61
Hasan be like "Dont organize into a 3rd party, instead work inside the Genocide Party and change them from the inside"
(hexbear.net)
https://x.com/socialistadri/status/2051361245664555385
HASAN CHATTER: “but people like Platner are the same people who killed almost 200 little girls in an Iranian school”
HASAN PIKER: “I don’t care”
i mean
there is literally no point to trying to organize a third party in american politics? the whole electorial system is fucked, trying to make the genocide party "good" is just as reasonable as trying to make a third party that is "good" and has any chance of getting traction anywhere (which is to say, not particularly reasonable)
idk maybe i dont know enough about american politics but i had no idea people were advocating for a third party
Anti-electoral takes on this site were never coherent or theoretically sound, they've always boiled down to unrepentant doomerism and hurt feelings from 2020, spurned berniecrats who learned all the wrong lessons and this is always made blatant when these doomers are asked the simple question "What is to be done?" and their inevitable fallback position always ends up being "third-party, third-party, third-party"
As if the mere fact an independent fully realized socialist vanguard party winning national elections wouldn't in itself be the ultimate example of electoralism AND entryism, never seemed to have crossed their minds
In their heads they see electoralism and entryism as end-states and not processes that can lead to multiple diverse end-states, some of which ARE socialist
A theoretical misapprehension so devastating yet so subtle they most never notice the mistake until someone points out that they've essentially argued themselves into left-communism
The entire American political system is designed to be as divorced and decoupled from the actual opinions of the people that might participate in it as possible. It’s very unfair to expect good things to come out of it, and we among the left should know that best of all. We don’t even have a large enough body of representatives for the population, there’s a counter democratic institution called the Senate that’s there just to make it more oligarchical, it’s just a hallway of shit and mirrors.
Hope for the best as always but expect, please expect, the worst
A worker's party is pointless without a labor movement (unions) that support it. No party in the US has demonstrated any success at either attracting existing unions to them or cultivating new unions aligned with them.
You can have a labor movement without a union. In the U.S., any meaningful labor movement will be non-unionized. In the U.S. unions are used to hold onto the scraps you have, not to bargain for more.
I mean unions in the sense of actual organizations of workers in common trades or industries, not state sanctioned bargaining units created by the NLRA.
Oh those don't exist in the U.S. that is genuinely the first step.
I am reminded of Bukharin's take on industrial democracy and Comrade Lenin's repudiation of it. From "Disagreements on Principle" section of "Once Again on The Trade Unions, the Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Buhkarin".
"Take this famous “industrial democracy”, which Comrade Bukharin hastened to insert in the Central Committee’s resolution of December 7. It would, of course, be ridiculous to quibble about this ill-conceived brainchild (“tricky flourishes”), if it merely occurred in an article or speech. But, after all, it was Trotsky and Bukharin who put themselves into the ridiculous position by insisting in their theses on this very term, which is the one feature that distinguishes their “platforms” from Rudzutak’s theses adopted by the trade unions.
The term is theoretically wrong. In the final analysis, every kind of democracy, as political superstructure in general (which must exist until classes have been abolished and a classless society established), serves production and is ultimately determined by the relations of production in a given society. It is, therefore, meaningless to single out “industrial democracy”, for this leads to confusion, and the result is a dummy. That is the first point.
The second is that if you look at Bukharin’s own explanation given in the resolution of the C.C. Plenary Meeting on December 7, which he drafted, you will find that he says: “Accordingly, the methods of workers’ democracy must be those of industrial democracy, which means. . . .” Note the “which means”! The fact is that Bukharin opens his appeal to the masses with such an outlandish term that he must give a gloss on it. This, I think, is undemocratic from the democratic standpoint. You must write for the masses without using terms that require a glossary. This is bad from the “production” standpoint because time is wasted in explaining unnecessary terms. “Which means,” he says, “that nomination and seconding of candidates, elections, etc., must proceed with an eye not only to their political staunchness, but also business efficiency, administrative experience, leadership, and proved concern for the working people’s material and spiritual interests.”
The reasoning there is obviously artificial and incorrect. For one thing, democracy is more than “nomination and seconding of candidates, elections, etc.” Then, again, not all elections should be held with an eye to political staunchness and business efficiency. Comrade Trotsky notwithstanding, an organisation of many millions must have a certain percentage of canvassers and bureaucrats (we shall not be able to make do without good bureaucrats for many years to come). But we do not speak of “canvassing” or “bureaucratic” democracy.
The third point is that it is wrong to consider only the elected, the organisers, the administrators, etc. After all, they constitute a minority of outstanding men. It is the mass, the rank and file that we must consider. Rudzutak has it in simpler, more intelligible and theoretically more correct terms (thesis 6):
“. . . it must be brought home to each participant in production that his production tasks are appropriate and important; that each must not only take a hand in fulfilling his assignments, but also play an intelligent part in correcting any technical and organisational defects in the sphere of production.
The fourth point is that “industrial democracy” is a term that lends itself to misinterpretation. It may be read as a repudiation of dictatorship and individual authority. It may be read as a suspension of ordinary democracy or a pretext for evading it. Both readings are harmful, and cannot be avoided without long special commentaries."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm
While certainly social conditions have changed, I fail to see see how unions in their present form, even the IWW (I'm a wobbly) can effectively reach or even be functionally apart of the same system as a proletarian vanguard other than being ultimately subsumed into a committee or labor board under a worker's party guiding economic direction. Most unions, while beneficial to most workers, retain reactionary ideals and sabotage their own interests because of their lack of theoretical doctrine or understanding of class politics. AFL is a good example of this.
"..and cannot be avoided without long special commentaries" is of particular humor to me, he knew how brutal this topic is with other leftists.
PSL has tried it but the fact that you, and many other people I've met, don't know about that is proof it's not working super well. It's a great recruitment tactic, it gives them an excuse to go out and talk to people and knock on doors and say their thoughts in debates, but I don't see them being successful anytime without some major changes in American politics.
It probably doesn't help that if you know about PSL then you are more acutely aware of how the electoral system works and how much of an impossibly long-shot it is to create a third party in the United States.
Bingo. States can just shoot down these parties, cali has done so I believe or make ridiculous voter thresholds and fundraising/advertisement restrictions that can vary differently from county to county even, like New Jersey for example. People misunderstand how much people it takes to do the books for these kind of projects.
On top of all that, ANTIFA is considered extremist material, so any party that actually gains popular support can just get hit with terrorism charges. Reform has no hope.
sorry should have clarified, i do know about psl i meant people on this site advocating for a third party
Maybe the enthusiasm has died down a bit but there have been discussions on which party to join and that kind of thing. There have been some electoral successes on a local level like kshama sawant in Seattle and Green party representation on Oakland City council. This country is cursed though