Assuming that doesn't make it realistic right now. If I think the only way to get to Tierra del Fuego is by plane, that doesn't mean I'm suddenly able to go there. I don't own a plane, or have access to one, or money to buy a ticket on one, etc. There are preliminary steps I need to take before taking that plane trip is realistic.
If you honestly think it's revolution or bust, the task is to identify the preliminary steps of starting a revolutionary organization and work on those. Some of those preliminary steps likely overlap with comrades who think there are other paths to socialism.
If the only way to get to Tierra del Fuego is by plane this remains true whether you have access to a plane or not. Whether it is realistic or not is immaterial. And other people who are offering you bus passes are not going to get the job done
Given that neither approach has thus far been effective in the imperial core, it's baffling to me that to me that you would consider electoralism so self-evidently realistic given while revolution is a pie in the sky idea
There are modern examples of countries taking big steps leftwards via elections (Venezuela, Bolivia).
Almost everyone in the U.S. agrees that elections are a legitimate way to shape politics.
A year ago we saw someone who self-identified as a Democratic Socialist win an unprecedented string of victories in an open presidential primary.
Democratic Socialists hold multiple lower offices and keep winning more.
Electoralism has previously delivered material gains for the working class (e.g., the New Deal, local minimum wage increases) as well as material progress on a variety of social issues (e.g., the Civil Rights Act, state efforts to legalize gay marriage and marijuana).
I consider a revolution to be pie in the sky stuff (at least right now) because:
The SRA -- not even a militant leftist organization, but maybe the closest thing to one -- has only 10,000 members.
The vast majority of people who might someday (if you squint hard) be part of a revolutionary movement are not armed.
The number of people who consider an armed revolution here in America to be a legitimate way to shape politics is low.
That's precisely the problem. Time, energy and money that would be better spend on organizing are spent chasing electoral victories
Whatever Bernie identified as, his politics were stolidly Social Democratic. He also was hamstrung by capital and it's institutions, and there's no reason to believe that had he won he would have been able to bring about even Social Democratic reforms given entrenched opposition within the Democratic Party, the media, and of course capital itself.
While some of these people are indeed actual socialists, and their winning office is in fact a good thing, I don't see this leading to socialism writ large. Historically, socialists have held lower office in the US before but this did not lead inevitably to socialism.
I support anything that materially improves the lives of the working class, but again, the New Deal is not socialism. A minimum wage is not socialism. Legalizing weed is not socialism.
If your goal is to bring about Social Democratic reforms to capitalism, then fine, we've seen it happen often enough in industrialized countries that I believe it is possible through electoralism, but I don't find it at all convincing that socialism will be brought about through electoral politics in the United States.
I don’t find it at all convincing that socialism will be brought about through electoral politics in the United States.
I find it more likely than a revolution, if only because a revolution is so far from reality right now. If there's a 5% chance that socialism in America can be achieved through electoral means, and a 1% chance that it can be achieved through revolutionary means, the odds are firmly against electoralism and yet it's still far more realistic than a revolution. Whatever you think of the Bernie campaign, it at least approached the scale, resources, and organization of a mass movement.
the New Deal is not socialism. A minimum wage is not socialism. Legalizing weed is not socialism.
These are things that take the boot off the neck of the working class, at least a bit. If you can deliver some initial results to the working class via electoralism, maybe you'll build support for more ambitious gains, and you might eventually build the political power and willingness to strike at the fundamental issue of who owns and controls the means of production.
And even if you can't get all the way across the finish line with electoralism, easing the repression of the working class might make it easier to pursue a unionization or revolutionary approach. That's what I mean when I say that some of the preliminary steps to make a revolution realistic might overlap with the immediate goals of people pursuing other approaches. Look at the electoral efforts to demilitarize (or otherwise limit the power of) the police. That's not socialism, but it might help get us there.
bro the point of electoralism as a socialist isn't to change policy (tho you might get some concessions here and there which are welcome) but to give your policies and organization a bigger platform, so you can propagandize. a big chunk of why socialism has come back to public discourse is because of Sanders' 2016 campaign. especially now that socialism is in ascent and only socialists will defend very popular policies (15$ minimum wage, M4A, stimmies/UBI, etc) electoralism can be a very good opportunity for propagandizing and growth of the socialist movement.
will you create the United Socialist States of America through electoralism? no. can it help you get there? maybe, but when it comes to politics, taking power and overthrowing a ruling class "maybe" is as good of an answer as you're gonna get.
I'm not saying that socialists should never engage tactically in bourgeois democracy. There's a time and a place for that. But the DSA's national strategy of being the left wing of the Democratic Party is not one that I have faith in in the long term
i agree with you here, for the most part. but even if the DSA's strategy isn't sustainable in the long-term you can still join one of the more radical caucuses and agitate in the DSA itself. a lot of people will eventually realize that taking over the Democratic party (if DSA leadership even plans on going that "far") is a pretty shitty plan and that the more radical people have had solid criticism of the DSA's strategy and tactics. that will lead to people joining/creating/splitting into better suited orgs for a socialist path.
i'm not from the US but i truly don't see a better org for socialists to join other than the DSA: it's pretty big, its members are pretty open minded to ideas to the left of them, etc obviously keep in mind the limitations of the organization but most other organizations are pretty much irrelevant at the moment and i don't see that changing any time soon.
I'm a DSA member currently, but I don't think I really want to spend my time and energy trying to push the DSA left. I'm already part of a giant, terrible union that is controlled by liberal ghouls with a deathgrip on power. The biggest problem I have is that it's an organization, not a party. It has no ideology (by design). The politicians they endorse and elect aren't accountable to the organization or its membership. There are good caucuses and good chapters, but I've just been feeling like I want an org with some discipline and ideological consistency.
Assuming that doesn't make it realistic right now. If I think the only way to get to Tierra del Fuego is by plane, that doesn't mean I'm suddenly able to go there. I don't own a plane, or have access to one, or money to buy a ticket on one, etc. There are preliminary steps I need to take before taking that plane trip is realistic.
If you honestly think it's revolution or bust, the task is to identify the preliminary steps of starting a revolutionary organization and work on those. Some of those preliminary steps likely overlap with comrades who think there are other paths to socialism.
If the only way to get to Tierra del Fuego is by plane this remains true whether you have access to a plane or not. Whether it is realistic or not is immaterial. And other people who are offering you bus passes are not going to get the job done
Whether it's realistic is the most important question if you're assuming that's your only option.
Simply insisting that it's the only way will get us nowhere.
Given that neither approach has thus far been effective in the imperial core, it's baffling to me that to me that you would consider electoralism so self-evidently realistic given while revolution is a pie in the sky idea
I consider electoralism to be realistic because:
I consider a revolution to be pie in the sky stuff (at least right now) because:
Responding point by point:
If your goal is to bring about Social Democratic reforms to capitalism, then fine, we've seen it happen often enough in industrialized countries that I believe it is possible through electoralism, but I don't find it at all convincing that socialism will be brought about through electoral politics in the United States.
I find it more likely than a revolution, if only because a revolution is so far from reality right now. If there's a 5% chance that socialism in America can be achieved through electoral means, and a 1% chance that it can be achieved through revolutionary means, the odds are firmly against electoralism and yet it's still far more realistic than a revolution. Whatever you think of the Bernie campaign, it at least approached the scale, resources, and organization of a mass movement.
These are things that take the boot off the neck of the working class, at least a bit. If you can deliver some initial results to the working class via electoralism, maybe you'll build support for more ambitious gains, and you might eventually build the political power and willingness to strike at the fundamental issue of who owns and controls the means of production.
And even if you can't get all the way across the finish line with electoralism, easing the repression of the working class might make it easier to pursue a unionization or revolutionary approach. That's what I mean when I say that some of the preliminary steps to make a revolution realistic might overlap with the immediate goals of people pursuing other approaches. Look at the electoral efforts to demilitarize (or otherwise limit the power of) the police. That's not socialism, but it might help get us there.
bro the point of electoralism as a socialist isn't to change policy (tho you might get some concessions here and there which are welcome) but to give your policies and organization a bigger platform, so you can propagandize. a big chunk of why socialism has come back to public discourse is because of Sanders' 2016 campaign. especially now that socialism is in ascent and only socialists will defend very popular policies (15$ minimum wage, M4A, stimmies/UBI, etc) electoralism can be a very good opportunity for propagandizing and growth of the socialist movement.
will you create the United Socialist States of America through electoralism? no. can it help you get there? maybe, but when it comes to politics, taking power and overthrowing a ruling class "maybe" is as good of an answer as you're gonna get.
I'm not saying that socialists should never engage tactically in bourgeois democracy. There's a time and a place for that. But the DSA's national strategy of being the left wing of the Democratic Party is not one that I have faith in in the long term
i agree with you here, for the most part. but even if the DSA's strategy isn't sustainable in the long-term you can still join one of the more radical caucuses and agitate in the DSA itself. a lot of people will eventually realize that taking over the Democratic party (if DSA leadership even plans on going that "far") is a pretty shitty plan and that the more radical people have had solid criticism of the DSA's strategy and tactics. that will lead to people joining/creating/splitting into better suited orgs for a socialist path.
i'm not from the US but i truly don't see a better org for socialists to join other than the DSA: it's pretty big, its members are pretty open minded to ideas to the left of them, etc obviously keep in mind the limitations of the organization but most other organizations are pretty much irrelevant at the moment and i don't see that changing any time soon.
I'm a DSA member currently, but I don't think I really want to spend my time and energy trying to push the DSA left. I'm already part of a giant, terrible union that is controlled by liberal ghouls with a deathgrip on power. The biggest problem I have is that it's an organization, not a party. It has no ideology (by design). The politicians they endorse and elect aren't accountable to the organization or its membership. There are good caucuses and good chapters, but I've just been feeling like I want an org with some discipline and ideological consistency.