Kshama Sawant

[DasFapital]

A candidate running under the Socialist Alternative party for Position 1 in the 43rd District (Seattle) of the Washington House of Representatives. She'll be running against Democratic Speaker of the House Frank Chopp.

www.votesawant.org

[Drosophila]

Not really sure what they seek to accomplish with all of this. Coupled with their support of Jill Stein and love for coalitions, it seems they're so desperate to become well-known that they're willing to leave behind communism and wave the flag of liberalism.

[Ostrinski]

Not really sure what they seek to accomplish with all of this. Coupled with their support of Jill Stein and love for coalitions, it seems they're so desperate to become well-known that they're willing to leave behind communism and wave the flag of liberalism.Thems are fightin' words, man

But really I don't know enough about the campaign to make a judgment. Interesting that she got onto the ballot though.

[Crux]

Not really sure what they seek to accomplish with all of this. Coupled with their support of Jill Stein and love for coalitions, it seems they're so desperate to become well-known that they're willing to leave behind communism and wave the flag of liberalism.
What they seek to accomplish? Uhm, it's pretty clear to me. To build the beginnings of a new worker's party and to publicly challenge and expose the Democrats. When you make claims like that it's helpful if you could qualify it with something.
Here's a video from a recent Soc. Alt. meeting in Seattle:
Capitalism in Crisis and the Socialist Alternative (http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1576097/events/1587485)

Do point out where we're waving the flag of liberalism.

[Drosophila]

I've actually met that guy in person. He's from Austria, so he doesn't necessarily represent Socialist Alternative. In any case, talks like these are hardly representative of the party's real line, which consists mostly of liberal talking points like student debt and a lack of any real theory. This all comes from my own experience with the party.

[Crux]

I've actually met that guy in person. He's from Austria, so he doesn't necessarily represent Socialist Alternative. In any case, talks like these are hardly representative of the party's real line, which consists mostly of liberal talking points like student debt and a lack of any real theory. This all comes from my own experience with the party.
As far as I'm concerned we're all the CWI. And why wouldn't student debt be a real issue? Reform and revolution are not opposites, you know.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I've actually met that guy in person. He's from Austria, so he doesn't necessarily represent Socialist Alternative. In any case, talks like these are hardly representative of the party's real line, which consists mostly of liberal talking points like student debt and a lack of any real theory. This all comes from my own experience with the party.

The student debt problem in the US is huge and is driving large numbers of people in their 20s into poverty.Its not just a "liberal talking point" but a basic and nightmarish fact of life for many, including people on this forum.Socialist Alternative/CWI is an international organisation and socialism obviously must take an international perspective.We've had comrades from Ireland, the UK, Lebanon and Nigeria tour the US to discuss the struggle in their countries.

As far as our "real line" we push for breaking with the Dems, putting the economy under public ownership.

http://www.socialistalternative.org/about/

Anyway Kshama very ably showed up the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party. We are certainly not "liberals".

[Drosophila]

Student debt is a huge problem, I get that. But let's not make that one of of our campaign's biggest issues just to attract students. That's just baseless opportunism. Instead, talk about capitalism as a whole, why it needs to be put to an end, and what radical alternative is. A communist party needs to put forth a communist program, not just vague demands that people could just go to the Green Party for.

[Prometeo liberado]

I don't mind a socialist running for office. We need to engage at the electoral level at some point. My concern is that we don't try and piggy back off the liberals and thus make our message pointless.

[Crux]

I'll write something longer about our method more generally when I'm not surfing on my phone but one of thr main slogans is "capitalism has failed the 99%!", cuts straight to the point don't you think? And we took it to the courts to defend our rigjt to identify as socialists on the ballot.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Her campaign is certainly markedly to the left of liberalism. If I lived in that district, I'd vote for her, but I'm in the 11th District.

[Crux]

Her campaign is certainly markedly to the left of liberalism. If I lived in that district, I'd vote for her, but I'm in the 11th District.

Well there are other ways to help out with the campaign if you want to. There's a form that can be filled out on the vote sawant page if you want to get in touch with them or even just give your personal endorsement. Ultimately this campaign isnt about the votes but to build something for the future, in WA and beyond.

[Crux]

Livestream (http://www.revleft.org/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=2519020) of meeting tonight.

[Crux]

Ec3NF_Qh4-0

[ellipsis]

this shouldn't be in mutual aid. maybe the other mod in the thread could have moved it. ;)

moved to politics

[Crux]

KNrplWkPgnM

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Student debt is a huge problem, I get that. But let's not make that one of of our campaign's biggest issues just to attract students. That's just baseless opportunism. Instead, talk about capitalism as a whole, why it needs to be put to an end, and what radical alternative is. A communist party needs to put forth a communist program, not just vague demands that people could just go to the Green Party for.

Yeah a party should have a systemic critique, but there's nothing wrong with agitating against particular symptoms of the system to show the public how the failures of Capitalism are directly impacting their lives.

[Crux]

Sawant: "for all those that asked me why I'm running as socialist, when socialism is such a 'dirty' word, I say look at the king county election results" (they show Sawant with a groundbreaking 27%) (http://www.facebook.com/VoteSawant)

[Crux]

From the North Star:
Sawant, Stein, and Post-2012 Left Strategy (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=3189)

[Crux]

S96wvFZOl-E

[KurtFF8]

This was quite an impressive result. Congrats to the SA

[Crux]

This was quite an impressive result. Congrats to the SAYeah, I'm looking forward to the coming local elections already.

[DaringMehring]

From the North Star:
Sawant, Stein, and Post-2012 Left Strategy (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=3189)

This article makes some good points. First of all focusing on local elections. The bigger the election is, the harder it is to beat money. And, focusing locally, you can choose to fight in places where there is a population that it is worthwhile to agitate. Sawant's result proves it again but it is hardly new... people openly from, say, Peace and Freedom, have been elected to local positions. In Europe even more so.

The article really goes off its rocker when it talks about using the power of the capitalist state for socialist purposes. Marx said this was impossible -- "it is impossible for the workers to seize the ready made machinery of the capitalist state and use it for their purposes" -- and all of history has proved this again and again. It is just a delusion. The capitalist state is not designed to allow the government to impose the worker's interests on the capitalists, in fact just the opposite. Checks and balances, the centrality of money, etc. It had been tried again and again and failed (including the CWI/IMT's Militant in Liverpool which went down in failure and disgrace). A local person can do nothing for socialism... even capturing a majority in the national government, cannot bring socialism. Only the revolution can.

Second, the article's forceful demand to support Jill Stein seems bizarre. Last time I checked, Jill Stein was not a socialist nor a revolutionary. Lining up to support a non-socialist, non-revolutionary because she is "left" or "that is where the movement is" is just opportunist and every other name in the book.

The real use of participating in electoral politics is not to take over the capitalist government, or to support non-socialist (= bourgeois) lefts. The purpose is to agitate the socialist program. If Sawant or any similar would win, their best course would be to use their position simply as a soapbox to point out all the misdeeds their governmental colleagues do on behalf of capitalists.

PS I voted for Roseanne in the election not because I love her but at least she's from the working class and her party is nominally socialist.

[Crux]

PS I voted for Roseanne in the election not because I love her but at least she's from the working class and her party is nominally socialist.
The absolutly only reason I could see myself voting for that individual is so that the PFP doesn't lose their ballot access. Even so nobody forced them to chose Roseanne Barr. So honestly I'd rather vote Stein every day of the week. She's consistent and right on many of the most important things indeed she's taken some stances you'd hardly find outside of the socialist left (using that term broadly) over here in sweden. Not trying to paint her as something she's not, but you have to look at the whole picture at least.

As for the limitations of the bourgeoisie state, well I'm not Binh so I can't really answer for that article.
But what can say is this, the experience of the Liverpool council does show what's possible on the local level, in positive way. Any part of the state is as much a battle field for class struggle as the rest of society. I think you're oversimplifying in absurdum. We already hold office at council level in several countries, as well asin the irish parliament and in the European parliament. We do have a pretty clear idea how to use those positions.

[Crux]

Statement by the Sawant campaign:
Socialist Wins 28% of the Vote in Seattle Historic Opportunities to Challenge Corporate Politics (http://votesawant.org/socialist-wins-28-of-the-vote/)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

PS I voted for Roseanne in the election not because I love her but at least she's from the working class and her party is nominally socialist.

Despite the fact that she is a transphobic millionaire? If I was compelled to vote I would so it with someone less reactionary.

[DaringMehring]

The absolutly only reason I could see myself voting for that individual is so that the PFP doesn't lose their ballot access. Even so nobody forced them to chose Roseanne Barr.
So honestly I'd rather vote Stein every day of the week. She's consistent and right on many of the most important things indeed she's taken some stances you'd hardly find outside of the socialist left (using that term broadly) over here in sweden. Not trying to paint her as something she's not, but you have to look at the whole picture at least.

Dr. Jill Stein (ooh, "Dr!" ... reminds me of the Ron Paul people and their obsession with calling him "Dr. Paul") can take whatever stances she wants but Roseanne is from the working class and Stein is a Harvard grad. Roseanne made a tv show about a strong working class mom who doesn't take shit. And...her famous rendition of the national anthem alone is worth a vote.

But I don't think it's really very important either way...



As for the limitations of the bourgeoisie state, well I'm not Binh so I can't really answer for that article.
But what can say is this, the experience of the Liverpool council does show what's possible on the local level, in positive way. Any part of the state is as much a battle field for class struggle as the rest of society. I think you're oversimplifying in absurdum. We already hold office at council level in several countries, as well asin the irish parliament and in the European parliament. We do have a pretty clear idea how to use those positions.

Could you please explain because I have yet to see a use of the capitalist state that has made gains toward socialism... that's not to say that elections can't be an arena of struggle and Lutte Ouvriere has used them for agitation effectively including when they happened to get someone into government. But it was precisely that --- agitation. Not coalition building or use of the state to X Y or Z or trying to play paymaster of the capitalist payroll.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Lenin advocated electing Bolsheviks to the Duma and after the February Revolution had a campaign slogan "down with the capitalist ministers". Its not parliamentary cretinism to use the arena of electoral politics to educate people about socialism and to help create a movement. As a Socialist Alternative article mentioned, if the Ocuppy movement had been more political and run even 200 people it could have had a big influence on the national dialogue.

A slight change of subject...


The other strategic lesson of the Sawant campaign concerns the problem of sectarianism/left unity. The International Socialist Organization’s (ISO) refusal to endorse and work with/for Kshama Sawant of Socialist Alternative materially weakened the campaign against the Washington legislature’s Democratic speaker, Frank Chopp. The ISO’s support could have brought much-needed publicity and funds to a dynamic and promising but under-funded campaign since the ISO is the largest revolutionary socialist organization in the country.

Here was an exceedingly rare and golden opportunity to unite a fractured local left against the most powerful Democrat in state politics and instead of seizing the opportunity to weaken the Democratic Party, the ISO refused to get on board, preferring silence, inaction, and isolation while Chopp twisted the arms of unions and nonprofits alike to endorse him or stay neutral (as the ISO did).

Sectarianism must be exposed to the light of day and combated in the here and now, while the stakes are low.

Why did the ISO not support this campaign?

[Crux]

Dr. Jill Stein (ooh, "Dr!" ... reminds me of the Ron Paul people and their obsession with calling him "Dr. Paul") can take whatever stances she wants but Roseanne is from the working class and Stein is a Harvard grad. Roseanne made a tv show about a strong working class mom who doesn't take shit. And...her famous rendition of the national anthem alone is worth a vote.

But I don't think it's really very important either way...



Could you please explain because I have yet to see a use of the capitalist state that has made gains toward socialism... that's not to say that elections can't be an arena of struggle and Lutte Ouvriere has used them for agitation effectively including when they happened to get someone into government. But it was precisely that --- agitation. Not coalition building or use of the state to X Y or Z or trying to play paymaster of the capitalist payroll. She is an actual medical doctor, but it was you who used her title, not me. Whereas Roseanne Barr is a multimillionaire and a political crank. That she claims to be a socialist (or rather sometimes be a socialist, sometimes support capitalist solutions, that's an almost direct quote btw) and managed to snatch the PFP nomination (with PSL's support no less) doesn't change that one bit. I'm glad Cindy Sheehan realized this and dropped out, a shame she didn't realize it sooner.

Yes, agitation is a large part of it. But it's also quite possible to force some things through, most usually defensive rather than offensive measures though.

[DaringMehring]

Yes, agitation is a large part of it. But it's also quite possible to force some things through, most usually defensive rather than offensive measures though.

Ok here are my concerns.

1) In reality how do you force some things through, if you're an isolated one or two people who really do represent a whole different kind of politics? Coalition with bourgeois lefts on common ground...?

2) When campaigning, do you actually go around saying "we'll be able to get some things, mostly defensive" -- ie honestly represent the deep limitations of bourgeois politics (even saying you can get some things seems like an overreach). Or do you center around slogans about "fighting back" that say nothing about the class nature of the institution of government -- that is what I see in these kinds of campaigns, from SYRIZA to every other parliamentary socialist or pseudo-socialist group.

3) Putting so much emphasis on the political importance of elections (which are a money-rigged game in a money-rigged system) marginalizes the workers' strongest means of struggle, of real politics, which are workplace organization and direct action. The New Deal in the 30s was implemented by politicians -- but only because they were forced to by the massive workplace and direct struggles of the working class. We need to show where the real politics of the working class are, not present bourgeois elections as political ground zero.

Again, congratulations to Sawant, and SA, good job raising awareness, and I believe in the strategy of local election agitation -- I hope there remains some organizing and apparatus from the Sawant campaign. But... the article draws some wacky, or should I say social-democratic, conclusions.

[Crux]

Ok here are my concerns.

1) In reality how do you force some things through, if you're an isolated one or two people who really do represent a whole different kind of politics? Coalition with bourgeois lefts on common ground...?

2) When campaigning, do you actually go around saying "we'll be able to get some things, mostly defensive" -- ie honestly represent the deep limitations of bourgeois politics (even saying you can get some things seems like an overreach). Or do you center around slogans about "fighting back" that say nothing about the class nature of the institution of government -- that is what I see in these kinds of campaigns, from SYRIZA to every other parliamentary socialist or pseudo-socialist group.

3) Putting so much emphasis on the political importance of elections (which are a money-rigged game in a money-rigged system) marginalizes the workers' strongest means of struggle, of real politics, which are workplace organization and direct action. The New Deal in the 30s was implemented by politicians -- but only because they were forced to by the massive workplace and direct struggles of the working class. We need to show where the real politics of the working class are, not present bourgeois elections as political ground zero.

Again, congratulations to Sawant, and SA, good job raising awareness, and I believe in the strategy of local election agitation -- I hope there remains some organizing and apparatus from the Sawant campaign. But... the article draws some wacky, or should I say social-democratic, conclusions.
1) Coalitions? No. If they're ready to vote with us they can, but that's it. No real pressure is when we take it outside the parliamentary chambers. Make the people aware of what is going on. That's how we can get thing's thrpough even if we have just two seats on a council. That's how we've stopped, together with teachers, parents and students, several attempts to close down the high schools in Haninge.

2) We're always open about the limits of elected positions, so our main focus is always vote for us and we can fight together with you, rather than for you. We also try to expose the other parties, particularly those supposedly on the left, in sweden that's the soc dem's and the left party. In the u.s it's the Democrats. So part of it is also showing what is possible now, like, for instance if the council, as they are in Haninge, are making cut-backs while sitting on a pile of money. Or like most recently they gave preferential treatment for building rights for the Wallenbergs one of the wealthiest families in Sweden. That is we boldly say it hasn't got to be like this. And if the soc dems or the left party say it does they are lying.

3) Well, yeah. I think I covered this in 1). But it is also still important to challenge the bourgeoisie in the electoral arena as well. The political consciousness during elections is a bit of a two-edged sword. On the one hand more people are discussing political issues, on the other this is generally slanted in favour of status quo. In fact this is one big reason to stand at all, regardless of whether we're elected or not.

[Crux]

Latest numbers (http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/Legislative-District-43-State-Representative-Pos-2_ByCounty.html): 18,506 votes 28.88%

[Binh]

The article really goes off its rocker when it talks about using the power of the capitalist state for socialist purposes. Marx said this was impossible -- "it is impossible for the workers to seize the ready made machinery of the capitalist state and use it for their purposes" -- and all of history has proved this again and again. It is just a delusion.

Lenin, following Marx, never argued that the working class should not try to use capitalist state power in its own interests. Look up the workers' government question in the early Communist International documents if you don't believe me.

[ind_com]

Lenin, following Marx, never argued that the working class should not try to use capitalist state power in its own interests. Look up the workers' government question in the early Communist International documents if you don't believe me.

Those are only reformist interests. The use of capitalist state power can never lead to anything revolutionary when the proletariat is the only class that can lead a revolution and there is no chance of a power vacuum due to a bourgeois revolution.