Log in

View Full Version : PSL Announces Presidential Campaign



KurtFF8
6th November 2011, 17:50
Figured since there's that long thread about the SPUSA's campaign:

http://www.pslweb.org/votepsl/2012/


The Party for Socialism and Liberation is proud to announce that our party is fielding a slate of candidates for the office of president and vice president of the United States in the 2012 elections. PSL member and Howard University graduate Peta Lindsay is the PSL’s presidential candidate. PSL member Yari Osorio, an immigrant from Colombia now living in New York City, is the vice-presidential candidate. The party also will run local candidates in various cities across the country.


And here's the full statement:


Why we are running in the 2012 presidential elections


The Party for Socialism and Liberation is proud to announce that our party is fielding a slate of candidates for the office of president and vice president of the United States in the 2012 elections.
PSL member and Howard University graduate Peta Lindsay is the PSL’s presidential candidate. PSL member Yari Osorio, an immigrant from Colombia now living in New York City, is the vice-presidential candidate. The party also will run local candidates in various cities across the country.
The PSL is a revolutionary Marxist party in the United States that struggles for socialism. We want a revolution; and, we work hard to make it happen.
The PSL is involved in struggles—both large and small—that affect the U.S. working class. From the Occupy movement to the anti-war movement and the fight for immigrant rights; from struggles for affordable housing and health care to combating racist police brutality; from the movement for women’s rights and LGBT equality to labor and union struggles—the PSL is at the forefront of the class struggle against the capitalists and their rotten system.
We are comprised of militant, working-class organizers and leaders dedicated to advancing the struggle for workers’ power.
Our party knows that revolution is necessary. We fight for reforms that ease the burden on workers and oppressed people, but ultimately reforms are not enough. We know that revolutions are made in the streets, in the factories and other workplaces, and in the military units when workers—in and out of uniform—become conscious that the power of the capitalist bosses and the generals must be replaced with the power of the people. This is the message that the PSL will bring through its intervention in the 2012 elections.
Without a doubt, the capitalist electoral system is a sham. It is a rigged system to ensure the domination of the tiny ruling class of Wall Street bankers, corporations and big-business owners over the vast majority of people in the United States—the working class.
The electoral system is not the final arena of struggle for the working class. But it is where the attention of workers will be drawn this year.
Well over 100 million workers, students and organizers participate in the capitalist elections every four years. Those who do not directly participate are forced to listen closely, because the corporate media focuses on the elections many months before they take place. This year is no exception.
But the elections will sorely disappoint anyone longing for real change. Those who want a better life, a better world, an immediate end to the imperialist war, better wages for workers, free health care, and full economic and social equality for everyone will not get any of those things from the big-business candidates currently on parade.
In the United States, two capitalist parties dominate political life inside the system. Candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties bask in the glow of the electoral contest. The contest, however, is really one between two parties of war and exploitation, two parties of extreme wealth. It is a bankrupt exercise.
More than $2 billion will be spent by the candidates that ultimately get the parties’ nominations. Hundreds of millions have already been raised, much of it spent in the run-up to the primary season.
These candidates from the parties of big capital do not represent the interests of workers or oppressed people. They may speak demagogically and pay lip-service to “the interests of working people,” but they do not mean a word of it.
All of the pro-corporate candidates, time and time again, have pledged themselves to manage the affairs of the U.S. ruling class if elected. Their campaign platforms may articulate the outlook of different wings of the ruling class, but at the end of the day they all have the same goal. All capitalist candidates could share a single slogan—“Profits over people”—that is, if they wanted to tell the naked truth.
These capitalist candidates are fighting tooth and nail in the elections process to control the huge U.S. government apparatus and the right to direct, along with bureaucratic government agencies, where the trillions of dollars of government contracts with big business will go in years to come.
They also are battling to control the state’s repressive apparatus: the police, military, courts and prisons—the real source of the capitalists’ power.
The U.S. electoral system is reflective of a capitalist plutocracy. We live under a government of, by and for the wealthy. These politicians—from President Obama to Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and on down the line—are fully beholden to their corporate backers, the 1 %. Even if they started off from humble backgrounds or espoused progressive positions earlier in their careers, not one politician will be able to become president of the United States unless they adjust their positions to that which is acceptable to the capitalist vultures and the military-industrial complex. Each one of them will embrace the goals of U.S. imperialist domination or they will be dumped unceremoniously by the Republican and Democratic parties. None of them will forward the working-class struggle.
They aim to get elected not to serve the “American people” as they claim, but to serve the miniscule capitalist class. Some of them are actual capitalists themselves.
Workers are asked to vote every four years for who will oppress them for the next four years. The PSL’s entry into the 2012 elections gives workers, students and oppressed people the opportunity to vote for and work with candidates from a party that is already fighting in their interests.
The PSL is not a party of professional politicians. We are a party of professional revolutionaries. Our candidates—Lindsay and Osorio—are different because they do not serve the interests of big capital. Quite the contrary, they have spent their lives fighting against it.
The PSL’s campaign provides a true alternative for workers. Our program is rooted in fundamental working-class interests: peace, not war; jobs and people’s needs; equal rights for all; and socialism.
We want to speak to the tens of millions of working-class and oppressed people who desire real change but will not get it through the capitalist electoral process. We want to fight shoulder to shoulder with our class—the working class—in every struggle against the profit system. We want to be a catalyst to raise working-class consciousness in every arena.
Most importantly, we want to spread the ideas of revolution, of true change. We know that change is possible; we know that it will happen. We also know that it takes an energetic struggle.
There are some progressives who will argue against our campaign. They will say, “You will not get elected,” and then cynically accuse us of conspiring to take away votes from President Obama, the “liberal” alternative to the right-wing Republican candidates. But nearly three years into Obama’s presidency—things have not simply stayed the same, they have gotten worse for working and poor people. Millions more working-class people are unemployed, over five million more people lack health insurance this year than in 2008, millions of homes have been foreclosed and union busting is on the rise.
We cannot wait around for the “change” that will never come. As people are occupying Wall Street and cities throughout the country, cries for real change—revolutionary change—are building. The PSL is running to push that hunger for revolutionary change into the forefront of this bourgeois electoral campaign cycle.
Put simply: We want to take away the capitalist candidates’ votes. We want to expose the Democratic and Republican Party leaderships as the frauds, bigots and warmongers that they are. We want to shine a bright light on the criminal character of the system and its political representatives. We aim to recruit more working people to the movement for socialism. Socialism is a system that justly turns capitalism on its head—it puts people over profits.
The capitalist hacks and their media mouthpieces cannot be the only voices speaking to people about “change” throughout the 2012 elections cycle. With the PSL’s vigorous participation and intervention, this will not happen.
We will get into the debates, we will go door to door, we will hold rallies, speak outs, protests, sit-ins and more to be heard. The PSL’s campaign will reach out to workers and the oppressed with a message of hope, and with a message of real struggle.
The PSL’s 2012 campaign is meant to inspire more working-class organizing, agitation and revolutionary consciousness. We will take the ideas of socialism—a better, more just society; the way forward for humanity—to the workers and poor people in the United States. The PSL’s campaign will open a much-needed avenue for workers to wage political combat against the capitalist establishment and their corrupt representatives.
Our candidates will travel to every part of the country to spread this message.
Join the PSL’s 2012 campaign. Raise the banner of socialism. Champion the cause of the working class.
Become an advocate for people’s rights and revolutionary change.

graymouser
6th November 2011, 18:01
It's interesting that the PSL nominated a woman who was a high school senior in 2001, and a man who was born in Colombia, for President and Vice President respectively. If Peta Lindsay turned 18 before November 6 of her senior year, and that was 2001, that makes her 29 as of November 6, 2012 - which would make her constitutionally ineligible to be the President. And Yari Osorio is ineligible to be President (not a natural born citizen), which according to the 12th amendment also means he cannot be elected as Vice President either.

I wonder if this is going to be addressed in the PSL literature as ageism and national chauvinism which need to be opposed? It's guaranteed to come up and is potentially the kind of issue that could overshadow any attention the campaign could otherwise gain. The SWP has also run ineligible candidates - Peter Camejo and Roger Calero weren't natural born citizens either - and as a propaganda campaign it doesn't matter all that much but it's a question that IMO should not be decided too lightly.

tir1944
6th November 2011, 18:04
What kind of party nominates candidates that can't legally take up their functions even if they (by some magic) win?
:confused:

KurtFF8
6th November 2011, 18:07
I would imagine that the decision to run ineligible candidates was considered in the selection.

One thing that signals is that the campaign isn't really about attempting to win (such an attempt would of course be laughable) but to raise issues.

Perhaps it could be a good starting point in non-Leftist conversations about the nature of the campaign. For example in Leftist circles, there's the conversation of running for office where groups like the PSL and SPUSA have to explain that they're just running to spread their work and meet new allies. Running ineligible candidates may be able to bring that conversation to a wider audience


What kind of party nominates candidates that can't legally take up their functions even if they (by some magic) win?What kind of party sits around and thinks about what happens if they win a Presidential election in the United States? If that happened for some reason, that would be a whole new set of problems to deal with which would be a much better set of problems for the PSL than the fact that they picked ineligible candidates

$lim_$weezy
6th November 2011, 18:07
I assume it's for publicity purposes. We all know they can't actually win, so it doesn't exactly matter in that regard.

wunderbar
6th November 2011, 18:54
Peter Camejo and Roger Calero weren't natural born citizens

Camejo was a natural born citizen, he was born in NYC but raised in Venezuela.

Rusty Shackleford
6th November 2011, 18:55
Peta spoke at the Nor Cal regional conference on socialism. Verrrry well read and very in tune with things.

I've never met Yari though.

X5N
7th November 2011, 00:38
They should focus their resources on other things.

If they're really going for the electoral strategy to implementing socialist policies, I think running a candidate for a local office they have a chance of winning, and engaging in community activism and such, has more potential than running for an office they won't win and know they won't win -- possibly -- for publicity they probably won't get.

The PSL has a pretty good electoral history, with their local races. Five times they've passed the ten percent mark in elections for state, city, or county-level elections, which is a milestone of sorts for alt. parties.

Property Is Robbery
7th November 2011, 04:08
Peta spoke at the Nor Cal regional conference on socialism. Verrrry well read and very in tune with things.

I've never met Yari though.
Yeah I've met her. She's a great choice.

Ocean Seal
7th November 2011, 04:15
Peta spoke at the Nor Cal regional conference on socialism. Verrrry well read and very in tune with things.

I've never met Yari though.
I know Yari, he's a really cool guy who is very intellectual. Should be interesting to see them both run.

Dzerzhinsky's Ghost
7th November 2011, 04:20
I assume it's for publicity purposes. We all know they can't actually win, so it doesn't exactly matter in that regard.

If it's for publicity purposes then it would only make sense to chose candidates that could potentially win (even if we know they won't) so we don't look like blithering idiots.

Rusty Shackleford
7th November 2011, 04:24
They should focus their resources on other things.

If they're really going for the electoral strategy to implementing socialist policies, I think running a candidate for a local office they have a chance of winning, and engaging in community activism and such, has more potential than running for an office they won't win and know they won't win -- possibly -- for publicity they probably won't get.

The PSL has a pretty good electoral history, with their local races. Five times they've passed the ten percent mark in elections for state, city, or county-level elections, which is a milestone of sorts for alt. parties.
we have no illusions about the electoral route. we dont argue that elections make socialism and that is not our program. We do this though to provide an alternate ballot choice and so on but its not going to bring about socialism. If by some wild chance we do get a president elected we may be able to enact some great reforms (say we had congress too) but fundamentally the economy would still be capitalist and our goal is not simply reform. Its also a platform from which to argue in favor of socialism.

KurtFF8
7th November 2011, 04:34
If it's for publicity purposes then it would only make sense to chose candidates that could potentially win (even if we know they won't) so we don't look like blithering idiots.

How does that follow?

Os Cangaceiros
7th November 2011, 04:41
How effective has the PSL's electoral campaigns in the past been in getting their POV's across?

Dzerzhinsky's Ghost
7th November 2011, 04:42
How does that follow?

It only makes sense to chose and select candidates whom are elligible for the position to which they are campaigning for even if the actuality of them winning is dismal at best otherwise no one will take us seriously. Granted, I think the whole 35 year old or whatever is bullshit but still it only makes sense to me atleast to have elligible candidates, otherwise, what's the point? So you're raising awareness, getting publicity, trying to enact reforms, etc. which is admirable but you're really not going to accomplish anything unless your candidates have the possibility of winning even if again the actuality of it is dismal. I mean, fact is, currently, you have to be of a certain age and a natural born citizen to be elligible to become president thus the PSL should chose someone who meets this standard. Bourgeois politics is essentially a game and to get anything, you have to play the game.

X5N
7th November 2011, 04:44
we have no illusions about the electoral route. we dont argue that elections make socialism and that is not our program. We do this though to provide an alternate ballot choice and so on but its not going to bring about socialism. If by some wild chance we do get a president elected we may be able to enact some great reforms (say we had congress too) but fundamentally the economy would still be capitalist and our goal is not simply reform. Its also a platform from which to argue in favor of socialism.

Very well then.

But wouldn't some reforms to capitalism be better than no reforms? Because the difference is a lot of people who's suffering -- while not eliminated perhaps, unfortunately -- could be reduced, between now and a revolution that might not even successfully occur within my lifetime or yours, if at all.

I am still a revolutionary leftist of course. Just a bit cynical about the prospect of revolution in the U.S.

Rusty Shackleford
7th November 2011, 04:45
slap the water. generate controversy. show the bourgeois electoral system is a sham.


Very well then.

But wouldn't some reforms to capitalism be better than no reforms? Because the difference is a lot of people who's suffering -- while not eliminated perhaps, unfortunately -- could be reduced, between now and a revolution that might not even successfully occur within my lifetime or yours, if at all.

I am still a revolutionary leftist of course. Just a bit cynical about the prospect of revolution in the U.S.
sure, we take part in campaigns for reforms. doesnt mean we stop there though and we wont water our program down to simply fighting for and advocating reforms.

X5N
7th November 2011, 05:39
sure, we take part in campaigns for reforms. doesnt mean we stop there though and we wont water our program down to simply fighting for and advocating reforms.

I don't expect you guys to.

Paulappaul
7th November 2011, 05:57
Our dreams cannot fit in the ballot box.

Sam Varriano
7th November 2011, 15:31
I always liked the PSL, if I vote for anyone in 2012 it will probably be them.

KurtFF8
8th November 2011, 02:39
It only makes sense to chose and select candidates whom are elligible for the position to which they are campaigning for even if the actuality of them winning is dismal at best otherwise no one will take us seriously. Granted, I think the whole 35 year old or whatever is bullshit but still it only makes sense to me atleast to have elligible candidates, otherwise, what's the point? So you're raising awareness, getting publicity, trying to enact reforms, etc. which is admirable but you're really not going to accomplish anything unless your candidates have the possibility of winning even if again the actuality of it is dismal. I mean, fact is, currently, you have to be of a certain age and a natural born citizen to be elligible to become president thus the PSL should chose someone who meets this standard. Bourgeois politics is essentially a game and to get anything, you have to play the game.

But as you admit here, the possibility of winning is close to zero, and the PSL is quite aware of that.

The election, and winning it is not the goal and thus the eligibility is not really the issue here.

And this isn't really an attempt at playing bourgeois politics. If it were there would be more focus on winning the election. Instead it is using the venue of elections to bring the discussion about capitalism and socialism to a wider audience.


Our dreams cannot fit in the ballot box.

Huh?

Comrade-Z
8th November 2011, 05:36
Why even run in the election at all if the only aim is publicity? "Oh, but people won't take us seriously or notice us unless we run for president."

I got news for you: the same sort of people who take the elections seriously and who will notice your party via this method of propaganda are the same sort of people who will not take your party seriously upon learning that your two candidates are legally ineligible for the presidency. This tactic will not work as a propaganda device.

It's like, the PSL knows that elections are useless spectacles, but just can't quite shake the Leninist addiction to parliamentary cretinism, so they settle for a watered-down version and rationalize their addiction by saying, "Oh, we're just using it for propaganda purposes, and to prove that, we won't even run candidates who are eligible." PSL, you might be fooling yourselves, but you're not fooling anybody else. Just quit cold turkey. You'll eventually be glad you did.

Os Cangaceiros
8th November 2011, 05:56
And this isn't really an attempt at playing bourgeois politics. If it were there would be more focus on winning the election. Instead it is using the venue of elections to bring the discussion about capitalism and socialism to a wider audience.

I didn't get an answer to my last question, so I'll re-iterate: how successful has this been in the past?

I ask this because it was only after I had joined this site that I'd heard of the PSL (I'd seen the SP-USA and the CP-USA get some airtime before, though). Has the PSL succeeded in bringing issues involving capitalism into the national discussion?

Property Is Robbery
8th November 2011, 06:08
I didn't get an answer to my last question, so I'll re-iterate: how successful has this been in the past?

I ask this because it was only after I had joined this site that I'd heard of the PSL (I'd seen the SP-USA and the CP-USA get some airtime before, though). Has the PSL succeeded in bringing issues involving capitalism into the national discussion?
In terms of the state of CA and one or two cities we have started some discussions and gotten some air time, but not nationally. However the way I first heard of the PSL is because I was interested in Peace and Freedom and they ran PSL candidates. I'm now a full member so it is effective in that sense.

Rusty Shackleford
8th November 2011, 13:27
not to mention we are a growing and maturing organization. We take self-criticism of campaigns(not just bourgeois-political, but all struggle forms) seriously to improve them.

Our campaign probably would not generate national discussion unless there was more than the PSL and PFP organizing it (assuming we win the PFP primaries) or we were able to speak at a debate. though even the Libertarians and greens never get a foot in that door unless they bloc with the Republicans or Democrats respectively.

KurtFF8
8th November 2011, 14:27
I didn't get an answer to my last question, so I'll re-iterate: how successful has this been in the past?

I ask this because it was only after I had joined this site that I'd heard of the PSL (I'd seen the SP-USA and the CP-USA get some airtime before, though). Has the PSL succeeded in bringing issues involving capitalism into the national discussion?

In terms of building the organization itself, from what I understand it was quite successful. These campaigns produce contacts with people interested in the message of the party, and help build not only the Party itself but the wider activist community that the Party is a part of.

Granted I wasn't involved back in 08, but this is what I understand


Why even run in the election at all if the only aim is publicity? "Oh, but people won't take us seriously or notice us unless we run for president."

I got news for you: the same sort of people who take the elections seriously and who will notice your party via this method of propaganda are the same sort of people who will not take your party seriously upon learning that your two candidates are legally ineligible for the presidency. This tactic will not work as a propaganda device.

It's like, the PSL knows that elections are useless spectacles, but just can't quite shake the Leninist addiction to parliamentary cretinism, so they settle for a watered-down version and rationalize their addiction by saying, "Oh, we're just using it for propaganda purposes, and to prove that, we won't even run candidates who are eligible." PSL, you might be fooling yourselves, but you're not fooling anybody else. Just quit cold turkey. You'll eventually be glad you did.

This is why I answered the other question first, because it addresses this.

I'll ignore the sarcasm and cheap shots here. As I pointed out above, the aim is not only to "spread the message" of socialism (and the practical goal of that is even if people don't join the organization, they will perhaps get involved somehow) but also to build contacts and folks interested in the Party as well as the movement in general. This is a practical goal. If this didn't happen, then the Party would not put much effort into these types of campaigns, especially if the purpose of them is up front.

Crux
8th November 2011, 14:45
So how does this relate to the National Organizing Committee (http://www.noc2012.org/index.html)? I am just curious because it seemed like a prettty good initiative.

Rusty Shackleford
8th November 2011, 14:50
The Peace and Freedom Party is the only socialist organization with ballot status in most states. The thing about them which is great is they allow non-ballot parties to take part in their primaries and then which ever candidate wins is on a joint ticket (PFP/PSL for example) and they have ballot status.

Its a shell organization and its non-tendency. Though, they do a lot of work too in my area which is great. So they operate as a party too.

The Peace and Freedom Party founded the National Organizing Committee.

manic expression
8th November 2011, 17:33
Great to hear this...I can definitely say that Yari is an exceptional communist, truly dedicated to the struggle.

Property Is Robbery
3rd December 2011, 01:47
IzEA7Z4ad3w

Philosopher Jay
3rd December 2011, 15:02
This is a good idea. It gives me an alternative for voting for the Democrats and President Obama.
If polls show a close race on election day in my state, I will vote for Obama, if polls show the Republican and Democrat candidates more than 5 points apart, I will vote for a socialist candidate.
It seems to me that socialist participation in bourgeois elections was held in high regard by Marx and Engels after the reform bill of 1867 allowed wider voter representation.
From Wikipedia:
(The Representation of the People Act 1867, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102 (known informally as the Reform Act of 1867 or the Second Reform Act) was a piece of British legislation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Acts_of_Parliament_in_the_United_Kingdom) that enfranchised the urban male working class in England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England) and Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales). Before the Act, only one million of the five million adult males in England and Wales could vote; the act doubled that number. In its final form, the Reform Act of 1867 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1867) enfranchised all male householders)

The bill extended the franchise by 938,427, an increase of 88%. The right to vote was given to male householders and male lodgers paying at least £10 for room.


We should understand the background that Lenin was coming from and the reason for his opposition to bourgeois elections (from http://www.funfront.net/hist/russia/revo1917.htm#A.%20THE%20ATTEMPT%20TO%20DIMINISH%20 THE%20POWER%20OF%20THE%20DUMA): (http://www.funfront.net/hist/russia/revo1917.htm#A.%20THE%20ATTEMPT%20TO%20DIMINISH%20 THE%20POWER%20OF%20THE%20DUMA%29:)
"A. THE ATTEMPT TO DIMINISH THE POWER OF THE DUMA

( 1 ) The Fundamental Laws
No sooner had the 1905 Revolution died out than Nicholas 11 thought of withdrawing the liberal concessions from the people.


Before the first Duma met, the government promulgated the constitution the Fundamental Laws. The Czar was described as 'the supreme autocratic power' in the constitution. He retained huge executive and legislative powers, including the control of the army and foreign policy, the right to dissolve the Duma and to dismiss his ministers.
The Duma was to consist of the Upper and Lower Chambers. Half of the members of the Upper Chamber were appointed by the Czar. Although the Lower Chamber was elected by wide male suffrage and secret voting, the elaborate system of indirect voting favoured the wealthier class. The voters first voted for the electors who then voted for those further electors who could finally vote for the members of the Duma. This system of election favoured the wealthier class who had the leisure to take part in a series of elections. The wealthier class was usually conservative in their political outlook and tended to support the Czar.
Thus the autocratic power of the Czar was well-protected by the undemocratic provisions of the constitution."


Seeing how elections were easily manipulated to enhance the authority and power of the czar, is it any wonder that Lenin and the Bolsheviks distrusted them?



However the situation is much different in the United States today. While certainly corrupt in a thousand little ways, there is nothing that stops the workingclass from using elections as tools for their own interests.


The workingclass has already embraced the electorial system in the United States and uses it in its own interests when it can as the recent events in Ohio demonstrate.



Communists should not separate themselves from workers and declare eternal laws from tablets handed down from mountaintops.







§

Kassad
4th December 2011, 20:56
This isn't the first time the PSL has done this. Eugene Puryear, their 2008 Vice-Presidential candidate, is only in his mid-20's I believe.

Rafiq
4th December 2011, 21:35
How absurd of them. Why?

KurtFF8
4th December 2011, 21:51
Hasn't that question already been addressed in this very thread?

I'm also curious as to why people here are concerned with eligibility, as if the goal is to actually win the Presidency in the first place.

graymouser
5th December 2011, 21:40
I'm also curious as to why people here are concerned with eligibility, as if the goal is to actually win the Presidency in the first place.
Because - just as we've seen in this thread - the eligibility question tends to overshadow the actual political questions. Unless you were centering your campaign around the reasons for their ineligibility, the ineligible candidates tend to draw attention away from the substance of their campaign and waste a lot of their time explaining why the party did not nominate eligible members.

It also creates the impression that you are unserious - which to me undermines the idea of a propaganda campaign. Sure, you're primarily using the bourgeois elections to get some attention, but why show your hand so blatantly?

KurtFF8
6th December 2011, 02:56
Hmm, well it was pointed out earlier that the previous election also had ineligible candidates. I'm not aware of that being an issue at any point, and I am aware that the campaign helped the Party grow as an organization.

And it should indeed create the impression that the PSL isn't serious about trying to capture the Presidency: it's not.

Who do you think this will be mostly an issue for? The folks that PSL meets during the campaign or other Leftists who don't like the idea of the campaign to begin with?

6th December 2011, 03:06
:laugh:. Best case scenario they'll have a commie sitting in office with a congress of reactionaries.

Prometeo liberado
7th December 2011, 07:55
Please understand that these "elections" are just a road to where we are going. Yes we must raise the current issue and at the same time get the PSL name out there. But make no mistake our chief concern for now is the education of our cadres and actual field work amongst our class. The democratic process will never work for the masses and for that reason alone we also will never call ourselves pacifists. Come on board for the final big push comrade!

MarxSchmarx
8th December 2011, 04:24
The Peace and Freedom Party is the only socialist organization with ballot status in most states. The thing about them which is great is they allow non-ballot parties to take part in their primaries and then which ever candidate wins is on a joint ticket (PFP/PSL for example) and they have ballot status.


Are you sure? I have never heard of them in any recent US election outside of California and even there I was under the impression they struggle mightily to stay on the ballot at all. They were a growing factor several decades ago, but today seem almost entirely confined to California as far as electoral work is concerned.

wunderbar
8th December 2011, 06:09
Are you sure? I have never heard of them in any recent US election outside of California and even there I was under the impression they struggle mightily to stay on the ballot at all. They were a growing factor several decades ago, but today seem almost entirely confined to California as far as electoral work is concerned.

You're correct. The National Organizing Committee is PFP's attempt to re-emerge as a party with national presence as it sort of did in the 60s and early 70s, but we'll see how that works out. I'm not holding my breath.

Rusty Shackleford
8th December 2011, 06:22
Are you sure? I have never heard of them in any recent US election outside of California and even there I was under the impression they struggle mightily to stay on the ballot at all. They were a growing factor several decades ago, but today seem almost entirely confined to California as far as electoral work is concerned.
i always thought they had branches in a few other states. i may be wrong though

Nothing Human Is Alien
8th December 2011, 06:34
Peace and Freedom had ballot status in a few states when it first sprung up in the late 60's, but then lost it. It ended up being for the most part limited to California, and it even lost status there for a few years in the early 2000's. In the last presidential election it appeared on the ballot in Iowa via the Nader campaign.