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.
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.