29
Kshama Sawant Blew It - Ideological purity remains a dead end for the left.
(www.joewrote.com)
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 11 Aug 2026
29 points (100.0% liked)
electoralism
22281 readers
134 users here now
Welcome to c/electoralism! politics isn't just about voting or running for office, but this community is.
Please read the Chapo Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.
Shitposting in other comms please!
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
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
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
please explain to me how having 100+ years of reformism in europe has improved communist organising
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
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.
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.
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?
your theory only makes sense if your ends are to win in liberal democratic elections
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.
If winning liberal democratic elections blows up the two party system, then yes my theory makes sense
Cool, pull up the best one you agree with, let's see these profound empirically backed plans that will bring about socialism
Yes I can, it's called tactics
i personally find it interesting to talk about DSA politics, but at this point i feel like we're just talking past each other.
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.
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
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
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.