If the left is going to dump on electoralism, we have to present some sort of realistic alternative. Otherwise, anyone who isn't already on the left will correctly write us off as a dead end to any sort of improvement. It's just doomerism unless we offer a better idea. Consider the difference between criticizing the American healthcare system and proposing a solution like Medicare for All. Which is easier to organize around?
And it needs to be a lot more specific than something like "join a union." Unions are great, but are they going to address climate change? Are they going to dismantle police departments? Are they going to have any effect on imperialism? If you think they will, we need to lay out a clear case for how they will. If the answer is "they're not, but neither will electoral politics," then we're back to doomerism and offering nothing better.
The important point of joining unions etc is that these are more rudimentary forms of organization which are the first building steps towards something larger which regardless of what people say can also participate in electoral politics.
My thinking is that we need to draw a clear path from "our collective labor is our best political tool" to specific solutions for climate change, police violence, imperialism, etc. Because that is not clear at all right now, especially to anyone who's not already on this (or a similar) forum. The concept is good, but we can't just leave it at that. "Healthcare is a human right" is a good concept, but it's not as useful of an organizing tool as "here's a proposal for how Medicare for All would work, and here's what we need to do to pass it."
Medicare For All is already pretty easy to understand. Like, it's a well detailed law, wrote to fit in the fucking US system which is the worst case scenario.
Exactly! If someone only talks about the failures of U.S. healthcare, it's easy to write them off because they're not actually proposing a solution. Even "healthcare is a human right" isn't really a solution -- it doesn't tell you how you would deliver healthcare for everyone. It's just a statement of what should be. If this is all we're offering, people aren't going to see that as a realistic way to accomplish anything.
But Medicare for All? That's an actual bill, it expands something we already have, and we know how to pass bills and expand existing programs. It's concrete enough for people to get invested in and take seriously.
I'm saying it's not enough to criticize electoralism (in the way it's not enough to criticize existing U.S. healthcare). We need to present a concrete, realistic alternative (the way M4A is a concrete, realistic alternative to what we have now).
Cut the military. Retrain redundant soldiers to the building trades and use them and the money no longer spent on bombs and murder robots to build energy-efficient social housing.
This only works if the person we’re making the case to, especially a self avowed leftist, doesn’t say no when you tel them to read some theory. Because better minds than mine have already treaded this ground a thousand times over and having me write it out isn’t going to do anyone any better than just reading Lenin (or insert tendency preferred theorist here)
If people aren't going to read decades-old socialist texts en masse, do we give up? I would say no, which means we need to be able to make the case for socialism (which includes how we might get there) without tossing a book at someone. Especially if you've read some theory, you can do this! Like a lot of subjects, the fact that there's a deep literature on it does not mean that deep literature is necessary for understanding the core concepts.
Besides, Lenin didn't just tell people to read Marx. He rewrote the most important ideas in material directed at the specific context of 1910s Russia. Similarly, Mao didn't just tell people to read Marx and Lenin. He built off their work, but tailored it to his specific context. We have to do the same.
Fair enough, I believe we're discussing different issues. I absolutely agree when it comes to informing the non-radicalized. I was speaking more to the brand of online 'leftist' that refuses to abandon electoralism and refuses to do any research
This kind of sounds like a fast track to insular leftist reading groups.
On the list of barriers to socialism in the U.S., online leftists needing to read more theory is low. Our focus needs to be on creating more leftists first and foremost.
I think electoral politics offer at least as much to the socialist movement as any other tactic. I'm saying that if you disagree with that, "electoralism bad" -- by itself -- isn't going to accomplish anything. You have to present a solution along with your critiques or people will eventually tune you out.
If the left is going to dump on electoralism, we have to present some sort of realistic alternative. Otherwise, anyone who isn't already on the left will correctly write us off as a dead end to any sort of improvement. It's just doomerism unless we offer a better idea. Consider the difference between criticizing the American healthcare system and proposing a solution like Medicare for All. Which is easier to organize around?
And it needs to be a lot more specific than something like "join a union." Unions are great, but are they going to address climate change? Are they going to dismantle police departments? Are they going to have any effect on imperialism? If you think they will, we need to lay out a clear case for how they will. If the answer is "they're not, but neither will electoral politics," then we're back to doomerism and offering nothing better.
The important point of joining unions etc is that these are more rudimentary forms of organization which are the first building steps towards something larger which regardless of what people say can also participate in electoral politics.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
My thinking is that we need to draw a clear path from "our collective labor is our best political tool" to specific solutions for climate change, police violence, imperialism, etc. Because that is not clear at all right now, especially to anyone who's not already on this (or a similar) forum. The concept is good, but we can't just leave it at that. "Healthcare is a human right" is a good concept, but it's not as useful of an organizing tool as "here's a proposal for how Medicare for All would work, and here's what we need to do to pass it."
Medicare For All is already pretty easy to understand. Like, it's a well detailed law, wrote to fit in the fucking US system which is the worst case scenario.
Exactly! If someone only talks about the failures of U.S. healthcare, it's easy to write them off because they're not actually proposing a solution. Even "healthcare is a human right" isn't really a solution -- it doesn't tell you how you would deliver healthcare for everyone. It's just a statement of what should be. If this is all we're offering, people aren't going to see that as a realistic way to accomplish anything.
But Medicare for All? That's an actual bill, it expands something we already have, and we know how to pass bills and expand existing programs. It's concrete enough for people to get invested in and take seriously.
I'm saying it's not enough to criticize electoralism (in the way it's not enough to criticize existing U.S. healthcare). We need to present a concrete, realistic alternative (the way M4A is a concrete, realistic alternative to what we have now).
Cut the military. Retrain redundant soldiers to the building trades and use them and the money no longer spent on bombs and murder robots to build energy-efficient social housing.
This
This only works if the person we’re making the case to, especially a self avowed leftist, doesn’t say no when you tel them to read some theory. Because better minds than mine have already treaded this ground a thousand times over and having me write it out isn’t going to do anyone any better than just reading Lenin (or insert tendency preferred theorist here)
If people aren't going to read decades-old socialist texts en masse, do we give up? I would say no, which means we need to be able to make the case for socialism (which includes how we might get there) without tossing a book at someone. Especially if you've read some theory, you can do this! Like a lot of subjects, the fact that there's a deep literature on it does not mean that deep literature is necessary for understanding the core concepts.
Besides, Lenin didn't just tell people to read Marx. He rewrote the most important ideas in material directed at the specific context of 1910s Russia. Similarly, Mao didn't just tell people to read Marx and Lenin. He built off their work, but tailored it to his specific context. We have to do the same.
Fair enough, I believe we're discussing different issues. I absolutely agree when it comes to informing the non-radicalized. I was speaking more to the brand of online 'leftist' that refuses to abandon electoralism and refuses to do any research
This kind of sounds like a fast track to insular leftist reading groups.
On the list of barriers to socialism in the U.S., online leftists needing to read more theory is low. Our focus needs to be on creating more leftists first and foremost.
cool, you can get started. need a pen?
Fuck yeah, get ‘em.
I think electoral politics offer at least as much to the socialist movement as any other tactic. I'm saying that if you disagree with that, "electoralism bad" -- by itself -- isn't going to accomplish anything. You have to present a solution along with your critiques or people will eventually tune you out.
deleted by creator