the vague idea that playing the us’s political system is more likely to end us imperialism than just fighting the US and working for its collapse, or that it is more likely to do good than just assisting anti-imperial struggles
What do these ideas actually look like in practice? What, specifically, can an American do to:
Fight the U.S.
Work for its collapse
Assist anti-imperial struggles
There is no protracted people's war on the horizon in America. Monkeywrenching, sabotage, and similar individual acts aren't going to fix a systematic problem. Someone scraping by in America doesn't have the money, connections, or language skills to travel to another country to physically fight U.S. imperialism (and in many instances -- sanctions, for example -- there's no war to fight).
This is my issue with writing off electoralism: the alternatives suck even more, or are flat-out unrealistic.
Unionization is good too, but that doesn't make electoralism hopeless. Empirically, tens of millions of more people vote than participate in unions, and it's far easier to get media attention on elections than on unionization efforts.
If unions are so resilient, why are only ~5% of private sector workers unionized today? You can't argue that electoralism will never work and then turn around and rely on institutions that have been mercilessly hacked down to the bone over the past ~90 years. Besides, labor law has been so thoroughly corrupted that we likely need a legislative fix before unions can regain significant power. Want strong unions? Passing card check or repealing Taft-Hartley would make that a lot easier, but you need to win elections to do that.
We couldn’t even get a sweet likable socdem/demsoc anywhere without getting the full brunt of the power in this country against us.
This is like going on a diet for a week and wondering why you haven't lost 20 pounds. The strategy can work, you just need to do more of it. Bernie lost because he got unlucky (Covid or the Tara Reade story hitting a few weeks earlier would have sealed the primary in his favor) and because he was popular, but not overwhelmingly so. There's no reason a more seasoned, larger left-ish movement can't win, especially if a major event that broke in Biden's favor this time breaks in our favor.
I didn't just say "Bernie got a bad break." I said he got bad breaks and the movement wasn't big enough to win anyways. His 2020 campaign was big enough that it had a real shot, but not so big that it couldn't be denied. The bigger you are, the less lucky you need to be.
Whatever you call unions, they're a modest threat right now because so few people are in them. If they can gain enormous power even when they're illegal, then why are they so small right now? Union power has been on the decline for at least the last 70 years; over the same time there have been many significant electoral gains, and and the farthest-left presidential candidate since Debs just came within shouting distance of the White House. It makes no sense to read the former as promising and the latter as hopeless.
unions for any flaws have an inherent power to them
And the President of the United States doesn't have inherent power?
Despite only 5% of private sector employees being unionized, despite a decades-long trend of declining union power, and despite recent labor law changes that hurt unions, unionization is a far more promising path to socialism than
Electoralism, because despite Bernie coming damn close to winning the Democratic nomination, Nancy Pelosi would have just clapped him at the convention instead of letting that happen?
These are bad takes.
Chile
The far more recent examples of leftist electoral success in Latin America are Chavez and Morales, and their projects are in their second decade and have survived numerous imperialist and reactionary attacks.
The president is not inherently powerful
Another take that's just awful on its face. I don't think we're going to get anywhere here.
What do these ideas actually look like in practice? What, specifically, can an American do to:
There is no protracted people's war on the horizon in America. Monkeywrenching, sabotage, and similar individual acts aren't going to fix a systematic problem. Someone scraping by in America doesn't have the money, connections, or language skills to travel to another country to physically fight U.S. imperialism (and in many instances -- sanctions, for example -- there's no war to fight).
This is my issue with writing off electoralism: the alternatives suck even more, or are flat-out unrealistic.
deleted by creator
Unionization is good too, but that doesn't make electoralism hopeless. Empirically, tens of millions of more people vote than participate in unions, and it's far easier to get media attention on elections than on unionization efforts.
deleted by creator
If unions are so resilient, why are only ~5% of private sector workers unionized today? You can't argue that electoralism will never work and then turn around and rely on institutions that have been mercilessly hacked down to the bone over the past ~90 years. Besides, labor law has been so thoroughly corrupted that we likely need a legislative fix before unions can regain significant power. Want strong unions? Passing card check or repealing Taft-Hartley would make that a lot easier, but you need to win elections to do that.
This is like going on a diet for a week and wondering why you haven't lost 20 pounds. The strategy can work, you just need to do more of it. Bernie lost because he got unlucky (Covid or the Tara Reade story hitting a few weeks earlier would have sealed the primary in his favor) and because he was popular, but not overwhelmingly so. There's no reason a more seasoned, larger left-ish movement can't win, especially if a major event that broke in Biden's favor this time breaks in our favor.
deleted by creator
I didn't just say "Bernie got a bad break." I said he got bad breaks and the movement wasn't big enough to win anyways. His 2020 campaign was big enough that it had a real shot, but not so big that it couldn't be denied. The bigger you are, the less lucky you need to be.
Whatever you call unions, they're a modest threat right now because so few people are in them. If they can gain enormous power even when they're illegal, then why are they so small right now? Union power has been on the decline for at least the last 70 years; over the same time there have been many significant electoral gains, and and the farthest-left presidential candidate since Debs just came within shouting distance of the White House. It makes no sense to read the former as promising and the latter as hopeless.
And the President of the United States doesn't have inherent power?
deleted by creator
Let me get this straight:
These are bad takes.
The far more recent examples of leftist electoral success in Latin America are Chavez and Morales, and their projects are in their second decade and have survived numerous imperialist and reactionary attacks.
Another take that's just awful on its face. I don't think we're going to get anywhere here.
deleted by creator