I really cant understand the whole idea behind this tbh. Have you actually worked on any campaigns? Why would you want to do even more electoral work by making the entire process harder and more expensive and complicated every step of the way? Wheres an example where we'd run someone in some new party on a 3rd party ballot line? Why is there some assumption on the viability of 3rd parties now when its never really worked in the past century? Maybe im misunderstanding the whole thing but it just seems like needless work and i dont see the strategy behind it or what its supposed to achieve. Theres plenty of other socialist 3rd parties right now, the answer is we need another one?
I've worked on a ton of campaigns. The Democratic ballot line is useful but we have to be clear that it is a tool. Too many DSA people have this idea in our heads that we can fix the Democratic Party, which we cannot. They will always crush and disarm any progressive or socialist attempt to change the party. The answer is the dirty-break: using the Dem ballot line where it's useful and moving towards the goal of forming a socialist party with mass membership and a real connection to labor. I recommend these articles: https://reformandrevolution.org/2021/01/21/winning-the-dirty-break-under-biden-what-next-for-dsa/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qyCCLfy335UWUzrUSR-c7-Awkl97dKNN/view
Ive worked on several campaigns here in NYC too and i dont think a single one would have worked as a 3rd party. Do you think any of the ones you worked on would have? I get the desire behind a separate party, i mean the rest of the world does that, but id say the US is in an unfortunately unique position here where that doesnt seem to be a real possibility based on the nature of how our electoral systems work. I think the most important thing right now is building strong structures within DSA to have us organize more effectively state wide and nationally, not move towards creating a new electoral party. I think something like that only comes about through an actual pre established mass break from a current party, which under the current auspices of our electoral systems i dont personally think can realistically happen, and frankly it seems to me like an event centered entirely around the spontaneity of some event that would actually trigger that.
y'all could do fusion ballots up in NYC. the point is that it's a gradual process, not running to a third party right away. winning elections is no good if the party whose ballot we ran on will crush any attempt at being socialist once in office
I dont think fusion ballots actually do anything other than like, promote that party on the ballot basically. It doesnt give it any sort of power or anything, the candidate is still a democrat. WFP does that and it doesnt mean anything, frankly dsa has more influence than them. But also political parties in the us dont exactly work the same as in other places. What exactly is the democratic party doing to "crush any attempt at being socialist" that wouldnt happen to a politician thats in another party? I dont see what would play out differently. I dont think that elected socialists are bound by some chain by the party. Either way the usefulness of electeds is to primarily push class struggle politics while running and when in office, not to actually bring about socialism through the state.
Seems to me that working under the Dems' ballot line has also been "needless work" in the sense that it has lead completely nowhere. It has only served to give people the false sense of hope that the Democratic party will change, so they are willing to cling onto it longer. Elections should be used as a propaganda and organization-building tool, with the bonus that maybe you get some people elected, not as the strategy itself.
This is always a weird take to me. If losing campaigns was some sort of winning tactic all these parties would have been somewhere by now, but the only one that has actually gotten real traction and mass movement building has been DSA through actually winning campaigns. How has it led nowhere?? Its been like the most resounding movement building tactic. Ive yet to hear any sort of concrete strategy regarding any of this 3rd party electoralism.
Has it really lead anywhere if breaking from the Democrats seems politically unfeasible? Where does this lead besides just getting more and more paper members?
I dont think its "politically" unfeasible, i think its just the reality of this country's electoral systems. How is nobody asking themselves why theres no viable third parties already existing in this country or why all the ones in the large ones in past eventually died and merged into the two main ones? How is trying to do something that has always failed not clear that this isnt an actual viable tactic here? If all you see in an org like DSA is "paper members" you havent engaged honestly with the socialist movement in this country imo.
I don't see DSA as just paper members, I just think that's what the continuation of the strategy would continue to draw. Maybe I just don't understand the broad DSA electoral strategy and its history, although I'd be open to learn about it if you have any resources on it.
I really cant understand the whole idea behind this tbh. Have you actually worked on any campaigns? Why would you want to do even more electoral work by making the entire process harder and more expensive and complicated every step of the way? Wheres an example where we'd run someone in some new party on a 3rd party ballot line? Why is there some assumption on the viability of 3rd parties now when its never really worked in the past century? Maybe im misunderstanding the whole thing but it just seems like needless work and i dont see the strategy behind it or what its supposed to achieve. Theres plenty of other socialist 3rd parties right now, the answer is we need another one?
I've worked on a ton of campaigns. The Democratic ballot line is useful but we have to be clear that it is a tool. Too many DSA people have this idea in our heads that we can fix the Democratic Party, which we cannot. They will always crush and disarm any progressive or socialist attempt to change the party. The answer is the dirty-break: using the Dem ballot line where it's useful and moving towards the goal of forming a socialist party with mass membership and a real connection to labor. I recommend these articles: https://reformandrevolution.org/2021/01/21/winning-the-dirty-break-under-biden-what-next-for-dsa/ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qyCCLfy335UWUzrUSR-c7-Awkl97dKNN/view
Ive worked on several campaigns here in NYC too and i dont think a single one would have worked as a 3rd party. Do you think any of the ones you worked on would have? I get the desire behind a separate party, i mean the rest of the world does that, but id say the US is in an unfortunately unique position here where that doesnt seem to be a real possibility based on the nature of how our electoral systems work. I think the most important thing right now is building strong structures within DSA to have us organize more effectively state wide and nationally, not move towards creating a new electoral party. I think something like that only comes about through an actual pre established mass break from a current party, which under the current auspices of our electoral systems i dont personally think can realistically happen, and frankly it seems to me like an event centered entirely around the spontaneity of some event that would actually trigger that.
y'all could do fusion ballots up in NYC. the point is that it's a gradual process, not running to a third party right away. winning elections is no good if the party whose ballot we ran on will crush any attempt at being socialist once in office
I dont think fusion ballots actually do anything other than like, promote that party on the ballot basically. It doesnt give it any sort of power or anything, the candidate is still a democrat. WFP does that and it doesnt mean anything, frankly dsa has more influence than them. But also political parties in the us dont exactly work the same as in other places. What exactly is the democratic party doing to "crush any attempt at being socialist" that wouldnt happen to a politician thats in another party? I dont see what would play out differently. I dont think that elected socialists are bound by some chain by the party. Either way the usefulness of electeds is to primarily push class struggle politics while running and when in office, not to actually bring about socialism through the state.
Seems to me that working under the Dems' ballot line has also been "needless work" in the sense that it has lead completely nowhere. It has only served to give people the false sense of hope that the Democratic party will change, so they are willing to cling onto it longer. Elections should be used as a propaganda and organization-building tool, with the bonus that maybe you get some people elected, not as the strategy itself.
This is always a weird take to me. If losing campaigns was some sort of winning tactic all these parties would have been somewhere by now, but the only one that has actually gotten real traction and mass movement building has been DSA through actually winning campaigns. How has it led nowhere?? Its been like the most resounding movement building tactic. Ive yet to hear any sort of concrete strategy regarding any of this 3rd party electoralism.
Has it really lead anywhere if breaking from the Democrats seems politically unfeasible? Where does this lead besides just getting more and more paper members?
I dont think its "politically" unfeasible, i think its just the reality of this country's electoral systems. How is nobody asking themselves why theres no viable third parties already existing in this country or why all the ones in the large ones in past eventually died and merged into the two main ones? How is trying to do something that has always failed not clear that this isnt an actual viable tactic here? If all you see in an org like DSA is "paper members" you havent engaged honestly with the socialist movement in this country imo.
I don't see DSA as just paper members, I just think that's what the continuation of the strategy would continue to draw. Maybe I just don't understand the broad DSA electoral strategy and its history, although I'd be open to learn about it if you have any resources on it.