Like I said, they both suck. I don’t know why people feel the need to stand up for Dore, he isn’t even a socialist, the amount of time he dedicates electoralism is evidence of that. This whole shitfight is about procedural congressional bullshit for gods sake. People treating him like he’s some new socialist messiah is laughable.
I don’t know why people feel the need to stand up for Dore
Because the hate he's receiving for using his platform to advance one of the key issues for the left in the US is undeserved.
#forcethevote is good, it's better than wath some nominal "socialists" are doing and we don't have to make the nuance every time that there's something wrong with his tone or shouting or whatever.
The real question is why some people feel the need to constantly bring up that a person who's advancing our goals might have character flaws. That's irrelevant, you're never gonna like everyone in your movement. Get over it.
Your initial post was "they both suck", so yes you did.
And there's a world of difference between training NATO-funded jihadists in Libya and whatever you might throw at Dore.
this whole debate is pointless.
No, it isn't. The raison d'être of elected socialists is to use their position to advance the objective interests of the working class. DSA-candidates campaigned like that, AOC acted like that when she was just elected, and it seems that the system is managing to encapsulate them. It's very telling that those people are refusing to use their leverage in one of the few moments that they have it, and it should make us pause and think about how we can prevent our elected representatives from going down that path in the future.
I guess I fundamentally disagree with the idea that it makes a difference whether this debate lands one way or the other. A bit of a congressional procedural song and dance doesn’t seem to advance the cause of socialism to me. Maybe I could be convinced by someone who was a principled and well read socialist and knew what they were talking about, but Dore isn’t that person 🤷♂️
Electoralism? Perhaps, when strategically useful. American two-party electoral politics specifically? Probably not. Because I don’t think it’s particularly strategically useful. Almost all gains by the American left have historically come outside the party system.
Okay, so I disagree with that take. If you want to build a socialist party, elected officials can play an important role in popularising your message, look for example at Kschama Sawant her role in implementing the amazon-tax and the $15 minimum wage in Seattle.
The problem is: the elected officials of DSA don't take up such a role (anymore): they've been sucked in to the tit-for-that-game that politicians in Washington play, and #forcethevote shows that.
But if we fundamentally disagree about the role that elected officials need to have in building a socialist party, we won't agree about #forcethevote either, because we're analysing from a different framework.
Like I said, they both suck. I don’t know why people feel the need to stand up for Dore, he isn’t even a socialist, the amount of time he dedicates electoralism is evidence of that. This whole shitfight is about procedural congressional bullshit for gods sake. People treating him like he’s some new socialist messiah is laughable.
Because the hate he's receiving for using his platform to advance one of the key issues for the left in the US is undeserved.
#forcethevote is good, it's better than wath some nominal "socialists" are doing and we don't have to make the nuance every time that there's something wrong with his tone or shouting or whatever.
The real question is why some people feel the need to constantly bring up that a person who's advancing our goals might have character flaws. That's irrelevant, you're never gonna like everyone in your movement. Get over it.
I didn’t bring his character into it. I said he’s not a socialist and this whole debate is pointless.
Your initial post was "they both suck", so yes you did.
And there's a world of difference between training NATO-funded jihadists in Libya and whatever you might throw at Dore.
No, it isn't. The raison d'être of elected socialists is to use their position to advance the objective interests of the working class. DSA-candidates campaigned like that, AOC acted like that when she was just elected, and it seems that the system is managing to encapsulate them. It's very telling that those people are refusing to use their leverage in one of the few moments that they have it, and it should make us pause and think about how we can prevent our elected representatives from going down that path in the future.
I guess I fundamentally disagree with the idea that it makes a difference whether this debate lands one way or the other. A bit of a congressional procedural song and dance doesn’t seem to advance the cause of socialism to me. Maybe I could be convinced by someone who was a principled and well read socialist and knew what they were talking about, but Dore isn’t that person 🤷♂️
Do you think socialists have any business in electoralism, or do you think it should be completely abandoned?
Electoralism? Perhaps, when strategically useful. American two-party electoral politics specifically? Probably not. Because I don’t think it’s particularly strategically useful. Almost all gains by the American left have historically come outside the party system.
Okay, so I disagree with that take. If you want to build a socialist party, elected officials can play an important role in popularising your message, look for example at Kschama Sawant her role in implementing the amazon-tax and the $15 minimum wage in Seattle.
The problem is: the elected officials of DSA don't take up such a role (anymore): they've been sucked in to the tit-for-that-game that politicians in Washington play, and #forcethevote shows that.
But if we fundamentally disagree about the role that elected officials need to have in building a socialist party, we won't agree about #forcethevote either, because we're analysing from a different framework.