this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2025
151 points (94.2% liked)
electoralism
22249 readers
128 users here now
Welcome to c/electoralism! politics isn't just about voting or running for office, but this community is.
Please read the Chapo Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.
Shitposting in other comms please!
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think hexbear's rigid purity (which is why I'm here tbh) makes it vulnerable to this kind common of smear work. It's very easy to keep asking someone questions over and over until you have things that can be taken the wrong way and used to smear them with at least some portion of their base. - this is a common media tactic you need to immunise yourself against. The entire point is to turn away the most pure parts of the base.
I mean, whatever, it's electoralism, by our nature we have little interest in it; but saying "I'll have Zionists working for me" in one of the most Jewish places in the world is a factual statement, not necessarily and ideological one. It simply doesn't mean that Mamdani being voted in is a bad thing. And it's certainly not something to be upset about?
We have high standards, but regardless of what we think, he's a leftist pipeline whether he succeeds or whether he fails, similar to Bernie. Ideally, he shifts the bounds of what it's possible to think/support in the US leftwards a little.
My point, really, is don't let perfect be the enemy of good, especially when it's something we're not invested in.
Give me the strength to endure what I can't change, the courage to change what I can change, and the wisdom to know the difference.
He's a pipeline, definitely. A left to right pipeline. Getting leftists engaged and then getting them to defend Zionism is not moving anyone left, but it is definitely moving people right
There is a difference in knowing something and saying it, especially as a part of a political platform.
I may know simply by virtue of being in America, I'll have interacted with a Nazi as a factual matter. That is different than me saying, "Yeah, I'll interact with Nazis," which is different than propagandizing the fact I'll interact with Nazis.
Is the media repeatedly going to attack this angle? Yes. It's why when I saw the NYT article where the author alleges he doesn't think Zohran is anti-zionist I ignored it as a nothing-burger. Getting caught up doing it yourself demonstrates this is a massive fucking misstep at best.
Do you think he'd make the same misstep if they repeatedly grilled him on whether he'd work with Klansmen? Or if they used the word Nazi or Nazi sympathsizers? I double he's planning on grilling his sanitation workers on what they think about white genocide and replacement or asking them their opinions on the Jewish question either. But we would still look at him sideways if he said, "I'll have white supremacists working for me," in this hellhole of a nation.
I've argued with XHS about his stance on Zohran, them saying this is a result of us rawdogging a cactus due to an inability for us to form any type of militant front is fucking Evergreen.
He is just triangulating and moving right to gain greater proximity to DNC establishment types, people he is now having call shots on his campaign. This is not someone hiding their power level, these are not even remotely clever answers from someone being savvy. It is a consistent rightward rebranding per the bourgeois liberal electoralist charade.
Also, we have high standards? This is genocide and it is very fucking unpopular. If there is a pipeline here, it is to capture outrage and mollify it into status quo liberalism. DSA is not organized and it has no education program. It's all just fucking around and pinning hopes on one guy not being more self-interested than principled and competent, and the electoralist "wing", such as it is, is allergic to both of those things.
Don't you know? Not wanting someone to say they'd collaborate with Nazis, sometimes knowingly, is purity testing.
They're National Socialists and we need left unity!
/iwanttoenditalldealingwiththesepeople
Folks really showing their liberalism with their unwavering belief in the secret principled leftism of the guy pulling the rug out from under them in the exact same way 5 other identical guys have done every couple years.
Nobody on hexbear should be surprised that a "left" organization with zero principled discipline doesn't produce principled campaigns with discipline. Instead, it produces an endless litany of self-interested climbers doing milquetoast liberal reformism at best, as moneyed interests dominate their campaigns.
I mean, I advocated for wait and see because I knew from the get go they weren't going to listen to all the people dogpiling them. I see what WildWeezing420 meant though when they said their big issue is older members still falling for the same trick. Most people I know that seemed hype for him in my age bracket (early 20s) weren't paying enough attention to Bernie and AOC to get why it happened and no one reads theory (especially lenin!) so I kinda ignored it. Seeing people justify the need to say he'd collaborate with Nazis as some 4D chess has rattled me. Some of the people I've seen pulling this bullshit have been organizing longer than I've used two digits for my age.
I just keep telling people that without discipline you're just leaving "candidates" to face up against the (strong) forces of liberalism with no counterweight. This means opportunists will happily take your free labor for unserious (or worse) campaigns and even well-meaning people will be prone to crumpling against media forces alone, and that's before the cops start routinely harassing you or protecting the fashy vigilantes that keep showing up to your house.
When I say this it gets decent upbears but the electoralists never engage. I think the concept of discipline must actually threaten them on some personal level, like they don't want to think about how much of their own time they are potentially wasting.
It's because that discipline would then also be applied to them as well. Militancy is only fun when you're already done the work and have leverage. Risking your job to form a union isn't. It's not glamorous sitting there talking to your coworkers about how collective bargaining gives you leverage.
I dunno I kind of enjoy that stuff. And unfortunately a good number of people do at least romanticize it and use labor work as caché, seeking out positions not for the cause but because of how they'd like to think of themselves in it. I'm thinking of truly incompetent labor organizers I know, folks that don't do a very good job nor improve and it's because ultimately they are still self-interested, even when that self-interest comes in the form of making a show of self-sacrifice. I hope that makes sense!
Most of the actual work for a revolution is very very boring, tedious and rarely as exciting as the actual „flashy“ part.
If you were in NYC DSA what would your proposal be to create discipline?
If I was in NYC DSA would be focused on building my caucus and trying to dominate education and an onboarding process so that incoming members all had positive relationships with my caucus as well as biases towards us. Having at least one project into which to plug people would also be useful, but it should follow from embedding in community and having direct conversations with locals in targeted areas to determine what they care about most, what is hurting them most.
One of DSA's flaws is that it continues electoral thought towards putting the cart before the horse, e.g. revolution through resolution. A good resolution is secondary to building good org members. It would follow naturally from the organizing work that has to happen first. Finally creating discipline requires having enough trust and support for the idea in advance, otherwise even if you manage to pass the resolution, which is difficult if the org itself is too electoral or incoherent, you will have a hard time actually enforcing it.
But once at an organized stage like that, discipline would look like needing to follow key org lines or get sanctioned/removed on top of unendorsed, requiring that all campaign resources come from grassroots sourcing, primarily org work, requiring that candidates come from the org itself and after a period of onboarding, education, and various pledges and interviews, and a requirement that electoral work rotates such that members do not regularly get their paycheck from the mere existence of campaigns. Some amount of this may run counter to election law, but would be worked around in the same way bourgeois parties do, relying on one main carrot/stick to enforce the "soft" rules, e.g. being very strict about support snd endorsement and volunteer labor such that running foul is actually damaging to the candidate.
My general understanding is that except for the last thing about rotating that's what they've got going on.
The question is whether the membership is really brave/united enough to pull the plug when they can practically taste the sweet victory of an election in less than 3 weeks.
They should have some sort of mechanism to act that quickly or at least make a credible threat as I heard somewhere that mamdani has to attend weekly (general membership?) meetings
I've only seen a couple examples of left organizations with good discipline in my life and none that were involved with electoralism. They were created with the idea of a very strongly democratic practice where the expectation is that everyone gets their fair voice but once the vote is cast, you follow the group even if you personally wanted something else. Requires A++ meeting skills to have everyone feel they had the chance to participate.
And, it will always happen that the leadership who are often more dedicated revolutionaries, must adhere to decisions that don't meet their ideal. It has to be actually democratic so sometimes you lose. But by doing that they set the example and expectation and everyone gets bolder and moves on collectively.
I don't know how that could be integrated into an elected position like mayor, really. He can't be micromanaged by hundreds or thousands of people. And the fact of the matter is, there is no way he will be able to perform his duties to their satisfaction for years on end. Because he's subject to many outside competing forces.
Maybe DSA should only put people up for election if they sign a contract stating they will leave elected politics, lobbying and all associated industries for at least 10 years after. Like a super harsh non compete. Oh wait those are not valid in most places anymore.
They have none of it. Zilch. They have, essentially, a committee of people focused on elections that say a lot of nice vaguely leftist words and implement zero accountability. The people on those committees regularly get paid positions on these campaigns and it is no surprise that they are very defensive of the concept that an "elected" is failing. It is a collaborative relationship mediated by cash and proximity to electoral power.
Regarding the specifics:
NYCDSA leads the charge against electoral accountabikity. They push back against it, not for it, and have never unendorsed a candidate they ran.
The Mamdani campaign is not financially or organizationally dependent on the DSA. This is why he is shmoozing with ghouls. In classic DSA electoralist fashion, it is a one-way street in terms of direct benefit and control: Mamdani receives some resources but does not need them exclusively, nor is he in any way afraid of losing the free volunteers and fundraising. What are they gonna do, unendorse? Kick him out? lmao
Mamdani was not a regular member when he ran for state legislature. He didn't do jack shit and had no internal vetting outside of one of these committees saying, "yeah okay".
NYCDSA membership, by and large, reflects the practices above. Pull the plug? They are more likely to approve the resolution saying not to criticize Mamdani now or once in office. Their electoral approach adopts the form and function or bourgeois electoral systems, they are protective of the climber system and investing in cheerleading and donating and volunteering regardless of what a candidate or "elected" says or does. It is an anti-participatory process that is more like an NGO than a political organization that believes in anything.
They actively avoid having policy positions on which to have discipline. These are the folks that opposed the anti-Zionist resolutions for years and years and are only now transforming once it is somewhat popular among liberals.
This requires a substantial change in membership, leadership, and associated political orientation. Any theoretical mechanusm doesn't matter if nobody enforces it or cares about it or worse, if they actively oppose it. This is why my answer focused on the need to do actual organizing and education into a proper political program and not just whatever is stated on a resolutions. NYCDSA, like any chapter, can always have a big membership vote on anything at least once per month, and can give these committees "emergency" powers to reject candidates, etc. But that means nothing if there is no will to use it. Kind of like how CA Dems never override their governor's veto.
SA has pretty good discipline and was successful at electoralism. Unfortunately they are Trots with a lot of shit takes and bad ideas, but theor level of organization and discipline puts DSA to shame.
Most communist orgs have pretty good discipline. Their members avoid criticizing their own org publicly, for example. Any time I criticize PSL here, I assume none will publicly agree, and some will defend against the criticism. Part of this is naturally defending one's own group and ideas they agree with and part of this is internalized discipline. I assume that some part of my criticism may register internally locally, but not publicly.
Why would this be the only way? Committees and the fear of being recalled means no need for mass micromanagement. It begins with openly withdrawing support for "electeds" by having a policy line and sticking to it. Once that fails in its own way, they can commit to and build more structure, etc etc.
Also sorry for the wall of text. Not trying to debate, just want to explain my thinking clearly.
I'd vote to censure Mamdani over this statement and force him to publicly denounce it or get booted from the org.
I doubt DSA has the gonads but if they actually pulled rank on him now less than 3 weeks til the election I bet it would change his behavior going forward.
Also this was funny timing:
https://hexbear.net/comment/6591284
That is a good point. False hope, like gambling, often emerges from not having a strong embedding in something real that is paying off. Indulging the fantasy instead of confronting the reality.
The reason that Americans resort to so much adventurism is the same reason why so many pin hopes on bourgeois politicians that owe them nothing: no other political outlet for hope. They are not organized, they are not active.
The slot machines will eventually reward you with electoral Sankara if you just sit there long enough.
The state the left is in is embarrassing. The fact we're at baby-steps of "proving a socialist mayor can run a city while making democrats look rightwing" is a terrible state of affairs, but we should probably play that hand. I don't think he'll have the effective power to purge every zionist in new yorks affairs.
I think it's better to shake hands with a zionist for a while before personally cutting their throat at a later date than to remain powerless.
Again, I'm not even saying that much is the ask! But if we're arguing optics, which is the only argument anyone makes in defense of the failures of his entryism attempt, he has repeatedly shown a willingness and savviness to stay on message and dodge the damn question.
If we're arguing that he needs to fear almighty Zion because we're too weak to face them, I wanna see him go apologize like he apologized to the pigs. No half measures.
The only hopes I have from this campaign is primarily staked on the hardening of his base that will come about when this goes sideways, again, because entryism is a failed tactic, and hoping the number hardened outweigh those that fall into nihilistic doomerism. Hopefully there are enough people that are spared from worsening conditions that it outweighs the harm and deaths done by our pathetic attempts at international solidarity.
I also hope people are afforded some respite, and that some are simply hardened.
I agree that entryism is a failed tactic, but engaging in the arena is a must, otherwise you're simply conceding power while still remaining a target.
I agree you must engage in the arena, if not simply for the ability to engage with the masses. I'm not arguing against strategic electoralism in that sense.
can someone prove to me that pipelines actually exist, and are not just trying to make dems look better / more left / reformable etc.
The fact that almost a decade after Bernie was first ratfucked by the DNC, the American left still pins their hopes on a single mayoral candidate (in NYC of all places) tells you everything you need to know about this pipeline.
Bernie boasted one million strong volunteers during his 2020 primary campaign. You’d think that even after he got screwed again, it would have snowballed into a nationwide movement to run socialist mayor and city council candidates to take over the political machineries starting from the municipal level all across the country.
It’s almost amazing to see such energy dissipated into almost nothing right after Bernie conceded and failed to win a single concession, not even healthcare-related, at the height of Covid pandemic for the working class.
Next populist democrat is the one! 99% of ~~gamblers~~ democratic socialists quit before hitting big!
what hopes? you're revolutionary-jacketing. His policies would be a meaningful improvement in the lives of his constituents, which is exactly what you want from a candidate for mayor. Everything he's said on geopolitics is an unforced error or Obama phone calls, and completely irrelevant to the job he's applying for (which is why he should shut the fuck up and talk about $7 halal cart instead).
To a degree, I think the existence of Hexbear proves that pipelines exist.
Much of the original population of chapo/hexbear were people who were hyped for bernie 10 years ago before witnessing what electoral politics does to the left, and how even mild reforms got ratfucked. That's why this thread exists - it's the same visceral disgust that (I think) lead to the creation of this site.
but then again, in this thread we are still discussing the merit of electing democrats. it doesn't seem that there was a broad shift leftward towards more radical/coherent politics.
We're discussing the merits of whether it's good leftism to say you'd work with Nazis too!
It was less the chapotraphouse hosts being pro-Bernie and more that in that reddit space I came in contact with communist theory at all and heard comrades (especially from the global south) speak for the first time.
In the end, scientific socialism and dialectical materialism were the only thing that made the world make sense. Not really hope for a fairy godmother swinging her magical electoral wand to make everything good. Even though I still hoped that they it could be.
Pipelines are an idealistic construct, especially when they rely on tricking and miseducation people about communism and socialism.
The fact that the existence of pipelines (kin to the overton window) is taken as a scientific constant exposes the unchallenged idealism in our movements. People need to read Lenin’s work about materialism and Empiro-criticism, it helped me immensely.
Agreed
anecdotal, but a lot of my PSL comrades got re-engaged in politics b/c of Bernie (me included). but being in PSL, we've all moved past investing in Democrats as a winning strategy, and were radicalized further by his failure. how statistically significant are we vs. people who just got fully demoralized by politics, or even moved right? who knows, honestly - our org is growing a lot, but still relatively niche looking at the larger horizon of politics.
i do think it's worth agitating around the failures of these socdem candidates though. and i'm not even telling people not to vote for Zohran if they live there (NYC), like sure he's a genuine harm reduction candidate and voting is low effort, go for it, just manage your expectations and find areas of political work where this stuff isn't a core part of the orgs strategy.
public criticisms of the inherent failures of entryism are a (very small, this forum is niche af and not getting less so) part of that pipeline, though. without that criticism, the absorption of these types of candidates just demoralizes people into apolitical inaction or makes them think democrats are the best they're gonna get. "democrats inherently suck and here's why, focus on other types of political action" isn't the same as "Zohran isn't a harm reduction candidate vs Cuomo, don't vote for him if you live in NYC"
The issue isn’t that new yorkers go on a 5 minute walk to the voting both.
Its that Mamdani enjoyers have demanded complete subservience to their idea of reforming the democratic party and are actively wrecking leftist spaces. He actually wastes a lotta people’s time, money, motivation and revolutionary potential for his doomed campaign.
is he doing entryism? is he trying to change the party nationally or is he trying to win one office? All the capitulations are worse for not being necessary in any way electorally.
Hmmm, I think the question to ask here; 'If Mamdani doesn't ask his hired people what are their thoughts on Zionism, then there'll be Zionists." Hexbear is fervently anti-zionism, and I am too, and some people (I think anyway) are mad at how Zionists aren't at least kept out of his administration by being anti-zionist everywhere including sanitation.
I mean, isn't this why we have like those questions for joining here? Figure out if you're fit to engage here with a left-wing perspective? Even if not necessarily all of us are theory-minded?
Clearly our screening process isn’t stringent enough, tbh. Source: every thread that mentions mamdani
He's just one guy though, he can't start that strong.
I'm from the UK, and I'd like to see a whole raft of strong measures passed, such as BDS becoming an enforced national law, companies that work with Israel barred from the UK, people that support the IDF slapped with terror charges, and many lobbyists/journalists being slapped with genocide charges... And that's just if we're given a little room to play around with pre-revolutionary politics, before concerning ourselves with what they actually deserve.
I don't think it's possible to implement good left policies without there also being a big enough, softer, leftist movement to give us space to operate - and while, of course, we're going to object to the softer lefts views, it doesn't mean their existence isn't valuable to us as a pipeline and to shift peoples frame of reference leftwards.