https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/1hj54jh/over_166000_people_cast_their_ballots_for_the/
The problem with PSL isn’t that people aren’t aware of them, that’s not even their main problem. The problem is that they don’t have a strategy - they don’t know how nor do they have the desire to take power to achieve actual political goals.
The Bolsheviks had a lot of debates and divergent paths to victory, but they were all planning on how to overthrow the authorities. The Chinese communists already had plans to take power even after 95% of their party members were wiped out during the Long March and rank and file cadres dwindled down to a mere few thousands hidden away in rural Yan’an.
Until the American left figured out they want to win, not merely to cosplay as protestors of the system, and actually scored major political victories, people aren’t going to pay attention to them. At the end of the day, people (even non leftists) will rally behind you once they have seen what you are capable of doing. Otherwise you might as well be selling them fantasy novels. No amount of internet memes or knocking on doors is going to change that.
Propaganda works to complement political actions, not in the absence of it.
The Bolsheviks had a lot of debates and divergent paths to victory, but they were all planning on how to overthrow the authorities. The Chinese communists already had plans to take power even after 95% of their members were wiped out during the Long March
The Bolsheviks and Chinese communists took power in periods of crisis, when the Russian and Chinese governments were significantly weakened and their societies were already in turmoil due to massive wars. Preceding these crises were decades of organizing and propagandizing. America is not in an acute crisis. The government is strong. Communists are probably not capable of overthrowing it right now. I think the goal now should be to lay the groundwork, so that communists are positioned to exploit a crisis when one does occur in the future. I believe this is what the PSL is attempting to do.
As others have pointed out, elections are one of the few opportunities in the US to run large political outreach campaigns. The PSL doubled their numbers this year by using the election as a pretense to advertise and talk to people.
My friend, Covid pandemic started just 4 years ago. Are we really trying to downplay and memory-hole the healthcare crisis that nearly brought the global economy to a halt and left millions of people dead in America, merely a few years ago?
The war in Ukraine caused unprecedented inflation not seen in decades. Even the 2009 GFC wasn’t that far away in living memory.
American capitalism is constantly in crisis. The fact that the American left hasn’t been seizing opportunities beyond mere protests, says a lot about their political strategy and ambitions.
American capitalism is constantly in crisis.
Not nearly to the same degree as China in the 40s or Russia in the 10s.
The fact that the American left hasn’t been seizing opportunities beyond mere protests, says a lot about their political strategy and ambitions.
Part of this is because they are well repressed by a strong US government. Preceding the crises in Russia and China were a gradual weakening of those governments, which allowed increasing degrees of leftist organizing and activity, which then further weakened those governments, in a feedback loop that took a while to gain momentum. We’re still fairly early in that process.
COVID is actually a great example. There was massive unrest, but a sophisticated counterinsurgency operation quelled it through a mixture of violence and multifaceted influence campaigns. There was no leftist organization strong enough to counter that federal response and capitalize on the momentum, because decades of anticommunist repression dismantled any organization with the power, inclination, and tactical knowledge to do so. Anticommunist repression is weaker now than it was in the past, but it takes time to regain that ground.
Look, you have my sympathy, but I literally just raised the example of the Chinese communist movement, where nearly 95% of the cadres were murdered by the KMT or perished during the Long March, which involved trekking thousands of miles of arduous mountainous terrains while escaping from the nationalist persecution.
The idea that the American left is so uniquely oppressed by a “strong” government is absurd. People literally died fighting the system in other places in the world. Merely a few thousand rank and file cadres made it to Yan’an as their urban bases were wiped out, and even at its weakest moment, Mao had already identified the strategy on how to defeat the much much stronger KMT forces.
In other words, they had a strategy to win. The problem with American left is that we don’t even know what their strategies are. Even if there is another pandemic in, say, 3-5 years time, they still wouldn’t have any clue how to transform this into political actions.
We’ve seen the recent CEO killing and the public reaction to it, and I can safely say that no organized political movement will come out of this.
American capitalism is always in crisis, and the problem with the American left is that they’re blind to it.
I literally just raised the example of the Chinese communist movement, where nearly 95% of the cadres were murdered by the KMT or perished during the Long March, which involved trekking thousands of miles of arduous mountainous terrains while escaping from the nationalist persecution.
Sorry but that is a bullshit comparison. Your comparison only makes sense if you ignore everything about the material conditions and only focus on "KMT was strong once too".
The Chinese communist party had a countryside to retreat to where the KMT couldn't reach. No such place exists in the US and the countryside is the most hostile to communists. And even then it wasn't until after a failed Japanese invasion that the PLA took power.
Now I don't believe you're actually suggesting US communists take to the countryside. But you're not actually specifying any alternative strategies.
FWIW what's unique about the US isn't so much it the strength of its state violence but:
- Already privatized farmland where the closest thing to landless peasants are migrant workers.
- Home ownership is still a viable dream for many. iirc there's some Engle's quote where he claims this explicitly.
As mentioned, I was responding to the statement that the American left cannot do anything because they have been uniquely repressed by a “strong” government, and gave an example that the Chinese had strategy that worked in particular to their material conditions. I used the Chinese example because I am well familiar with its history.
That “retreat to the countryside” you’re mentioning cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of comrades who were forced to trek through dangerous terrains. More than 95% of the people who started the journey did not make it.
Also, to claim that the PLA took power only after the Japanese invasion is absurd. The reforms that started in the Yan’an countryside would hold key to the ultimate mass defection of the KMT during the People’s Liberation War, who outnumbered the communists 6 to 1. The foundation for success started decades before because Mao had already identified that land reform would be the key to unleash the revolutionary potential of the feudal land-holding peasantry class.
You need to identify the strategy and start working on them because otherwise you would not have been able to seize when the opportunity arrives. No such equivalent exists in the American left today. No theory. No strategy.
And finally, the principal contradictions of American capitalism is not land, like in China’s case, it’s debt. I’ve read through PSL’s program and the word “debt” did not even come up once. How is that not concerning.
Look, you have my sympathy, but I literally just raised the example of the Chinese communist movement, where nearly 95% of the cadres were murdered by the KMT or perished during the Long March, which also involved trekking thousands of miles of arduous mountainous terrains to escape from the nationalist persecution.
I'll reflect on this, but currently the argument doesn't convince me. The Chinese communist movement didn't just decide one day to raise an army out of the blue. The fact that there was an ongoing armed conflict on Chinese soil was what allowed them to do that. Cities were being laid to waste. Villages were being burned. That makes it easier to recruit people to die, because 1) the country is already actively under contest, there is a vacuum to be fought over, so people can imagine victory even if the road is difficult, even if battles are lost along the way, 2) violence is already killing huge numbers of people, so it is not a choice between "risk death and join us, or remain in your city and enjoy certain peace," and in fact there are already many millions of people displaced from their homes who have nothing to lose but the clothes on their backs, and millions more people who fear it happening to them in the immediate future, because there is a climate of extreme and immediate uncertainty, and 3) because of the first two reasons, an ordinary person sees that it is credible for an armed movement to grow and successfully recruit other people under current conditions, and they see that other people see it too, which means that if they join the movement they might not be alone in joining it, which removes the "first wildebeest into the river" hesitation that arises in peacetime. The situation has reached a quorum for collective action where people recognize that if they act others may join them.
Unexpected struggle session thread!
As a rule I personally don't bother criticizing anyone making an effort to spread socialist / anti-imperialist ideas, that shit's hindered and suppressed enough already.
I have weaved a tangled web with this one! Very unexpected haha.
I wouldn't criticize them to non leftists but we need to have these conversations in the left
The campaign strategy is a method of using the electoral hubbub for advertising that literally opens doors and gets politically unengaged people to think about politics. It's been pretty successful in peeling potential new members off of electoralism. They've basically doubled their membership as a direct result of the 2024 campaign.
Knocking a door or handing out a flyer for a campaign with reasonable goals most people support is going to be a much more effective strategy than deploying a pop-up ad on the web or walking up to someone and saying "Do you have a minute to talk about our Lord and Savior, Josef Stalin?" which is the only thing average Americans will hear if you start trying to talk about politics outside of the educationally designated be all and end all of politics that is electoralism.
This is exactly how I understand the strategy as non member. People are primed to talk politics around the election cycle even if they are "not into politics". Its inescapable. I didn't know that about their membership growth, but I can believe it.
I don't think they've officially announced membership growth figures yet, but every local party I'm aware of has at least as many new people in their onboarding as they have existing members, plus more people wanting to join. All of those new interested people are there specifically because of the electoral campaign.
every local party I'm aware of has at least as many new people in their onboarding as they have existing members
Yeah this is basically accurate across the country. There also many small-medium cities poises to get a branch for the first time.
I do have to say that what a lot of people don't understand is that a lot of people in this country, I'd say the majority, do not pay attention to politics until major election years. They literally try to avoid it, including any discussions about it, and are scared of it making things awkward or weird. They avoid people handing them flyers in the street, the word union sounds scary and the word organizing or meetings sound exhausting, they make fun of overly political people talking to them, and they don't want to be fired by association for even talking to someone related to it. Outside of an election year where they're looking for information on who to vote for, they'll shut the door in your face for talking to them.
Running for office gives an avenue to access people who become amenable to talking and thinking about politics during the election years. During that time, people are thinking of who they want to vote for. Most people know there's issues in our system and hate both parties, but don't know what the alternatives would be. I know our local PSL chapter has basically doubled in people attending the last couple meetings since the election. Without a reason, such as political campaign, a lot of people will avoid these interactions. I doubt they'd be effective if they ran ads saying don't vote for anyone, come to our local meetings or something.
I think that there is merit to this argument if you are talking local politics, but even still I have doubts that this is more effective than dozens of other programs. Tenant organizing, labor organizing, food distributions, school supply drives, tutoring programs- there are so many things where you are actually impacting people in a way that builds sincere, strong relationships that can be mobilized to do more than just show up to vote every four years. With the amount of money and labor hours PSL throws into campaigns, resources that most colonized groups will never have in their organizing work, it is really wild to me that people are out here defending what is essentially a PR stunt. You would expect there to be some other call to action beyond donating money and voting once.
I have hope for PSL anyway, there's not much else going on in the US outside of hyper local groups, but these contradictions are certainly there and no one from PSL seems to want to acknowledge them.
Yeah, I don't see how this is dunk worthy. Assuming the numbers are accurate, that's $344k flushed down the drain for what exactly? How many homeless people did that $344k feed? Or building and maintaining community gardens? Or money that could've been given to Palestinian orgs? Where's the deliverables? And don't say awareness because if the party cared that much about awareness, they literally could just drop $100k at streamers' lap like Hasan to shill for the party or bought a bunch of ads. This $344k is essentially just a marketing campaign for the party if we're being honest.
This is why electoralism is a dead end in the US. You have to waste an obscene amount of money only to lose because you'll never outspend your opponents. And as for "well, we're participating in the electoral process to show how the electoral process is a sham," the majority of USians already don't vote. They already know it's a sham, and they're just there begging for the right people to explain to them why it's a sham. The most extreme case is Indigenous people. 99%, yes that's right, 99% rightfully saw the presidential election as the sham election that it was and refuse to humiliate themselves by going through the motions to legitimize the illegitimate settler colonial entity. PSL fielding candidates is already pointless to the 99% of Indigenous people who tune out of the election and to the 1% who are an assortment of compradors and mentally colonized individuals who humiliate themselves by licking the boots of the two parties.
They already know it's a sham, and they're just there begging for the right people to explain to them why it's a sham.
That's exactly what the campaign aimed to achieve.
My PSL local showed up for 2 weeks before the election and didn't know how to talk to voters at a public event DSA was tabling weekly at. (So twice before the election, and they stopped coming when it was over) It made it a lot harder to actually have conversations with folks because they were already turned off.
I'll be real, if anyone is trying to run a 3rd party presidential candidate I immediately assume they're not worth taking seriously. I'd rather they just talk about their politics directly or through other campaigns rather than the presidential shit, it is an immediate red flag.
I don't think it's controversial here to question psl's presidential campaigns. It's a shitload of money and member labor for a questionably unique PR win. It doesn't seem like members have a say in if, or how, a campaign is run.
I'm not a PSL member, so my opinion doesn't really matter. I'm happy they were on my ballot, but it shouldn't be verboten to question how useful the campaign is.
I'm happy they were on my ballot, but it shouldn't be verboten to question how useful the campaign is.
In the three days after the election, the party received as many applications to join as it had members. That was the point, and at that it was incredibly successful.
That's a lot! What did PSL change to be able to bring so many new members on board at the same time?
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.
We changed nothing, other then the usual refining of tactics. It is the direct effect of the campaign as a method for raising awareness and engaging new members.
I'm not asking how so many people came to apply - I'm happy saying that was because of the campaign.
My impression is that PSL (like most parties) is barely able to handle ordinary organic applicants.
Is there some sort of new process for turning these election applicants into full members?
If not, is "massive number of applicants" a meaningful metric?
The knee jerk reaction to immediately attack people for questioning it is incredibly revealing
the nature of the uncritical supporters of PSL.
I'll be clear, I am still a critical supporter of PSL, and obviously I have made my critiques known in this thread. I have seen PSL stans attack people all across left internet spaces for voicing criticism, and I've seen PSL leadership silence members for voicing criticism. There is a culture that rejects criticism in PSL, and it is anti-Marxist.
As a personal anecdote, when I visited their main chapter branch library, in the essential reading section was Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky. Stalin wasn't anywhere to be found. This was like 12 years ago. I immediately had suspicion of them from that point on, and it was before I knew anything about their history as descendants of US trots. It was before I knew over three dozen people who left the org from chapters across the country because of their covering up and protecting of SAers and transphobes who were "doing a lot of important work." I know people from multiple different chapters who had this happen in their local chapters, several of which are the trans women who were the targets of the transphobia. Even without these anecdotes and good personal reasons to have doubt in PSL, I am still critically supportive, but trying to silence a conversation about the criticisms or disregarding it without reason seems like a problem.
Stalin wasn't anywhere to be found.
We read a lot of Stalin. Foundations of Leninism is a standard text in onboarding and candidacy.
And to another comment you made in this thread about "paper members": PSL does not have paper members. Joining is an intensive process, with a year of political education and organizing training before one becomes a full member and need to pay dues. If you aren't engaged, we ask you to either recommit or leave the party.
I know you aren't just bashing PSL senselessly, but I think a lot of what you're saying is very off-base regarding party strategy and tactics. If I had more time and wasn't on my phone, I'd try to explain a lot more of my specific disagreements. I think you characterization of the composition of membership and the investment of organizing hours are both completely off. On the second half of that, I'd guess no more than 25% of my branch's organizing time was spent on the campaign this year. It was an intensive month in the spring and a few months (less intensive) in the fall. In both of those periods we engaged in all of the other normal work we do, and most of the campaign work just tied into at as a rhetorical boost.
Yeah if you have the time please do explain the disagreements and talk about what the other 75% of work your chapter is doing looks like, I'd love to know
They probably would've done more good if they just used that money to feed homeless people or donate that money to Palestinian orgs.
More direct good, maybe, but growing the party now allows them to accomplish more in the future.
One issue I see with this logic is it doesn't factor in the value of promoting PSL and it's ideals. Of course their direct action is important but the people who are going to Palestine protest or Union solidarity actions or whatever aren't the majority of Americans, even if a majority agree with those things (once you explain it using non scary commie words). The vast majority of Americans are not aware of politics other than voting Democrat or Republican every 2/4 years based almost entirely on IdPol. During a campaign PSL is showing that an alternative exist away from the ballot box as well.
How? How do the workers see the PSL campaign? They aren't in any debates, they aren't mentioned on any news. Barring a volunteer literally showing up to your house and knocking, you would have no idea they even exist. For millions of dollars over decades of campaigns, the PSL is still virtually unknown to anyone except people who are already radicalized.
They literally do knock on people's doors. People in my rural MAGAland county voted for them. Their membership is steadily growing. I don't know what else to say.
Right, that's what I said. The only way they reach people is by door knocking and meeting people personally to tell them about a presidential campaign that has no intention of winning. The campaign otherwise doesn't get to most people.
So if the solution to growing PSL membership is just knocking on doors and talking to people, why not have an organizing project that actually impacts the person you are talking to instead of one that will immediately be disregarded by 99% of the people you talk to? If you have to go knock on every door anyway, it seems like offering something of substance is a better way to get people on your side.
Getting a few fringe people in your county to vote for the campaign that won't win is something I guess, but how does that translate into those same people organizing locally to do anything? Membership growth doesn't really mean anything, DSA is huge and has actually got people elected all across the country, but having large paper membership of an org with a bad strategy and bad use of funds isn't compelling.
I don't expect you or anyone else here to really have an answer or anything, no pressure to say more if you don't know what else to say.
In the end, these are the strategies being pursued and they are a part of the moment, but I can't imagine why PSL rank and file members would be putting so much into an organization with these kind of strategies unless their education about socialism came directly from PSL. A bunch of newly radicalized people getting into politics through a specific org end up just mindlessly agreeing with that org's strategies because that's what they were told to think. Referencing Lenin's position on running candidates in parliamentary elections in Russia a century ago is not an analysis to base organizing strategy off of, and no one has been able to explain any other reasoning for PSL to do these campaigns other than "it is what the leadership who has been in power since the beginning says to do," which to me is a pretty glaring issue that PSL members will try and bully you about for bringing up.
to Palestine protest or Union solidarity actions or whatever aren't the majority of Americans
They might not be the majority of Americans but they generate 30000x the pulbicity PSL ever has.
During a campaign PSL is showing that an alternative exist away from the ballot box as well.
In what way?
to Palestine protest or Union solidarity actions or whatever aren't the majority of Americans
They might not be the majority of Americans but they generate 30000x the pulbicity PSL ever has
Which, of course, PSL has played no role in, right...
PSL strong armed to take over ANSWER and has used it as a tool for self promotion. Of course they have a loud voice in these spaces, that can't be denied, but let's not give them more credit for the movement than is due. ___
ANSWER is older than PSL and was a coalition, PSL split from WWP and strong armed the other leadership out of ANSWER.
lol
Yeah, formed by the people who split to form PSL.
Besides, that's totally irrelevant. Even if they hijacked it and you think that's bad or whatever, that still means they're the ones running ANSWER. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
PSL should have instead spent 2 billion dollars, then they would have won like the Dems.
Does anyone have any thoughts about what the PSL should be doing? I'm not usian, so I have limited info. I think since the usian public implicitly upholds liberal democracy and its elections, it makes sense for them to participate, but clearly it's not very effective.
Also, the democrats spent $2B for 75M votes, meaning they purchased their votes at ~27 dollars. Even with this uncharitable reading, PSL were much thriftier with their donations.
What their doing its fine, since they view the elections as a vehicle for propaganda.
exactly, they don't have delusions of victory or cooperation from within a coalition. they just understand that like half of amerikkkans only pay attention once every 4 years so they've got a good opportunity for agitprop
Having zero intention of winning is not an effective agitprop strategy, especially when you’re using donations made towards that end by some who are unaware of this
what exactly do you expect a vanguard party structure to do? this isn't the Duma and the amerikkkan electorate is certainly much more ideologically fascist than early 20th century russian peasants and the thin strata of proletarians that existed at the time. the basic leninist position on electoralism is that it's a good opportunity for agitprop and trying to get as much power as you can under the existing structures. i didn't say they have "zero intention" of winning, i said they weren't deluded enough to think that it was a possibility and therefore it must be part of a different strategy. i'm not a psl member, but i don't think they're as politically unsavvy as the lib jill stein greens.
also arguably having zero intention of winning in favor of agitprop is the primary current function of the democratic party and it's arguably been very effective at helping sideline and limit critical voices against the status quo. it's certainly the basis under which they collect donations. you can say you don't agree with the strategy, that you think there's some other better way that a marxist-leninist vanguard might attempt agitprop from withing the us amerikkkan political structure that doesn't involve running political campaigns for public office, but that's different than writing off the strategy entirely without reason and implying that they're grifting donators. like what do you think a psl donator is thinking exactly? "if all of us do this then they can win?"
edit: for the record, i think jabril has been making good points in this thread that are critical of psl. i also am generally of the mindset that they'd probably be better off attempting to actually organize workers locally.
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.
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?
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.
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.
the basic leninist position on electoralism is that it's a good opportunity for agitprop and trying to get as much power as you can under the existing structures.
this was the basic leninist position 100 years ago on the other side of the world, but can we truly say it applies to 2024 US politics?
La Riva's first electoral campaigns were in the 80's with the WWP. 40 years of electoral campaigns, hundreds of thousands of hours of volunteer labor, and millions of dollars have been put towards these efforts.
but can we truly say it applies to 2024 US politics?
oh no, not at all, i'm sympathetic to the vanguardists but there's a reason i don't feel convicted to join a party. i just don't think the psl are liars for doing so. i think they're perhaps dumb and ineffective. i think they're perhaps even bad at vanguardism, that they're not even maxing out on what they could reach in amerikkka because of poor organizing tactics. i don't see this as a reason to accuse them of insincerity, which to be clear, i don't think you have done. i appreciate the productive argument that maybe a vanguard party ought to attempt being known and appealing to workers.
They could actually organize workers? A novel idea to communists in the west, I know.
For the amount of money they spend on these campaigns, they would have a larger reach spending half of it on just running ads online and then save the tens of thousands of hours of labor for actually organizing workers.
Can you describe what flaw you see with this analysis? Do you think spending millions on an electoral campaign is a good use of dues? A better use of millions of dollars than some other project?
The flaw is thinking it was ever about winning an election, and not about using the election as a vehicle for propaganda. If the money converts into expanded party membership and the building of their mass movement, then it's well spent.
But I won't speak for them, from there 2020 announcement:
The PSL does not believe that the solution to the systemic problems facing the working class will come through the electoral route. The PSL is a revolutionary Marxist party in the United States that struggles for socialism. We want a revolution; and, we work hard to make it happen.
[...]
The PSL’s campaigns are meant to inspire more working-class organizing, agitation, and revolutionary consciousness. We take the ideas of socialism—a better, more just society; the way forward for humanity—to the workers and poor people in the United States. The PSL’s campaign has opened a much-needed avenue for workers to wage political combat against the capitalist establishment and their corrupt representatives.
From their 2024 announcement:
Our campaign is fighting not simply on “issues” but on the very issue of the type of organization we need to win. We are comparing and contrasting our ideas with the major capitalist parties, but also comparing and contrasting our organization strategy to that of other progressive currents. We need socialism to solve the ills of capitalism, and we need a revolutionary party to establish socialism. We are running to explain why both things must happen if we want a better future
So PSL needs to spend millions on a failing electoral strategy because it is .... a mechanism for advertising PSL? This to you is a good use of that much money?
Instead of organizing any workers they just advertise their ideas and then what? Somehow that creates a revolution? They want to "inspire more working-class organizing" but what working class organizing is PSL involved in? I've been organizing in one of the biggest cities with one of the biggest PSL chapters in the country for over a decade and PSL is virtually unknown to any workers here. The only people who know PSL here are the PB college kids who volunteer for them (and eventually leave because they have terrible internal structure and protect abusers), and other leftist in the area who see them as grifters who show up to events to try and recruit without contributing anything to the action taking place. The local DSA chapter has stronger ties with both labor and tenant movements than PSL, which is a fucking joke.
I'm a fan of breakthrough news but there is no merit in the argument that millions on electoral campaigns is growing any revolutionary movement. PSL is not a mass party, it is not made up of the masses. Much like DSA it is made up of overwhelmingly white college students and college graduates who look nothing like the masses and who the masses do not interact with. Growing paper membership to funnel them into an electoral campaign to grow paper membership serves the people at the top of PSL, and no one else
But they don't even get the party name on most of the ballots, they run under different parties. Like California, where nearly half their votes came from they run on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket.
How does that promote PSL? Even just the bare minimum of name recognition, it seems like money poorly spent. Not to mention the reputation of being a 'third party' is ... not great and will cause most people to just dismiss them outright.
You want the membership to reflect the working class not political wonks who pay too much attention to electoral politics.
This is true in many states and even something they acknowledged in their 2024 announcement:
There are few things more vilified in the mainstream political conversation than “third party” campaigns for president. Candidacies outside the two major political parties are called spoilers. Those who vote for alternatives are portrayed as petulant, privileged, people who can afford to vote third party.
There are tremendous hurdles for third party candidates. Among these hurdles are the state-by-state thicket of rules, restrictions and astronomical petition requirements that make it nearly impossible to appear on most voters’ ballots without huge sums of money or armies of volunteers. So, why run? Because this election cycle is another key opportunity to show the necessity of socialism and help build a movement to achieve it.
It is a major contradiction within American electoralism. The two parties have established rules so stringent they're almost impossible to abide by and become an official party on the ballot.
Part of their campaign focused on how the parties waged litigation against their campaign to keep them off the ballot in a number of states.
3rd party participation I think went up across most of the 3rd party options in this recent election. In many ways the campaign appeared to be an effort to increase support for all 3rd parties, explicitly greens and independents.
I'm not sure if it matters that their name didn't match on the ballot. I had to write in to cast a vote for them in my state. I don't see that as any different then choosing the affiliated party in CA. If you are that tuned into the PSL campaign, you've seen the instructions on how to show your support via the election process.
As an outsider to the party I think their stated goals around their campaign and the nature of the content of their campaign is consistent. If the campaign is ultimately helping the party would be better answered by party members.
The two parties have established rules so stringent they're almost impossible to abide by and become an official party on the ballot.
So why choose the structurally most difficult path?
If you are that tuned into the PSL campaign, you've seen the instructions on how to show your support via the election process.
They will never win an election if that is the level of effort needed to get votes.
I'm not sure if it matters that their name didn't match on the ballot.
I literally can't even. Genuinely what is even the point? Are you trying to get people here to not like PSL? This is a total joke.
Look, I'm not trying to be mean but every thread that comes up about PSL's campaign here I just see this same fundamental unseriousness from people who champion them. It's frustrating seeing an obviously well funded ostensibly socialist party waste so much money on this nonsense.
As a non member I can't speak to "what even is the point" but I'll direct you to these comments: https://hexbear.net/comment/5758536 and https://hexbear.net/comment/5758523. If the point is to increase party membership, and if we take these comments at face value, then it seems to be working for the PSLs goals.
So again, I don't believe, based on what they say about their own election campaign, that the goal is to get "votes". Even using the commenters math above the dems had a hire cost per vote then the PSL. Draw your own conclusions there.
But if party activity and membership is as those commenters say, then that is at least one byproduct of their efforts. You're asking questions of me that I can only speculate on. There are plenty of party members here and around here who can give you the parties insights.
What I know is that the conversation during the election surrounding their campaigns, discussions about those issues of how to vote for them, if you can vote for them, if their ballot status was being challenged was definitely fomenting negative sentiment about the electoral process. I even learned some very stupid election rules for my state as a result (write-in lists are not allowed to be published online). If, as a party, you are primed to use that frustration to convert people into members, then I think I understand the goal.
All I can do is speculate. I'm sure PSL members here can better articulate the goals of the party regarding the campaign.
Yeah sorry, my frustration isn't with you. I understand the intent of the campaign. I just fundamentally disagree that it accomplishes those goals, or maybe more specifically, the price they pay for those members is too high. Now obviously their membership isn't public and them growing is a good thing, but I would like to see those numbers in a year or two. Do the people who join because of the campaign stick around? Do they only work on the campaign? Does the campaign cause people to burn out? etc. etc.
They need to demonstrate competence to deserve the label 'vanguard' and using the same strategy as all the other third parties just doesn't cut it for me. But I wish them luck.
I agree with all of this honestly. I think the analysis by this redditer is deeply flawed especially since they seem under the impression the PSL cares about winning the national election instead of their stated goals. I know your frustration wasn't with me, and that's why I'm not really trying to refute your points.
Sure. First, image op makes a spurious claim about PSL use of funds, moving on without explaining where/why/how national elections is simply "a way for PSL to move money to the consultant class".
Then they admit their math is "far from perfect", but forge ahead anyway with the frankly ridiculous idea that the ratio of dollars to votes would somehow continue to hold true at scale.
I think the acknowledgement of poor math is merely to say "don't nitpick this" but pay attention to my final point.
How do you think about the point that electioneering for the national bourgeois American elections is a trap which sucks in resources and time that could be better spent elsewhere?
That both op and you are using leading language like "better spent elsewhere" and assuming the reader will follow along when this reader wonders who both of you think you are talking to? You are talking to a communist. Do you think we're just gonna sit and be told our money donated to help them win should be spent on something more "practical"?
Guess i should be exceptionally clear: you and they sound ridiculously, purposefully rude and paternal, clearly not understanding much or caring to learn either.
Why wouldn't we make fun of illogical logic delivered with naive confidence?
Clearer?
"exceptionally rude and paternal"
Says others are rude and paternal, structures sentences like:
"Guess I should be exceptionally clear"
Clearly you're the master of mature and respectful communication 🙄
Here's me being more direct. How is spending your disposable wages on getting 700 thousand votes in a national election doing anything productive for some greater cause or project? Because you say you're not gonna be lectured about it but you ain't exactly said anything in response to the question. What use might be found in 700k in a major union organization drive? Or using 700 dollars a piece to get a 1000 homeless people set up with more permanent shelter? These basic examples seem like a much better way of building meaningful support for a cause than the spectical of the election.
Unless you have a solid answer for that I will continue my "naive paternalistic" questioning of the methods of the party I put my dumb vote in for.
Weeeeeellllllll......
what would you say if i.... Came in hot, fucked up and didn't notice you weren't jabril, and made an ass of myself?Imagine my surprise when i got a reply from someone i thought i blocked.. hehe... Heeh.... and so picked up a paternal tone and fuck me, i am sorry.
I'll give you a more proper answer to your question but after i take some time to get this egg offa my face
Lmao go back to reddit
Edit: because you're doing the um actually posting being criticized by OP but way harder and more cringe
Aw, don't be that way, teach me how I'm wrong. If i misread you I'm prepared to both apologize and to be educated.
After your edit Edit: shoooo "go back to reddit" and soundin like youre still there.
Teach you how you're wrong? You didn't say anything of substance, just being hyper critical and aggro of benign statements and making a false claim which someone already corrected you about. You pulled a "do you even know who you're talking to" to anonymous strangers on the internet because they asked basic questions about why wasting millions on electoral campaigns that have failed to produce any value for over three decades is a revolutionary strategy. Instead of having any response to a valid question you just got angry that someone asked it.
"a way for PSL to move money to the consultant class"
The post does not say that. The post is talking about USAmerican elections in general being a way to move money to a consultant class.
Which consultants took PSL money? Can you name the firms or people that were paid? Or are you referring to printing costs or costs of running online ads?
Ask the person who the OP is about. I was merely correcting a misunderstanding.
A Reddit link was detected in your post. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
