a socdem party and left-lib party at once.

Yes I can, it's called tactics

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] starkillerfish@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

i personally find it interesting to talk about DSA politics, but at this point i feel like we're just talking past each other.

parent

[–] starkillerfish@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

please explain to me how having 100+ years of reformism in europe has improved communist organising

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

For one thing Europe didn't have "a 100+ years of reformism" it's had a oscillating cycle between fascism, neoliberalism and social democracy, and every time the cycle handed the fascists power the left was wiped out and every time socdems got in power suddenly twenty percent of populace became socialist, the socdems in their ignorance are useful shields for the actual left

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] starkillerfish@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

i see it very differently. i dont think debating the last century would be very productive in this thread, so i will leave this argument here.

parent

[–] free_casc@hexbear.net [S] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

the end of the day I don't believe in electoralism

Ok but this is c/electoralism

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] ThatVeganYouHate@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago (1 child)

Ok, I read the article and it reaffirmed what I believed and didn't convince me. Am I not allowed to disagree with the take of the article and must agree with electorialism to participate in a community about it when I am subject to the laws and politicians that are put into power this way? I didn't say that no one should be into electorialism, This didn't sway me.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] free_casc@hexbear.net [S] 4 points 1 month ago

must agree with electorialism to participate

Kind of, in my opinion it's equivalent to going into c/anarchism or c/Marxism just to comment about how much you disagree. It isnt impossible to have a productive discussion I suppose, but it doesnt seem like you are engaging with an open mind by my impression.

Im really not trying to be rude or anything, it is just a bit frustrating at times because anti-electoralism is the dominant view of the instance, which stifles discussion around the topic for those of us who care to engage with it. I view c/electoralism as the venue where we can set aside anti-electoralism and have those discussions, since the whole rest of the instance still exists.

parent