You have to pick you battles – fighting at every possible opportunity is not a winning strategy. And the battles you should pick are ones where there’s a decent chance of accomplishing something.
That's completely fair, but I completely disagree that this would be a moment where nothing would be winnable. If a socialist organisation has electing members in to parliament as it's strategy (and I believe that should be part of it's strategy), then it should use those people as megaphones for the ideals of the party and the broader movement. They should use their fame to agitate for social improvements in a way that people think is credible, but that also gives them the impression that their lives will improve. In the US context, I'm convinced that medicare for all is such a "big ask" that's worthwile in the eyes of the people, and also realistic (because so many other countries have it, as opposed to for example socialing all industries, where people won't take you seriously at this moment). If the elected socialists don't use their leverage during a deadly pandemic where millions have lost their health insurance, they're just useless.
If the argument were to be: "I believe your strategy is wrong, and we should be doing X instead", that would be a worthwile discussion, but the only arguments I'm hearing are that it's impossible to achieve medicare for all and it's impossible to popularise the idea of primarying right-wing democrats trough engaging in the process of agressively agitating for medicare for all. That sounds like defeatism, like the people who're making those arguments have already given up on the idea of achieving any political goal at all, and that's a very dangerous idea to let spread in our movement. It's untrue, and it's exactly what our opponents want us to think.
They should use their fame to agitate for social improvements in a way that people think is credible, but that also gives them the impression that their lives will improve.
I'm all for using congressional seats to agitate. They should be constantly talking about M4A and other good policies, and they usually are (although I'm all ears on more/better ways to do this).
But you also mention credibility and giving people the impression that their lives will improve. How does a vote that's sure to fail fit either of these criteria? If you tell someone who's not super involved in politics that progressives want to force a vote they know won't win, that person will call that vote useless grandstanding, and ask you how progressives are different from any other politician who says nice things but doesn't get anything done. I don't see people taking this strategy seriously, and I don't see people connecting it to a material improvement in their lives.
the only arguments I’m hearing are that it’s impossible to achieve medicare for all and it’s impossible to popularise the idea of primarying right-wing democrats trough engaging in the process of agressively agitating for medicare for all
I haven't seen anyone on the left who opposes the strategy of primarying politicians opposed to M4A. That is the alternate strategy here -- win more seats, and make it so that the politicians you don't primary feel an urgency to support M4A lest they get primaried next. Then, when you have the votes to pass the thing, make it happen.
They're tweeting about it, but I don't think that's enough. There's no doubt that AOC was more radical before she was elected. She used the language of a disrupter, now she sounds as someone who's playing the tit-for-that-game inside DC.
But you also mention credibility and giving people the impression that their lives will improve. How does a vote that’s sure to fail fit either of these criteria? If you tell someone who’s not super involved in politics that progressives want to force a vote they know won’t win, that person will call that vote useless grandstanding
It's not certain that such a vote would fail. Given enough public pressure by progressive organisations and the fact that millions of people lost their employer based insurance during a pandemic, it might succeed. That being said, if it does fail, people who're in favor of M4A will lay the blame with politicians who've voted against it, not with the the people who faught to make it a reality.
how progressives are different from any other politician who says nice things but doesn’t get anything done
Ironically, that's the crux of my argument. The difference I'm advocating for (but not seeing, or at least not seeing enough), is that elected socialists should connect with movements outside of congress and use them to put pressure on their collegues. If AOC's millions of followers would be activated to bombard the offices of congresmen- and women before such a vote, that would have an impact.
The fact that I'm not seeing elected socialists use their strongest asset in such a way, is exactly the reason why I fear that over time, when the novelty of their presence in congres has wained off, people will start to see them as just another politician. Engaging in very active struggle is exactle the remedy for such a perception.
I haven’t seen anyone on the left who opposes the strategy of primarying politicians opposed to M4A. (…) and make it so that the politicians you don’t primary feel an urgency to support M4A lest they get primaried next. Then, when you have the votes to pass the thing, make it happen.
That’s exactly what I’m proposing, but #forcethevote is a way of putting pressure on politicians to support it. If you don’t do actions like that, you’ll end up waiting until you’ve primaried every democrat, which isn’t fast enough. The process of primarying as it currently exists isn't going fast enough for that strategy to be effective among all democrats, so we have to escalate the proces trough actions like #forcethevote.
That's completely fair, but I completely disagree that this would be a moment where nothing would be winnable. If a socialist organisation has electing members in to parliament as it's strategy (and I believe that should be part of it's strategy), then it should use those people as megaphones for the ideals of the party and the broader movement. They should use their fame to agitate for social improvements in a way that people think is credible, but that also gives them the impression that their lives will improve. In the US context, I'm convinced that medicare for all is such a "big ask" that's worthwile in the eyes of the people, and also realistic (because so many other countries have it, as opposed to for example socialing all industries, where people won't take you seriously at this moment). If the elected socialists don't use their leverage during a deadly pandemic where millions have lost their health insurance, they're just useless.
If the argument were to be: "I believe your strategy is wrong, and we should be doing X instead", that would be a worthwile discussion, but the only arguments I'm hearing are that it's impossible to achieve medicare for all and it's impossible to popularise the idea of primarying right-wing democrats trough engaging in the process of agressively agitating for medicare for all. That sounds like defeatism, like the people who're making those arguments have already given up on the idea of achieving any political goal at all, and that's a very dangerous idea to let spread in our movement. It's untrue, and it's exactly what our opponents want us to think.
I'm all for using congressional seats to agitate. They should be constantly talking about M4A and other good policies, and they usually are (although I'm all ears on more/better ways to do this).
But you also mention credibility and giving people the impression that their lives will improve. How does a vote that's sure to fail fit either of these criteria? If you tell someone who's not super involved in politics that progressives want to force a vote they know won't win, that person will call that vote useless grandstanding, and ask you how progressives are different from any other politician who says nice things but doesn't get anything done. I don't see people taking this strategy seriously, and I don't see people connecting it to a material improvement in their lives.
I haven't seen anyone on the left who opposes the strategy of primarying politicians opposed to M4A. That is the alternate strategy here -- win more seats, and make it so that the politicians you don't primary feel an urgency to support M4A lest they get primaried next. Then, when you have the votes to pass the thing, make it happen.
They're tweeting about it, but I don't think that's enough. There's no doubt that AOC was more radical before she was elected. She used the language of a disrupter, now she sounds as someone who's playing the tit-for-that-game inside DC.
It's not certain that such a vote would fail. Given enough public pressure by progressive organisations and the fact that millions of people lost their employer based insurance during a pandemic, it might succeed. That being said, if it does fail, people who're in favor of M4A will lay the blame with politicians who've voted against it, not with the the people who faught to make it a reality.
Ironically, that's the crux of my argument. The difference I'm advocating for (but not seeing, or at least not seeing enough), is that elected socialists should connect with movements outside of congress and use them to put pressure on their collegues. If AOC's millions of followers would be activated to bombard the offices of congresmen- and women before such a vote, that would have an impact. The fact that I'm not seeing elected socialists use their strongest asset in such a way, is exactly the reason why I fear that over time, when the novelty of their presence in congres has wained off, people will start to see them as just another politician. Engaging in very active struggle is exactle the remedy for such a perception.
That’s exactly what I’m proposing, but #forcethevote is a way of putting pressure on politicians to support it. If you don’t do actions like that, you’ll end up waiting until you’ve primaried every democrat, which isn’t fast enough. The process of primarying as it currently exists isn't going fast enough for that strategy to be effective among all democrats, so we have to escalate the proces trough actions like #forcethevote.