US politics: Peace and Freedom Party

[Die Neue Zeit]

The unorganized social democrats still in the organization are a mix of three groups. First are those that simply send in their dues so they can vote for a Socialist Party candidate every four years. This group is probably about 80% of the party, but they take no part in the internal life of the party. If they wanted, they could swamp us, but they don't.

[...]

I have no problem with social democrats that just give us money. :tt1:

On a related question, what are the politics of the Peace and Freedom Party, both at the top and at the base (they claim to have 55,000 members!)? I wonder if their base is as inactive as your dues-paying majority, because getting them and their $$$ in would be nice, too. [Unless they're as much a "party" as the Dems and Reps. :glare: ]

[chegitz guevara]

I don't live in California, so I never bothered to learn about PFP. Now that they are trying to organize nationally, I find myself annoyed by them.

[Zeus the Moose]

On a related question, what are the politics of the Peace and Freedom Party, both at the top and at the base (they claim to have 55,000 members!)? I wonder if their base is as inactive as your dues-paying majority, because getting them and their $$$ in would be nice, too. [Unless they're as much a "party" as the Dems and Reps. :glare: ]

They do have 55,000 members, in the American context of what membership in a political party means. That is, 55,000 people in California have declared their voter registration to be the "Peace and Freedom Party." This has no bearing on the membership of the PFP in terms of how socialists usually mean membership: people who sign something saying they agree with the principles of said organisation, and pay dues. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the activist membership of the PFP was smaller than the activist membership of the SP-USA (which is still proportionally better, since they're only dealing with one state, but still.

I'm trying to find out all I can about the PFP's efforts to expand nationally, as they might be successful in some places. However, my impression is that the PFP has an overly rosy view about what they're going to achieve by 2010 (unless they know something that I don't.) Because of the undemocratic and Byzantine nature of ballot access in the US, there might be some places where various socialist groups jointly supporting candidates on a PFP banner might make sense.

However, any such initiative needs to be explicitly and unapologetically socialist. We already have one Green Party in this country; we don't need another.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thanks for exposing their overratedness. :)

Any comments on this lengthy platform?

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/about-us/platform

"To us, socialism is workers' democracy, including the principle that all officials are elected, recallable at any time, and none receives more than a worker's wage. Socialism can only be brought about when we, the working class, unite and act as a body in our own interests. Our goals cannot be achieved by electoral means alone. We participate in mass organization and direct action in neighborhoods, workplaces, unions and the armed forces everywhere.

While organizing for the future, we work in the present, challenging the system with the following immediate and transitional goals"

[Revy]

We were hoping for their endorsement, as was the PSL. In fact, Gloria La Riva, PSL's presidential candidate, and Stewart Alexander, SPUSA's Vice Presidential candidate, both have been notable PFP members. Instead, PFP chose Nader, with McKinney in 2nd and the socialists in last place. It was truly a dreadful moment.

Nonetheless, they're planning to go national, and they're a lot more palatable to us than the Greens. the kind of entryism you see on the left toward the Greens, at least in the sense of "let's give critical support to them and use them as a platform" makes a lot more sense when we're talking about the Peace and Freedom Party, which at least makes a point about being socialist.

[Sankara1983]

My educated impression is that the PFP is not really a members-based organization; it's more of an electoral vehicle or shell organization in which different factions compete to field candidates. The main currents are associated with the Socialist Party USA, the Workers World Party, the Green Party, and otherwise unaffiliated leftists. I don't live in California so I can't be sure, but this is how I see it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[zimmerwald1915]

A quick scan (I don't really have time for more at the moment, class beginning in a few minutes) of their Platform reveals some substitutionist tendencies, though if what people are saying about them is true the Platform doesn't necessarily represent the views of most of their "membership".