I’m not outright dismissive of the idea in the sense that there absolutely does exist a huge void in Virginia, and the rest of the US, for organized working class politics. The two party stranglehold is increasingly strained, and with the mounting and overlapping crises of capitalism, neither party has anything to offer workers besides rhetoric and austerity.
The conditions do exist for the formation of a working class alternative, and indeed, when polled, a consistent majority of Americans have pointed to the need for an alternative to the major parties.
This void is not going to be filled by socialists running in what is the oldest capitalist party in the world, socialists who will inevitably be roped into a defense of the enemy class, it’s going to be filled by a force that breaks with the Democrats on a class basis.
I think people truly underestimate just how quickly that organized, class independent working class politics could be a major force in American politics. There is a tremendous appetite for an alternative to a capitalist status quo of degradation and crisis, and this is a period where tremendous shifts in consciousness can, do, and will occur. The BLM protests this summer, the largest in US history and, unlike previous mass movements, involving segments of the working class in the rural Midwest and south, demonstrate the real and tangible opportunities for us.
Lee Carter is not going to fill this void as an individual and he will absolutely not be able to put forward clear working class perspectives if he holds higher office in the Democratic Party. Whatever he’s doing now with the insulin bill or other progressive policies, will be increasingly subject to forced compromise on lines set by the ruling class as he rises through the ranks of the Democrats.
If Carter breaks with the Democrats, if he presents working class perspectives clearly differentiated from the continuous betrayals and bullshit of the Dems, his national profile on the left could absolutely serve as a point of attraction for organizing the working class politically. I don’t know whether he would be able to win an election for governor, but I think the level of popular support would surprise many comrades here.
I don’t know whether he would be able to win an election for governor
It is effectively impossible to win any significant political office in the US as a third party or independent, with the rare exception of individuals who are celebrities outside of politics i.e. Jesse Ventura. There are just far, far too many voters who will select either D or R and never move off that, regardless of the candidate. I'm not even totally sure AOC would win if she ran as a third party candidate.
If socialists want to serve in office (and I think we should), there is no choice other than to operate within the Democratic party.
Choosing to operate in the flailing corpse of the Democratic Party, being dragged into abandoning any sort of working class appeal or socialist perspective, tying your horse to a Dem party that will govern using austerity, white supremacy, and repression of dissent from the left, is not a choice. It’s just not a way forward for socialists, even if you can “win” elections.
Acting like people are permanently tied to the two parties of capital, that consciousness is fixed and never shifting, that the working class would never consider an alternative before they’ve even been presented that alternative, is not an accurate or productive way of thinking about the situation.
It is effectively impossible to win any significant political office in the US as a third party or independent
No, no, no. You don't understand. The Democrat label is bad. You literally cannot call yourself a Democrat without becoming corrupted by the dark magics that infest the party.
You need to create a third party, because third parties are pure and sweet and invulnerable to the temptations of power. Third parties are clean, while the Democrat party is dirty and foul. Third parties are honest, where as the Democrat party is a miserable lie. Third parties are formed only of the most true-hearted proletariat, never careerists or ideologues whose judgement might be clouded by ambition and pride.
Only by abandoning the (D) label can Carter successfully run for a higher office. I won't even hear you discuss the mathematical problem created by entrenched two-party interests or the volume of extra work necessary to obtain name recognition or the inevitable Naderite reactionary force you run up against in a third party bid.
Third Party Good. Dem Party Bad.
Any argument to the contrary is wicked devil talk, and proves you aren't serious about leftism at all.
a force that breaks with the Democrats on a class basis.
I recently saw an interview with Bashkar Sunkura where he said that "taking over the democratic party" and "establishing a new party" shouldn't be different strategies, they're only different outcomes.
I think he’s deliberately obfuscating that distinction, having heard him speak on it a few times. Changing the class nature of a centuries-old capitalist party, and going about the process of building an organized, independent political alternative, are two very different tasks. Bhaskar has generally favored working in (and inevitably with) the Dems, and, at least from what I’ve heard from him, his strategy for breaking with the Dems goes through the dem party.
And the prospects for success are not the same. Despite the electoral success of progressive Dems, the party on the whole is continuing to track to the right! For example, Biden’s “fig leaf” to the left on healthcare in 2020 was objectively worse than Clinton’s offer in 2016, and this is after a series of campaigns with socialized healthcare as the key issue. And the highest profile socialists in the dem party are bullied into being team players and supporting this state of affairs. It’s hard to make the case that the Democrats, and the capitalists they serve, are the enemy when you are hamstrung by literally governing in that party.
going about the process of building an organized, independent political alternative, are two very different tasks
I'm not denying that (and I don't think he is either). If you look at the historic successes of third parties and the recent succes of social-democratic candidates inside the democratic party, I don't understand how you can deny that participating in primaries in the democratic party is a succesfull strategy for the left. Participating in those doesn't mean you don't form your won political line, it does not mean you become subservient to the party. Some high profile individuals have done that in 2020, but DSA didn't.
his strategy for breaking with the Dems goes through the dem party.
Yes, that is correct. In a scenario like what's ahppening with Corbyn in the UK at the moment you could make such a break if you're willing to fight (unlike the British left is doing, regrettably). The fact that he's already making that intention clear now, shows prospect.
Changing the class nature of a centuries-old capitalist party
The democratic party has over 45 million members . Many of those people are working class, by defenition (the bourgeoisie isn't that big). The consciousness of the working class in the US simply isn't that great that you can just abandon this structure.
By the way, I would also like to make the extra point that what is called a "political party" is very dissimilar to political parties in the rest of the world, and I think this is a crucial point to make in this debate. A political party in the rest of the world is a private entity where individuals can join if they pay a fee, and in return they have a say in the political programme of the party. The "parties" in the US are of a completely different nature: you register with the governement to which one you belong, and in return you can participate in an electoral process. In that sense, they are much more similar to the first round of a two round electoral system (like in France for example) than to a party. They 're not 100% the exact same, but I believe this framing is helpfull to understand the role of primaries in the democrats.
If you understand parties in this sense, an organisation like DSA despite not being considered a "party" is is behaving like one, and the democratic party isn't.
Changing the class nature of a centuries-old capitalist party
You're reading this backwards. The parties are capitalist because the country is capitalist. It's a consequence of the prevailing economic system, not the force behind it.
Any new party will be just as vulnerable to the temptations created by public-private revolving doors, corporate money and manpower, and the ambitions of its less ethical members as the existing two. There will be nothing incorruptible about a New American Labor Party's leadership, should it ever gain enough traction to start winning seats. No more than the DSA or the Greens have been immune to temptation.
Despite the electoral success of progressive Dems, the party on the whole is continuing to track to the right!
The biggest right-shift of the party occurred in the Reagan Era, when the DLC began its take-over by running candidates and winning races in historically labor-friendly midwestern states. The FDR/LBJ wing of the party lost out to the Clinton wing in the same way the Liberal Republicans were ousted by the Tea Party.
Progressives are just now beginning to stake claims to the party leadership again, and this sub's response is "Bernie didn't win! Fuck it, let's do the Ralph Nader thing again!"
If there's one thing folks like Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, and Donald Trump have consistently demonstrated, it's the third parties are a losing game. At best, you still end up caucusing with a Big Two party. At worst, you get Nader-ized and you end up alienating your would-be base by the "spoiler" tag.
I’m not outright dismissive of the idea in the sense that there absolutely does exist a huge void in Virginia, and the rest of the US, for organized working class politics. The two party stranglehold is increasingly strained, and with the mounting and overlapping crises of capitalism, neither party has anything to offer workers besides rhetoric and austerity.
The conditions do exist for the formation of a working class alternative, and indeed, when polled, a consistent majority of Americans have pointed to the need for an alternative to the major parties.
This void is not going to be filled by socialists running in what is the oldest capitalist party in the world, socialists who will inevitably be roped into a defense of the enemy class, it’s going to be filled by a force that breaks with the Democrats on a class basis.
I think people truly underestimate just how quickly that organized, class independent working class politics could be a major force in American politics. There is a tremendous appetite for an alternative to a capitalist status quo of degradation and crisis, and this is a period where tremendous shifts in consciousness can, do, and will occur. The BLM protests this summer, the largest in US history and, unlike previous mass movements, involving segments of the working class in the rural Midwest and south, demonstrate the real and tangible opportunities for us.
Lee Carter is not going to fill this void as an individual and he will absolutely not be able to put forward clear working class perspectives if he holds higher office in the Democratic Party. Whatever he’s doing now with the insulin bill or other progressive policies, will be increasingly subject to forced compromise on lines set by the ruling class as he rises through the ranks of the Democrats.
If Carter breaks with the Democrats, if he presents working class perspectives clearly differentiated from the continuous betrayals and bullshit of the Dems, his national profile on the left could absolutely serve as a point of attraction for organizing the working class politically. I don’t know whether he would be able to win an election for governor, but I think the level of popular support would surprise many comrades here.
It is effectively impossible to win any significant political office in the US as a third party or independent, with the rare exception of individuals who are celebrities outside of politics i.e. Jesse Ventura. There are just far, far too many voters who will select either D or R and never move off that, regardless of the candidate. I'm not even totally sure AOC would win if she ran as a third party candidate.
If socialists want to serve in office (and I think we should), there is no choice other than to operate within the Democratic party.
Choosing to operate in the flailing corpse of the Democratic Party, being dragged into abandoning any sort of working class appeal or socialist perspective, tying your horse to a Dem party that will govern using austerity, white supremacy, and repression of dissent from the left, is not a choice. It’s just not a way forward for socialists, even if you can “win” elections.
Acting like people are permanently tied to the two parties of capital, that consciousness is fixed and never shifting, that the working class would never consider an alternative before they’ve even been presented that alternative, is not an accurate or productive way of thinking about the situation.
No, no, no. You don't understand. The Democrat label is bad. You literally cannot call yourself a Democrat without becoming corrupted by the dark magics that infest the party.
You need to create a third party, because third parties are pure and sweet and invulnerable to the temptations of power. Third parties are clean, while the Democrat party is dirty and foul. Third parties are honest, where as the Democrat party is a miserable lie. Third parties are formed only of the most true-hearted proletariat, never careerists or ideologues whose judgement might be clouded by ambition and pride.
Only by abandoning the (D) label can Carter successfully run for a higher office. I won't even hear you discuss the mathematical problem created by entrenched two-party interests or the volume of extra work necessary to obtain name recognition or the inevitable Naderite reactionary force you run up against in a third party bid.
Third Party Good. Dem Party Bad.
Any argument to the contrary is wicked devil talk, and proves you aren't serious about leftism at all.
I recently saw an interview with Bashkar Sunkura where he said that "taking over the democratic party" and "establishing a new party" shouldn't be different strategies, they're only different outcomes.
I think he’s deliberately obfuscating that distinction, having heard him speak on it a few times. Changing the class nature of a centuries-old capitalist party, and going about the process of building an organized, independent political alternative, are two very different tasks. Bhaskar has generally favored working in (and inevitably with) the Dems, and, at least from what I’ve heard from him, his strategy for breaking with the Dems goes through the dem party.
And the prospects for success are not the same. Despite the electoral success of progressive Dems, the party on the whole is continuing to track to the right! For example, Biden’s “fig leaf” to the left on healthcare in 2020 was objectively worse than Clinton’s offer in 2016, and this is after a series of campaigns with socialized healthcare as the key issue. And the highest profile socialists in the dem party are bullied into being team players and supporting this state of affairs. It’s hard to make the case that the Democrats, and the capitalists they serve, are the enemy when you are hamstrung by literally governing in that party.
I'm not denying that (and I don't think he is either). If you look at the historic successes of third parties and the recent succes of social-democratic candidates inside the democratic party, I don't understand how you can deny that participating in primaries in the democratic party is a succesfull strategy for the left. Participating in those doesn't mean you don't form your won political line, it does not mean you become subservient to the party. Some high profile individuals have done that in 2020, but DSA didn't.
Yes, that is correct. In a scenario like what's ahppening with Corbyn in the UK at the moment you could make such a break if you're willing to fight (unlike the British left is doing, regrettably). The fact that he's already making that intention clear now, shows prospect.
The democratic party has over 45 million members . Many of those people are working class, by defenition (the bourgeoisie isn't that big). The consciousness of the working class in the US simply isn't that great that you can just abandon this structure.
By the way, I would also like to make the extra point that what is called a "political party" is very dissimilar to political parties in the rest of the world, and I think this is a crucial point to make in this debate. A political party in the rest of the world is a private entity where individuals can join if they pay a fee, and in return they have a say in the political programme of the party. The "parties" in the US are of a completely different nature: you register with the governement to which one you belong, and in return you can participate in an electoral process. In that sense, they are much more similar to the first round of a two round electoral system (like in France for example) than to a party. They 're not 100% the exact same, but I believe this framing is helpfull to understand the role of primaries in the democrats. If you understand parties in this sense, an organisation like DSA despite not being considered a "party" is is behaving like one, and the democratic party isn't.
You're reading this backwards. The parties are capitalist because the country is capitalist. It's a consequence of the prevailing economic system, not the force behind it.
Any new party will be just as vulnerable to the temptations created by public-private revolving doors, corporate money and manpower, and the ambitions of its less ethical members as the existing two. There will be nothing incorruptible about a New American Labor Party's leadership, should it ever gain enough traction to start winning seats. No more than the DSA or the Greens have been immune to temptation.
The biggest right-shift of the party occurred in the Reagan Era, when the DLC began its take-over by running candidates and winning races in historically labor-friendly midwestern states. The FDR/LBJ wing of the party lost out to the Clinton wing in the same way the Liberal Republicans were ousted by the Tea Party.
Progressives are just now beginning to stake claims to the party leadership again, and this sub's response is "Bernie didn't win! Fuck it, let's do the Ralph Nader thing again!"
If there's one thing folks like Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, and Donald Trump have consistently demonstrated, it's the third parties are a losing game. At best, you still end up caucusing with a Big Two party. At worst, you get Nader-ized and you end up alienating your would-be base by the "spoiler" tag.