If the purpose of the campaign is essentially just an advertisement then they could literally just spend money on targeted ads. At least that would be honest.
the amerikkkan electorate is certainly much more ideologically fascist than early 20th century russian peasants
The American electorate primarily does not vote. And if it is ideologically anything it is incoherent.
The money they waste on the campaign would be much better spent setting up chapters in rural areas so there is a real option to the hegemonic chudness. It's also way easier to win elections when the electorate size in any race is in the hundreds not hundreds of thousands.
Yeah, dude. I know for me, if there's anything that makes me want to look at, research, and think about something, it's targeted ads. I definitely don't use AdBlock like everyone else under 35.
I'm not trying to silence disagreement or anything, I just think that's a deeply unserious suggestion.
I definitely don't use AdBlock like everyone else under 35.
This is just objectively not true. Also the point would be to target 'normal' people not terminally online people like us. But it's beside the point, I was just saying if you're gonna throw money at something, that would be a better use of funds.
They should make a concerted effort to win local elections. Or focus on one particular state and truly try to flip it. But I get either of those paths are harder than doing a press tour.
The money they waste on the campaign would be much better spent setting up chapters in rural areas so there is a real option to the hegemonic chudness
The campaign was exactly the vehicle to do that. My branch is now poised to do serious organizing in multiple outlying rural communities, and every single one of the people in those areas who signed up cited the presidential campaign as how they found out and decided to get involved. The money wasn't just dumped into a garbage disposal labeled "campaign". The campaign was tied into all our organizing work in order to boost the profile and interest, and every single thing we see shows that it was successful at that.
I'm not saying it does nothing. I'm saying it's a waste because I think the party could achieve much more per dollar/hour of organizing by organizing for something more substantial than an outreach campaign and also avoid the stigma of being a 'third party'.
I'm glad it's growing regardless, I have my doubts about their retention but I won't prejudge that. Do you know if there is any long term plan to merge with the Peace and Freedom party or the SLP? Or what the party is planning on doing with the influx of new members?
Do you know if there is any long term plan to merge with the Peace and Freedom party or the SLP?
Don't know what SLP is. For PF, I wouldn't know because that's entirely a California thing.
Or what the party is planning on doing with the influx of new members?
I just said in another comment so copy paste
Lots of group onboarding processes that can bring together a large group of prospects and involve them in educational and organization opportunities for a few months while we formally onboard in small batches. It winnows out folks who aren't very serious and giving the ones who are much firmer footing when they get brought in.
i can't say i really disagree with you, although i don't think campaigning is an inherently dishonest means of agitprop. i would like to again reiterate that the bolsheviks ran for and attained office to further their revolutionary goals while not planning on maintaining the existing political structures or using them to directly effectuate a coup. i am not saying that the psl is the same as, similar to, as competent as, etc. etc. as the bolsheviks; i am not comparing them in detail. i just don't think the bolsheviks were not being honest by running for seats in the Duma while planning its destruction.
that said, i am not in psl, i don't probably want to be, and therefore i have absolutely no data on what tactics might be more or less effective for them to pursue. i am not particularly convinced that it makes sense for a vanguard party to succeed in amerikkka because of the vast difference in material conditions between the dying russian empire of the early 20th century and 21st century us empire. i mostly agree with the take especially that none of the electioneering can matter if they aren't doing a very good job actually reaching workers, as jabril contends in this thread.
mostly, i just do not think the assertion without argument that donating to them if they know they won't win makes them dishonest, or without data that it is necessarily ineffective. we must make our arguments with data and without prejudice. thought-terminating cliches benefit no comrades.
although i don't think campaigning is an inherently dishonest means of agitprop
Campaigning with the express intent to not win is dishonest. It is literally the exact opposite of the purpose of a campaign.
i would like to again reiterate that the bolsheviks ran for and attained office to further their revolutionary goals
I would join tomorrow if they actually focused on local elections. And I don't mean congressional elections, at least at first, they have to start small. And not just California, or at least not in LA or SF.
i just don't think the bolsheviks were not being honest by running for seats in the Duma while planning its destruction.
I agree, but they were explicit in their intentions and they could actually reach people. We also don't have a parliamentary system, the dynamics are just not the same.
we must make our arguments with data and without prejudice
I also agree. Let's just say if their membership was something to brag about, they would.
Campaigning with the express intent to not win is dishonest. It is literally the exact opposite of the purpose of a campaign.
the only, and i do mean only, issue i really have with any of the criticisms you're making is this. i don't think it makes sense to say that they have "the express intent not to win." that isn't equivalent to a realist attitude towards elections for amerikkkan third party candidates. no one but Ds and Rs are going to win national elections. to be clear: i am not commenting one way or the other on whether their strategy is appropriate or effective. it just seems to me that this is a backwards way of saying "all third party candidates are inherently dishonest." which honestly, i think there's probably a compelling argument for that position. however, i don't think it's a productive means of criticizing psl to not make that argument outright. is every donation to a third party candidate with low polling a scam initiated by the campaigner? probably, but if so we should argue that to people when making the case against a vanguard party refusing to start local instead of saying that they're doing scams because they're trying to lose.
i don't think it's a productive means of criticizing psl to not make that argument outright
Fair. But I don't think being dishonest about the purpose of the campaign (and really only by omission since most people would only hear that they are running, not the intent behind it) is inherently a scam. It's just a bad look. I think people look at successes in Europe and think they can just do the same things here and expect similar results. But the political structure here just doesn't allow those kind of serious 'third parties' challenges.
Obviously this isn't like an official PSL board or something but the last time there was a big thread about their campaign (that I noticed) I got huge push back for suggesting they run local candidates instead and not make a point of focusing on foreign policy positions for like school board campaigns and whatnot. Though this thread is more critical of the campaign than that one.
If the purpose of the campaign is essentially just an advertisement then they could literally just spend money on targeted ads. At least that would be honest.
The American electorate primarily does not vote. And if it is ideologically anything it is incoherent.
The money they waste on the campaign would be much better spent setting up chapters in rural areas so there is a real option to the hegemonic chudness. It's also way easier to win elections when the electorate size in any race is in the hundreds not hundreds of thousands.
Yeah, dude. I know for me, if there's anything that makes me want to look at, research, and think about something, it's targeted ads. I definitely don't use AdBlock like everyone else under 35.
I'm not trying to silence disagreement or anything, I just think that's a deeply unserious suggestion.
This is just objectively not true. Also the point would be to target 'normal' people not terminally online people like us. But it's beside the point, I was just saying if you're gonna throw money at something, that would be a better use of funds.
They should make a concerted effort to win local elections. Or focus on one particular state and truly try to flip it. But I get either of those paths are harder than doing a press tour.
The campaign was exactly the vehicle to do that. My branch is now poised to do serious organizing in multiple outlying rural communities, and every single one of the people in those areas who signed up cited the presidential campaign as how they found out and decided to get involved. The money wasn't just dumped into a garbage disposal labeled "campaign". The campaign was tied into all our organizing work in order to boost the profile and interest, and every single thing we see shows that it was successful at that.
I'm not saying it does nothing. I'm saying it's a waste because I think the party could achieve much more per dollar/hour of organizing by organizing for something more substantial than an outreach campaign and also avoid the stigma of being a 'third party'.
I'm glad it's growing regardless, I have my doubts about their retention but I won't prejudge that. Do you know if there is any long term plan to merge with the Peace and Freedom party or the SLP? Or what the party is planning on doing with the influx of new members?
Don't know what SLP is. For PF, I wouldn't know because that's entirely a California thing.
I just said in another comment so copy paste
Lots of group onboarding processes that can bring together a large group of prospects and involve them in educational and organization opportunities for a few months while we formally onboard in small batches. It winnows out folks who aren't very serious and giving the ones who are much firmer footing when they get brought in.
i can't say i really disagree with you, although i don't think campaigning is an inherently dishonest means of agitprop. i would like to again reiterate that the bolsheviks ran for and attained office to further their revolutionary goals while not planning on maintaining the existing political structures or using them to directly effectuate a coup. i am not saying that the psl is the same as, similar to, as competent as, etc. etc. as the bolsheviks; i am not comparing them in detail. i just don't think the bolsheviks were not being honest by running for seats in the Duma while planning its destruction.
that said, i am not in psl, i don't probably want to be, and therefore i have absolutely no data on what tactics might be more or less effective for them to pursue. i am not particularly convinced that it makes sense for a vanguard party to succeed in amerikkka because of the vast difference in material conditions between the dying russian empire of the early 20th century and 21st century us empire. i mostly agree with the take especially that none of the electioneering can matter if they aren't doing a very good job actually reaching workers, as jabril contends in this thread.
mostly, i just do not think the assertion without argument that donating to them if they know they won't win makes them dishonest, or without data that it is necessarily ineffective. we must make our arguments with data and without prejudice. thought-terminating cliches benefit no comrades.
Campaigning with the express intent to not win is dishonest. It is literally the exact opposite of the purpose of a campaign.
I would join tomorrow if they actually focused on local elections. And I don't mean congressional elections, at least at first, they have to start small. And not just California, or at least not in LA or SF.
I agree, but they were explicit in their intentions and they could actually reach people. We also don't have a parliamentary system, the dynamics are just not the same.
I also agree. Let's just say if their membership was something to brag about, they would.
the only, and i do mean only, issue i really have with any of the criticisms you're making is this. i don't think it makes sense to say that they have "the express intent not to win." that isn't equivalent to a realist attitude towards elections for amerikkkan third party candidates. no one but Ds and Rs are going to win national elections. to be clear: i am not commenting one way or the other on whether their strategy is appropriate or effective. it just seems to me that this is a backwards way of saying "all third party candidates are inherently dishonest." which honestly, i think there's probably a compelling argument for that position. however, i don't think it's a productive means of criticizing psl to not make that argument outright. is every donation to a third party candidate with low polling a scam initiated by the campaigner? probably, but if so we should argue that to people when making the case against a vanguard party refusing to start local instead of saying that they're doing scams because they're trying to lose.
Fair. But I don't think being dishonest about the purpose of the campaign (and really only by omission since most people would only hear that they are running, not the intent behind it) is inherently a scam. It's just a bad look. I think people look at successes in Europe and think they can just do the same things here and expect similar results. But the political structure here just doesn't allow those kind of serious 'third parties' challenges.
Obviously this isn't like an official PSL board or something but the last time there was a big thread about their campaign (that I noticed) I got huge push back for suggesting they run local candidates instead and not make a point of focusing on foreign policy positions for like school board campaigns and whatnot. Though this thread is more critical of the campaign than that one.