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.
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.