The ISO and the Kshama Sawant Campaign. [Archive]

View Full Version : The ISO and the Kshama Sawant Campaign.

Lenina Rosenweg

5th January 2013, 17:22

This past year Socialist Alternative (US) ran Kshama Sawant against Speaker of the House Frank Chopp in Washington State in that state's 43rd district. Kshama ran on an explicitly socialist anti-capitalist platform. The campaign focused on abolishing student debt, free healthcare, and placing the economy, including banks, under democratic public ownership.Her campaign did a lot to expose the hypocrisy of the liberals and the Democratic Party, who are debating how to make the most "equitable" cutbacks in a state where corporate giants like Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon, and Boeing pay no corporate income taxes.

http://votesawant.org/

Her campaign was discussed on this forum by Mayakovsky and others.

Kshama was endorsed by the Freedom Socialist Party, a largely Seattle based Trotskyist-Feminist socialist organisation and got a very favorable write up in Northstar, a socialist blog. Her campaign was endorsed by Seattle's largest public service worker's union, the SEIU local, and by The Stranger, Seattle's widest read political affairs paper.

Sawant and Socialist Alternative are also forming a broad electoral alliance with other left-wing forces to use this result as a launching pad for a far bigger challenge to the Democratic Party. Concretely, Socialist Alternative is organizing for 2013 a slate of independent left-wing candidates to run for mayor and for all the open city council seats, all of which are currently held by Democrats. “We will go after them!” Sawant declared to huge applause of excited supporters on election night.

Election night also saw mass celebrations in the streets of Seattle after the passage of Referendum 74 for marriage equality and the defeat of Mitt Romney. Sawant addressed a crowd of over 2,000 people, saying “If you think that the Democratic Party politicians did this for you, let me tell you it was us that won this! The fight for LGBT rights has just begun – we still need to fight poverty, homelessness, and workplace discrimination!”

Kshama got 29% of the vote-which we see as a very important development.Socialist Alternative sees her campaign as an example of what can be done as a huge space, a gaping hole, opens up to the left of the Democrats.Socialist Alternative mentioned what could have been done if the Occupy movement had been more political and had run even 200 hundred independent candidates.

An issue is that the ISO, which has a large presence in Seattle and is the largest socialist organisation in the US today, refused to support Kshama Sawant even after being explicitly asked for their support.The campaign was not even mention in the ISO paper, Socialist Worker, which normally has a very thorough coverage of movement activities.The ISO initially even refused to acknowledge our request.

My question is..why not, ISO?

I mean this as a respectful question, my intention is not sectarian bashing.However I think this is a very important question and the ISO should be (respectfully) challenged on this.

There seems to be a different conception of "party building" involved with the ISO seeming to see the "left" in the US and socialism essentially being themselves.I don't see this approach as being constructive in the creation of a broad anti-capitalist working class movement.

Again, why not ISO?

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

5th January 2013, 17:33

It's just trots hating trots for not being trot enough. Pity, I don't even believe in electoral politics and I would still endorse her.

Jimmie Higgins

5th January 2013, 19:19

Again, why not ISO?ooooooh these call-outs get so melodramatic![/squeel]

But to answer your question: because we're not rent-a-red.

I can't speak for the Seattle comrades, but we generally didn't do any electoral campaigns - except for maybe propositions in some areas, but not in Nor Cal.

We don't really see trying to get socialists elected as a useful strategy right now. If there was an organized effort of broader forces to challenge the Democrats, then that could be valuable way to try and create a wedge with union support for the Democratic party. If there was a campaign representing the viewpoint of a movement, like if there was a new Civil Rights movement and an anti-racist party ran some protest candidates, then electoral support could be a useful show of support for the movement.

An issue is that the ISO, which has a large presence in Seattle and is the largest socialist organisation in the US today, refused to support Kshama Sawant even after being explicitly asked for their support.The campaign was not even mention in the ISO paper, Socialist Worker, which normally has a very thorough coverage of movement activities.The ISO initially even refused to acknowledge our request.So by largest presence, in US revolutionary group terms, you mean like 50-80 people or something? I'm guessing that you don't mean you wanted a passive endorsement - like 80-some-odd votes would make a difference. So you want to know why we didn't divert out time and energy away from the things we were involved in (anti-police brutality, anti-budget cuts, etc) to help build another group's strategy and organization?

Is that sectarian? I guess if that candidate considers themselves the center of the anti-capitalist Left, then it would be pretty sectarian not to support it.

Ok, in all seriousness, we didn't endorse or campaign for anyone officially. Best of luck to PSL and Peace and Freedom and everyone else, but unless there was some organic broad movement out of disgust with the Democrats and austerity, I don't really see what the point of such a campaign would be and frankly we've had bad experiences supporting campaigns in the hope that it might rally some of the scattered opposition to the Iraq war in the past.

If Occupy had ran a bunch of slates of protest candidates with an oppositional stance to the Democrats, then I think that would be more like an organic rallying point for broader pools of class anger out there and I think that would be something that all sorts of radicals should support and a way for the Occupy movement itself to grow and develop and articulate it's grievances.

I mean this as a respectful question, my intention is not sectarian bashing.This frankly does not seem truthful when the very next section is an unfounded implication of sectarianism as policy in the ISO...

the ISO seeming to see the "left" in the US and socialism essentially being themselves.

You know I really just can't take things like this seriously - in Oakland our members helped start the Labor Solidarity Committee which had more people from more organizations that are represented on this website (from any one country anyway). I personally have worked in coalitions with a whole range of people of various viewpoints and from various organizations.

Being sectarian would probably look more like "exposes" in our websites and people leafleting outside of the tour-stops and whatnot. "Not working for them" and having our own politics and priorities is not being sectarian.

Lenina Rosenweg

5th January 2013, 19:52

Thanks for the reply. Maybe I did not express myself as well as I might have. My intention wasn't melodrama nor bashing but polemics, which is legitimate in political discourse.We disagree with the ISO's stand and lack of action. It is not bashing to say so and ask the ISO the reason for this.

If Occupy had ran a bunch of slates of protest candidates with an oppositional stance to the Democrats, then I think that would be more like an organic rallying point for broader pools of class anger out there and I think that would be something that all sorts of radicals should support and a way for the Occupy movement itself to grow and develop and articulate it's grievances.

This is exactly what we are advocating and we saw the Kshama Sawant campaign as an important step in that direction. The ISO could have helped and could have contributed to this. They chose not to.

The radical left in the US is tiny. Of course socialist organisations usually don't divulge membership but the ISO has been estimated at around 3,000, certainly the largest radical left group in the US.We were not asking for the Seattle branch of the ISO to drop their projects and throw themselves into our campaign. We were looking for some kind of passive endorsement or at the very least an acknowledgement of the campaign.Socialist Worker which is usually good did not even mention her.

The Sawant campaign got broad endorsements from Occupy Seattle and the left activist community as well as layers of the Seattle working class. The campaign was not just a sectarian move to develop our own organisation but was meant to provide forward momentum and a political expression for the growing radicalization in US society.

Obviously SocialistAalternative cannot claim to speak on behalf of the highly diffuse Occupy movement but it can be said that, to an extent, the Sawant campaign was an expression of Occupy Seattle and sought to create a voice for the "pools of growing class anger". Judging by the 29% of the vote we got were achieved some success in this regard.

If the ISO does not feel it should pursue electoralism at this time of course that is their right.I feel though that socialists do have the right to question the ISO's decision to stay completely aloof from this campaign.

Socialist Alternative has critically supported Jill Stein and other candidates.

Dabrowski

6th January 2013, 01:22

It's just the ISO showing some principles, if only for accidental, sectarian reasons.

Lenina Rosenweg

8th January 2013, 00:55

This expresses the debate much better than I could

We are republishing below a letter from the International Socialist Organization (ISO) to Socialist Alternative (SA) regarding our request, and their refusal, to endorse our candidate, Kshama Sawant, who was challenging the most powerful legislator in Washington state, Democratic Speaker of the House Frank Chopp. Running as a Socialist Alternative candidate, Kshama Sawant received 29% and over 20,000 votes in her Seattle district.

This historic result demonstrated the significant vacuum to the left of the Democrats for working-class forces and the left. With Obama’s re-election and major struggles of workers and young people on the agenda, this space will grow substantially in the coming period. In Seattle and nationally, Socialist Alternative is approaching groups and individuals on the left to discuss the pressing need to work together to run independent left and working-class candidates in the 2013 elections and beyond to help prepare the way for a broad political party of workers and young people.

Starting in July 2012, we approached leading Seattle ISO members on a number of occasions asking for their endorsement of the Sawant campaign and inviting discussion. After these requests were ignored, we sent two emails in October to the Seattle and national ISO asking if they would support the Sawant campaign. Their reply, printed below, outlines their reasons for not doing so.

These issues have also been publicly debated on The North Star blog, where ISO supporters repeat the arguments made in their letter to us. We believe the issues raised in this debate are politically important if the potential for socialists to rapidly grow in the new situation opening up in the U.S. is to be realized. Discussion and debate on the left, if done in an honest and constructive manner, can help clarify important political issues regarding analysis, strategy, and tactics to most effectively build the workers’ movement. In this light, we decided to more fully explain our views in response to the points raised by the ISO.

However, when we approached leading Seattle ISO members about the potential for the Sawant campaign to strike a blow against the Democrats and help open up the space for broader left-wing political challenges in Seattle and asked for their support, they were not willing to seriously discuss it. In October, we wrote emails to the Seattle and National ISO again asking if they would support the Sawant campaign and work with us to stimulate a debate on the need to break with the Democrats in Seattle’s labor movement.

http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=4428

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

8th January 2013, 01:49

It's just the ISO showing some principles, if only for accidental, sectarian reasons.

Principles in of themselves are nothing but means to an end. If principles don't advance the movement, then they are worthless.

RaÃºl Duke

8th January 2013, 02:32

I don't really get the tone of the article...
If the ISO wants to stay silent, doesn't want to support a candidate, that's for better or worse their prerogative...

The article tries to state why the ISO shouldn't have stayed quiet or how "abnormal" it is but none of its arguments I find convincing.

The article claims "The election was for a large part of 2012 the dominant issue for most politically conscious workers and youth. Socialists have an obligation to take a stand, a position, and argue for what we believe is necessary even if the conditions are not the most favorable." but I find that to be a subjective claim...the elections was to other leftist not really of much importance. The ISO I think (or at least it seems) also similarly didn't care much for Stein's or other electoral parties and their candidates yet this article hints that the SA was into "making endorsements."

If the ISO doesn't care for elections...that's not so unusual for quite a few radical leftist organizationd IMO.

Now whether they'll be clear about why they didn't...hah
maybe or maybe not
Either way, they probably won't care.

Le Socialiste

8th January 2013, 07:00

Well I read the article you linked us to, which I'll try to comment on in the near future. In the meantime, this comment from someone who claims to be a member of the ISO in Seattle will do (their comment is at the bottom of the page Lenina linked us to, and while I'd also like to respond to the article in question this person sums up much of what I think):

I am a member of the ISO in Seattle. I and several members of the ISO here were ”approached” by SA members to endorse Sawant. What was this ”approach”? When a member of theirs happened to run into one of us , they would ask ”Are you going to endorse the Sawant campaign?” There was never even an email or phone call to say ”Can we set up a meeting to talk about why you should endorse the Sawant campaign?”. This is a common practice of SA. They imply that they are involved in trying to set up a broad campaign of some sort. In reality, all the details have been worked out by them in advance. After that, they try to get others on the left to endorse their initiative and imply that they are sectarian if they don’t.

I always got the impression that the real reason for the question was to be able to ”expose” the ISO as being sectarian if we didn’t endorse the SA campaign. I believe that the SA article is another example of this. If they had been serious about getting an ISO endorsement, they would have made a proposal to the ISO. Those supporting the Sawant campaign could argue that it shouldn’t take a formal proposal. However, if an endorsement is wanted and the potential endorser is reluctant, and you are really serious , you will make the effort. In fact, there was never a serious proposal to the ISO until the letter to our national steering committee, which was too close to the election to even consider. SA should know that the ISO is a NATIONAL organization. A serious proposal should be sent to the ISO national office, not just to a local branch.

SA rarely is involved in legitimate coalition building—i.e. trying to build a broad meeting around an issue and leaving it up to those participating to shape the coalition democratically. So why didn’t the ISO endorse?—the letter from our National Steering Committee explains it well. There are other reasons as well: In spite of its protestation to the contrary, SA has an electoralist orientation. In the abstract, there is no reason not to be engaged in struggle AND in elections. However , in the concrete reality of a small revolutionary left today, engaging seriously in an election pulls necessary resources away from struggle. As Engels said ”One real step forward in the movement is worth a thousand programs”.

SA during the Fall spent virtually all its resources on the election, and therefore put virtually no work into movement struggles, except to show up at rallies to promote the Sawant campaign. The Seattle ISO was engaged in several important struggles , which we felt were more important than any election campaign. We decided to prioritize those. Given our perspective on the election, an endorsement would have been only on paper. The role of elections in building for socialist revolution is a long and important discussion. In short, struggle , especially class struggle is the basis of winning reforms as well as building in the long run for revolution.

Elections can aid in the struggle —but our relation to elections must always be based on an assessment of how they will impact struggle. This assessment must always be concrete, and not just based on abstract principles. To dismiss the ISO position on the Sawant campaign as silly or sectarian etc. ignores this theoretically important question. Just as importantly, it ignores the important concrete application of the general principles of socialists and elections. Given the weakness of left-wing struggle in the U.S. today, the priority of socialists today should be on building actual struggle on the ground. The electoral expressions of that struggle need to be seen as just that—-not a substitute for the struggle itself.

Here's the email from our National Steering Committee that the person referenced:

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Shaun Harkin
Date: Nov 1, 2012 11:47 AM
Subject: Response to Endorsement Request for Sawant Election Campaign
To: Patrick Ayers
Cc: <[email protected]>
Dear Patrick (SA National CCed)

This is to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated October 15th (and now a follow-up letter we have just received dated October 29th).

ISO members, as you know, won’t be voting for Democratic Party candidates in any election and are encouraged to vote for genuine ant-corporate third party alternatives.

This year, typically, there are many small socialist organizations who are running election candidates that we are aware of: SA, PSL, SWP, SEP, FSP, SP etc. All of whom are requesting support on the basis that they represent the alternative to the two-corporate parties. Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases these campaigns are geared towards straightforward party-building, have an exceptional weak social base and have little connection to the creation of a genuine broader left alternative based on collaboration.

In fact, SA’s website offers up an analysis of the 2012 that critiques other alternative candidates such as Jill Stein of the Green Party for not having enough of a base in social movements and the working class. This makes one wonder as to SA’s conception of itself and the sounding board it draws upon for insight.

The ISO is interested in genuine collaboration amongst left and progressive organizations and forces. As case in point here are several examples on the electoral front your organization would be familiar with: we were active supporters of the effort to build and launch the Labor Party in the US in the 1990s; we actively supported and campaigned for Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo in their campaigns in 2000 and 2004; we were part of a broad coalition of left organizations supporting Dan La Botz as Ohio’s Socialist Party candidate for US Senate in 2010; we spearheaded the organization of a broad Socialist Contingent at the 2009 AFL-CIO sponsored rally in Washington, DC in which Socialist Alternative participated.

An email sent two weeks before an election to the national leadership of the ISO, and not even directly, is not a serious effort at collaboration. You and SA’s elected leadership, as a national organization and part of an international tendency, would and should know this quite well. It’s not even a gesture in such a direction. In fact, we know of no occasions when SA members, national or otherwise, have contacted the ISO’s national leadership to discuss collaboration in any electoral or social struggle effort. This kind of nonconstructive behaviour serves to reinforce rather than overcome sectarianism which is of benefit to no one.

Signed.
Shaun Harkin
For ISO Steering Committee

Jimmie Higgins

8th January 2013, 09:29

I always got the impression that the real reason for the question was to be able to ”expose” the ISO as being sectarian if we didn’t endorse the SA campaign. I believe that the SA article is another example of this. If they had been serious about getting an ISO endorsement, they would have made a proposal to the ISO

I don't think this speculation is really that helpful in this case, I think the political reasons are enough justification for not endorsing and there is no reason to suggest other motives without some kind of real pattern or other more solid evidence. But I have had this happen to me in the past by other groups - in fact, I had another group do this to me even when we did endorse their initiative! I was approached by a member of a left group who asked if our local branch would endorse this call for something dealing with oppression. It seemed straight-forward and so I said I would sign it but I'd have to take it to the branch meeting to vote for an endorsement. I did and our branch endorsed it (passivly, just signing onto the demand as our branch) the next week at the meeting. Later the same activist in a coalition meeting claimed that we "dragged our feet" and "sweated over" signing onto the endorsement demonstrating that we were not true allies of the oppressed:rolleyes:

Crux

11th January 2013, 15:45

Well, I do think the overemphasis on the ISO's part about supposedly being contacted too late, although there's obviously a conflicting view on that, is a bit of a cop-out. Obviously there was political reasons, alluded to when comparing the Sawant campaign with the numerous socialist presidential campaign. Fundamentally I think that's comparing apples with pears, basically, they are not the same thing. So I think it's a bit of shame here that the political reasons ISO had for not supporting the campaign is being obfuscated by slightly more petty stuff. I think in hindsight it's obvious that the Sawant campaign had a bigger impact electorally than any similar campaign in the US has had for years, even decades. I also realize that to many socialists in the U.S the electoral field is a bit like a foreign country and I have to say, given my own experience in similar campaigns, that while electoral work can certainly be exhausting in my experience it doesn't take away from other activism so much as amplifies it. Whether we like it or not electoral season is when many more people are open to talking politics so standing in election during those times opens up to reach a far wider audience, to make people in general aware that we exist and more importantly what we do all those hundreds of days when it's not election.

I also think the unity that existed around the Sawant campaing, with the union endorsements and the support from the FSP is very positive and promising. I would hope that the ISO are ready to reconsider their position for the upcoming local elections in Seattle or at least make the political reasons for not doing so in plain sight. While I am sure there might be a less than perfect history between our two organizations on the ground, as it often is between left groups, I would hope that we, together, are able to rise to the challenge and hopefully build some kind of framework for unity not just for the elections but something that can last beyond that.

Prof. Oblivion

11th January 2013, 17:54

Why don't you just quit Socialist Alternative and join ISO?

Lenina Rosenweg

11th January 2013, 23:11

Why don't you just quit Socialist Alternative and join ISO?

For what purpose? The ISO and Socialist Alternative are different organisations with differing traditions, different theoretical understandings of Stalinism and other matters, different activist approaches and different internal dynamics.
This i9s okay.It is good that there are differing socialist organisations with different traditions and different approaches.

There is a time when it is productive for different groups to work together, at the very least on a minimum program, and times when it is not productive.

Prof. Oblivion

11th January 2013, 23:17

The only reason these types of groups exist is because they make mountains out of mole hills.

Crux

19th January 2013, 19:31

Response from the ISO. (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=4990) Which gets some well deserved critique in the comments field as well as this: Coalitions, Elections, and Kshama Sawant: An Open Letter to Socialist Worker (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=5005)

Ottoraptor

20th January 2013, 13:55

pinkoooo

20th January 2013, 21:19

pinkoooo

21st January 2013, 04:39

HI Lewina,

You say: "I mean this as a respectful question, my intention is not sectarian bashing."

Your post is not sectarian at all. The ISO uses the word,"sectarian" about 4500 times when they are criticized publicly. It is not sectarian to criticize another group if you think that they are not behaving in a comradely fashion.

The ISO is very manipulative with the word, "sectarian" and use it as a pejorative to shut down (usually well-deserved) criticisms because they do not like the internet discussions about them because they cannot control them. If the ISO would take some responsibility for their ahh,heh, ...image problem, instead of attacking anyone who isn't enthralled with them and attacking ex-members for daring to tell their stories, the ISO would not be on the receiving end of so much crit.

Crux

21st January 2013, 14:30

So the CWI is upset that the ISO wouldn't help build one of its own branches and participate in their annual ritual of participating unions? Cry me a river. I don't particularly like the ISO, but out of all the things happening in the Pacific Northwest a campaign for a state representative (it wasn't even a federal level election) for a candidate, who ran on a pretty vague and populist platform and in the end couldn't pull off anything near 50% of the vote despite their being no republican challenger, is probably the least interesting thing out there. But you know we must participate in every single election we can because our moralizing and ineffectiveness will spread socialism. Let's just try and build our party and try to get everyone to follow us. Any socialist group who fails to help us in our party building rituals is sectarian!
What dishonest drivel. So name another election where Soc. Alt. has partaken in this "ritual" (and it can't be the boston city council campaign in 2007). I'm waiting. I mean Soc. Alt''s been around since the mid80's if this is a "ritual" surely you must be able to come with another example from the last 25 years? Oh wait. You won't.

As for you harping on about the result it, again, shows you haven't got a clue. 20k is not a bad result, and you may call it a "populist" platform all you like (we'll make sure to run the next platform by you first), but apparently you haven't the faintest idea how socialist election campaigns work. Do you want me to explain it for you?

Lucretia

22nd January 2013, 23:44

29% for a socialist candidate is a big deal, ottoraptor.

The issue is that the ISO responded to SA in a hostile manner out of paranoia (see last paragraph in their letter) which showed their condescending attitude and dismissiveness of other groups. Instead of being so damned mean and competitive (THE ISO's MO), they could have just thanked SA for the letter, but politely said that they were not focusing on electoral politics this year. That way, if the SA made an issue out of it, SA would look foolish, but that is not what occurred. The SA looks good in al of this because of the way the ISO responded to this. This blew up and the ISO, as others have pointed out, have egg on their faces and did this to themselves and have showed themselves for the sectarians that they are.

And their articles in SW takes the same, condescending, dismissive tone, and even more importantly, is full of holes big enough to drive a fleet of 747s through.

Was the candidate being run a member of SA? Why would the ISO endorse a candidate run as part of SA's party-building activity? It might as well have endorsed Jerry White of the SEP for president. This incessant whining about this issue from SA people comes across as petty, and just confirms that the candidacy was, indeed, about party-building. Which is why only SA people are complaining about it. Build you own party, folks.

Lenina Rosenweg

22nd January 2013, 23:54

Ksama's campaign was aboyt party building but not of SocAlt. We mentioned the effect it could have had id the Occupy movement had run 200 candidates. The idea is to build a working class political movement. The stress was not on building SA.We did everything we could to reach out to leftists in labor, other socialists, etc. It was meant as a broadly based campaign.

Crux

23rd January 2013, 01:27

Was the candidate being run a member of SA? Why would the ISO endorse a candidate run as part of SA's party-building activity? It might as well have endorsed Jerry White of the SEP for president. This incessant whining about this issue from SA people comes across as petty, and just confirms that the candidacy was, indeed, about party-building. Which is why only SA people are complaining about it. Build you own party, folks.
And I think that comparison, which the ISO sometimes go to, is wildly off, for several reasons. First, the SEP was running a presidential campaign and if I know them right not interested in reaching out to other orgs in the slightest.
Meanwhile Kshama Sawant, Soc. Alt. member, was running for the Washington State House of representatives against the Democratic speaker of house in a two-way race and in a left-leaning district (and with the endorsement of the Freedom Socialist Party, The Stranger and CWA Local 37083). I assume you see how that is fundamentally different from a presidential campaign of our own, let alone the SEP's presidential campaign.

And no, it's not only Socialist Alternative members "complaining" about it, which you would have seen if you had read the articles on North Star that was linked. For one thing the open letter was not written by a Soc. Alt. member, secondly a quick look at the comments show he is hardly the only one outside of Soc. Alt. "complaining" about the ISO's fundamentally dishonest response here.

As has already been noted they purposefully misrepresents Soc. Alt.'s position on the election first in suggesting the comrades believed the Sawant campaign should be the sole rallying point (something which is blatantly dishonest (http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=1921)) secondly in suggesting Soc. Alt. is only standing out of some kind of "orthodoxy". And, like I've said before, this is the second Soc. Alt. election campaign. Ever. Thirdly RedPlebian, ISO commenter on The North Star, and indeed Socialist Worker itself suggest "they don't care about elections", which is why their position on the 2012 election ended up being "vote for alternative candidates if you like". Weak and fundamentally only a position that serves the Democrats.

And in response we get this (http://socialistworker.org/2013/01/17/the-left-and-the-vote-in-2012). That's the first piece on Socialist Worker even mentioning the Sawant campaign, which besides getting circulation in the local media, also got national coverage in the Huffington Post, as well as on the FSP's website and on New Politics, Znet, Solidarty's website and more. It begins by noting how loooong the Soc. Alt. article, how it is a "tome" and how small Soc. Alt. are. In other words, petty un-political bullshit. Then it goes on to misrepresents Socialist Alternative in the ways already mentioned. Then it goes on to argue, incredibly, that the *lack of local candidates* is proof that it's not a way to build left support as shown by the relatively low elections result of the *presidential candidates*. This is bad logic in more ways than one. Finally, besides the outright misrepresentation of Soc. Alt's history and position towards elections, we get this, the only semi-political piece of the article:

"As Lance and others wrote here, the left's time and resources were better utilized building struggles outside the electoral arena last fall--like the spreading fight to defend public education, building on the Chicago teachers' strike, or the strike wave among low-wage workers at Wal-Mart and other workplaces."

Which of course is a borderline tautological argument, by not running candidates the left proves that running in elections is not an arena for struggle and that's why we don't run candidates. Of course, the significance of the Sawant campaign is that it disproves that but the writer of the article choose to keep quiet and, dishonestly, claim that Soc. Alt's argument is a "shibboleth".

Now, I've been involved in several election campaigns, including unity lists with other organizations on the left, the idea that electoral campaigns "take away" from ordinary political work is, of course, absolute nonsense. Is it hard work? Sure it is. Does it *take away* from the other work we're doing? Quite the opposite. Of course, ISO has participated in electoral campaigns so they should know this. Or they could look at the experience of the Sawant campaign. But perhaps the entire article is, ironically given the accusations, you and it levels, not about any kind of genuine debate on how to relate to the elections, but just a dishonest attempt at sectarian point scoring?

Lucretia

23rd January 2013, 03:11

And I think that comparison, which the ISO sometimes go to, is wildly off, for several reasons. First, the SEP was running a presidential campaign and if I know them right not interested in reaching out to other orgs in the slightest.

Whether a party reaches out to other parties for endorsements of its candidate in an electoral campaign is irrelevant. True, most groups don't have the temerity to try asking because they know, and with good reason, that it would be obnoxious to exhort other socialists to support the party-building effort of a rival organization.

Meanwhile Kshama Sawant, Soc. Alt. member, was running for the Washington State House of representatives against the Democratic speaker of house in a two-way race and in a left-leaning district (and with the endorsement of the Freedom Socialist Party, The Stranger and CWA Local 37083). I assume you see how that is fundamentally different from a presidential campaign of our own, let alone the SEP's presidential campaign. Different in what respect? That she was running for a lower-level political office in a district where one of the two main political parties was so dominant that the other main political party didn't bother to run a candidate? So the pay-off is what? A third-party candidacy would likely receive 15 or 20% of the vote rather than 2%, and mostly from voters who simply wanted to oppose the Democrat rather than out of any convictions for the platform of the third-party candidate.

It doesn't change the fundamental nature of the campaign. It is part of the party-building strategy for Socialist Alternative. Period.

And no, it's not only Socialist Alternative members "complaining" about it, which you would have seen if you had read the articles on North Star that was linked. For one thing the open letter was not written by a Soc. Alt. member, secondly a quick look at the comments show he is hardly the only one outside of Soc. Alt. "complaining" about the ISO's fundamentally dishonest response here. Oddly enough, they and fellow-travelers in their tendency are the only ones I have seen complaining here on revleft. I cannot speak for whether one or two people are lining up behind SA's pettiness in other off-forum outlets.

As has already been noted they purposefully misrepresents Soc. Alt.'s position on the election first in suggesting the comrades believed the Sawant campaign should be the sole rallying point (something which is blatantly dishonest (http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=1921)) secondly in suggesting Soc. Alt. is only standing out of some kind of "orthodoxy". And, like I've said before, this is the second Soc. Alt. election campaign. Ever. Thirdly RedPlebian, ISO commenter on The North Star, and indeed Socialist Worker itself suggest "they don't care about elections", which is why their position on the 2012 election ended up being "vote for alternative candidates if you like". Weak and fundamentally only a position that serves the Democrats.

And in response we get this (http://socialistworker.org/2013/01/17/the-left-and-the-vote-in-2012). That's the first piece on Socialist Worker even mentioning the Sawant campaign, which besides getting circulation in the local media, also got national coverage in the Huffington Post, as well as on the FSP's website and on New Politics, Znet, Solidarty's website and more. It begins by noting how loooong the Soc. Alt. article, how it is a "tome" and how small Soc. Alt. are. In other words, petty un-political bullshit. Then it goes on to misrepresents Socialist Alternative in the ways already mentioned. Then it goes on to argue, incredibly, that the *lack of local candidates* is proof that it's not a way to build left support as shown by the relatively low elections result of the *presidential candidates*. This is bad logic in more ways than one. Finally, besides the outright misrepresentation of Soc. Alt's history and position towards elections, we get this, the only semi-political piece of the article:

"As Lance and others wrote here, the left's time and resources were better utilized building struggles outside the electoral arena last fall--like the spreading fight to defend public education, building on the Chicago teachers' strike, or the strike wave among low-wage workers at Wal-Mart and other workplaces."

Which of course is a borderline tautological argument, by not running candidates the left proves that running in elections is not an arena for struggle and that's why we don't run candidates. Of course, the significance of the Sawant campaign is that it disproves that but the writer of the article choose to keep quiet and, dishonestly, claim that Soc. Alt's argument is a "shibboleth".

Now, I've been involved in several election campaigns, including unity lists with other organizations on the left, the idea that electoral campaigns "take away" from ordinary political work is, of course, absolute nonsense. Is it hard work? Sure it is. Does it *take away* from the other work we're doing? Quite the opposite. Of course, ISO has participated in electoral campaigns so they should know this. Or they could look at the experience of the Sawant campaign. But perhaps the entire article is, ironically given the accusations, you and it levels, not about any kind of genuine debate on how to relate to the elections, but just a dishonest attempt at sectarian point scoring?I really don't have any interest in debating each and every point the ISO made about the Sawant campaign. I am not here to defend every aspect of their position. I am here to defend their decision, and one of the reasons they cited for that decision -- a sufficient reason not to support the campaign: that it was basically a part of a rival socialist group's party-building effort. Whether some ISO functionary made an incorrect statement on page 3, clause B7, of the group's statement is of no interest to me at all. Their statement could have been wrong about everything else. If it was right about the party-building nature of the campaign, then their decision was completely justifiable.

pinkoooo

23rd January 2013, 04:31

"Why would the ISO endorse a candidate run as part of SA's party-building activity?"

What a bunch of petty, sectarian nonsense! What are you people who say this, a whining group of fucking fourth graders? And you call others petty???

Freedom Socialist Party and Solidarity endorsed with no problems, why? Because THEY CARE MORE ABOUT BUILDING A SOCIALIST MOVEMENT THAN THEY DO BUILDING THEIR OWN SECT!!!!!

Christ, you mean, ISO (I am assuming you are, even if you are not, this still applies to you) is so paranoid, so worried that a couple of potential recruits will go to SA as a result of their endorsement?

Let me let you in on a little secret: few people join socialist sects from electoral campaigns, those with previous organizing experience know this.

In the meantime: GROW UP!!!

I am usually calm, but I am really tired of this sectarian shit, this is why we get nowhere.

"I am not here to defend every aspect of their position."

because you can't.

"That's the first piece on Socialist Worker even mentioning the Sawant campaign"

Isn't it sad in the very first article that SW writes about a socialist getting 29% of the vote, it is written after the campaign and it is used to snipe at SA for SA's political criticisms?

Yazman

23rd January 2013, 06:47

MODERATION ACTION:

Pinko, please don't insult other users. I'm letting you off without a warning because you're so new, but please try to be mindful.

This is not a warning.

Lucretia

23rd January 2013, 07:31

Crux

23rd January 2013, 09:41

Whether a party reaches out to other parties for endorsements of its candidate in an electoral campaign is irrelevant. True, most groups don't have the temerity to try asking because they know, and with good reason, that it would be obnoxious to exhort other socialists to support the party-building effort of a rival organization. That's because you take a fundamentally sectarian view of why Soc. Alt. choose to stand in this election. Again with the endorsement of FSP and Solidarity as well apparently.

Different in what respect? That she was running for a lower-level political office in a district where one of the two main political parties was so dominant that the other main political party didn't bother to run a candidate? So the pay-off is what? A third-party candidacy would likely receive 15 or 20% of the vote rather than 2%, and mostly from voters who simply wanted to oppose the Democrat rather than out of any convictions for the platform of the third-party candidate.
The idea that the "protest votes" would just come automatically a-flowing to an openly socialist candidate is of course complete bunk. Am I saying that all those who voted for Kshama are convinced socialists? of course not, but they and many more are now keenly aware that there exists a socialist alternative in Seattle and King County. This is beneficial to all socialists and not just "party building" as you deride it.

It doesn't change the fundamental nature of the campaign. It is part of the party-building strategy for Socialist Alternative. Period. Claiming something is so and being able to argue for it are, as you should know, not the same thing.

Oddly enough, they and fellow-travelers in their tendency are the only ones I have seen complaining here on revleft. I cannot speak for whether one or two people are lining up behind SA's pettiness in other off-forum outlets.
I don't think pinkoooo are in Soc. Alt. Neither is Andrew Ray Gorman. (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=5005)
Nor most of the people commenting here
(http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=4990)and here. (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=4428)
(http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=5005)Or indeed the number of other articles The North Star has run on the Sawant Campaign.

I really don't have any interest in debating each and every point the ISO made about the Sawant campaign. I am not here to defend every aspect of their position. I am here to defend their decision, and one of the reasons they cited for that decision -- a sufficient reason not to support the campaign: that it was basically a part of a rival socialist group's party-building effort. Whether some ISO functionary made an incorrect statement on page 3, clause B7, of the group's statement is of no interest to me at all. Their statement could have been wrong about everything else. If it was right about the party-building nature of the campaign, then their decision was completely justifiable.
So you mean to say you take only their main dishonest point, but feel you can't pick up the other petty stuff that comes with it? Ok.

Lucretia

23rd January 2013, 09:48

That's because you take a fundamentally sectarian view of why Soc. Alt. choose to stand in this election. Again with the endorsement of FSP and Solidarity as well apparently.

The idea that the "protest votes" would just come automatically a-flowing to an openly socialist candidate is of course complete bunk. Am I saying that all those who voted for Kshama are convinced socialists? of course not, but they and many more are now keenly aware that there exists a socialist alternative in Seattle and King County. This is beneficial to all socialists and not just "party building" as you deride it.

Claiming something is so and being able to argue for it are, as you should know, not the same thing.

I don't think pinkoooo are in Soc. Alt. Neither is Andrew Ray Gorman. (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=5005)
Nor most of the people commenting here
(http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=4990)and here. (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=4428)
Or indeed the number of other articles The North Star has run on the Sawant Campaign.

So you mean to say you take only their main dishonest point, but feel you can't pick up the other petty stuff that comes with it? Ok.

You claim that my main point -- that the candidacy of the SA member was an exercise in party-building -- is dishonest. Care to substantiate this point? Or is that asking too much?

Dobomo

23rd January 2013, 09:51

The idea you would participate in elections and not try and build your org is silly. The point of elections is to provide a platform for your politics and through that meet people who are interested in your politics. Making an intervention into an election or any movement and trying to build your org isn't sectarian.

Noting that you don't get many recruits from elections isn't the best way to try and convince us. But the idea that one organisation cant endorse another organisation is ridiculous. The organisation I'm part of has endorsed and provided people to help in elections to the local CWI affiliate on one occasion. The reason for this was because the group had a lot of relevancy in the area and was supported by unions. I don't support electoral politics in general though as in most instances a socialist platform would simply be irrelevant and a shift away from your usual activism.

Crux

23rd January 2013, 10:05

You claim that my main point -- that the candidacy of the SA member was an exercise in party-building -- is dishonest. Care to substantiate this point? Or is that asking too much?
well, that should be obvious if you read anything at all that Soc. Alt. has written about the 2012 election in general and the Sawant Campaign specifically. Endorsements and active participation from other socialist orgs. The call for "200 Occupy Candidates". The call for united left alliances in the 2013 local elections, specifically in Seattle but hardly limited to that.
Did the campaign help build Socialist Alternative? Sure it did. Was it just "an exercise in party-building"? Obviously not.

The idea you would participate in elections and not try and build your org is silly. The point of elections is to provide a platform for your politics and through that meet people who are interested in your politics. Making an intervention into an election or any movement and trying to build your org isn't sectarian.

Noting that you don't get many recruits from elections isn't the best way to try and convince us. But the idea that one organisation cant endorse another organisation is ridiculous. The organisation I'm part of has endorsed and provided people to help in elections to the local CWI affiliate on one occasion. The reason for this was because the group had a lot of relevancy in the area and was supported by unions. I don't support electoral politics in general though as in most instances a socialist platform would simply be irrelevant and a shift away from your usual activism.
I don't think that corresponds to the reality of the SP's (CWI) work in Yarra, in so far as the elected positions we've had in Yarra seem to have been able to amplify our activity rather than take away from it. Of course, getting elected to any position in the first place, as a revolutionary socialist, requires extensive ground work anyway. Not saying there aren't dangers and limits in "electoralism" as such. Standing in elections and getting elected is not an end in itself, it's just an auxiliary to all of the other struggles one is involved in. I think a pretty good baseline is this, we must always be ready to lose seats rather than lose our principles.

Jimmie Higgins

23rd January 2013, 11:13

And I think that comparison, which the ISO sometimes go to, is wildly off, for several reasons. First, the SEP was running a presidential campaign and if I know them right not interested in reaching out to other orgs in the slightest.
Meanwhile Kshama Sawant, Soc. Alt. member, was running for the Washington State House of representatives against the Democratic speaker of house in a two-way race and in a left-leaning district (and with the endorsement of the Freedom Socialist Party, The Stranger and CWA Local 37083). I assume you see how that is fundamentally different from a presidential campaign of our own, let alone the SEP's presidential campaign.The ISO does not have one standard position on the relationship of radicals to elections because we see it as always conditional, based on what's going on in wider society. Campaigns such as this may provide a platform for propagandizing, but if it's not directly and organically connected to a larger movement, then it can't really do much more than that generally - as well as maybe raise the profile of the candidate or party involved. There was really little broader principled disatisfaction that could have made a campaign like this a rallying point for people moving leftwards.

Other groups constantly try to start "Labor Parties" in the US, and while we have no principled opposition to this, we don't activly support it because there is no real base for that. If there was rank and file organizing or even a wave or reform elections in the unions that produced a more class-struggle orientation and opposition to the Democrats, then an organic Labor Party could be a ralling point for all of that and create a more solidified break from the Democratic Party. But this does not exist at this point, so we prioritize other methods for trying to rebuild some class consiousness, fight-back and organization.

Our perspective on the election months and months before being asked to support Sawant was to prioritize base-building in struggles, build off of the sentiment and williness to begin to struggle that the support for Occupy represented.

And no, it's not only Socialist Alternative members "complaining" about it, which you would have seen if you had read the articles on North Star that was linked. For one thing the open letter was not written by a Soc. Alt. member, secondly a quick look at the comments show he is hardly the only one outside of Soc. Alt. "complaining" about the ISO's fundamentally dishonest response here.Fine, other people who disagree with the ISO are also complaining about a now long-over campaign in one district of one state.

As has already been noted they purposefully misrepresents Soc. Alt.'s position on the election first in suggesting the comrades believed the Sawant campaign should be the sole rallying point (something which is blatantly dishonest (http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=1921)) secondly in suggesting Soc. Alt. is only standing out of some kind of "orthodoxy". And, like I've said before, this is the second Soc. Alt. election campaign. Ever. Thirdly RedPlebian, ISO commenter on The North Star, and indeed Socialist Worker itself suggest "they don't care about elections", which is why their position on the 2012 election ended up being "vote for alternative candidates if you like". Weak and fundamentally only a position that serves the Democrats.Well that commenator was wrong if they said that - elections can play a role: eithier a campaign as a rallying point or protest; an indication of larger public trends; and so on.

Our view going into this past election was that people were disatisfied with Obama, but that they were not confident or dissatisfied enough to resist the lesser-evil arguments. But at the same time, the crisis was compelling some small groups of workers to try and figure out ways to fight.

I think the results of the election showed this to be true as Mass's "dishonest" article argues:

There were occasional signs of local success, but they were few and very far between. On the national level, the Green Party's presidential candidate Jill Stein won only 468,907 votes, or 0.36 percent. Left-leaning protest candidates Roseanne Barr and Rocky Anderson combined for another 100,000 votes, and 0.08 percent.

No one reading this website will believe that 0.44 percent reflects the real level of discontent with the two-party system in this country. That's not even close to the level of sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement, for example, with its critique of both corporate greed and the corruption of the two-party system.

So unless you believe that a left-wing campaign managed by Socialist Alternative or some hypothetical coalition of other left organizations would have done significantly better, the conclusion has to be that the sentiment for political change in this country wasn't most effectively expressed and built through left-wing protest candidacies in 2012.

So I think that the CNT striking despite cries that it will "embarass Obama" (because they were criticizing his hencman Rham and the whole Obama education agenda) really was more of an expression of resistance that was rallying and mobilizing people who are angry at austerity.

It begins by noting how loooong the Soc. Alt. article, how it is a "tome" and how small Soc. Alt. are. In other words, petty un-political bullshit.Yeah the tone is mocking - these criticisms of the ISO now months after the election probably deserve mockary. How is this not point-scoring? Does SA want the ISO to use our time machine to go back to October. Do you want us to say, "Oh we were wrong, there was a massive resistance to the Democrats that rebuilt and independant left in the US?". No. Frankly we were right to prioritize the local struggles that we were involved in because many of these are still ongoing even now that the election is over and are helping to mobilize people against the police in Oakland or Seattle.

Then it goes on to misrepresents Socialist Alternative in the ways already mentioned. Then it goes on to argue, incredibly, that the *lack of local candidates* is proof that it's not a way to build left support as shown by the relatively low elections result of the *presidential candidates*. This is bad logic in more ways than one. You must have misread the article because this argument is not made in it:

An analysis not focused on a single local race for state office would have been a little more sober about the outcome for left candidates.He said DESPITE some sucess by local candidates this doesn't represent a break from the Democrats because in this specific case there was no republican running and so the choice was Swant or the Democrat. Where "lesser-evilism" did come into play - such as on the national election - people still voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat... far more than actually support Democratic policy as the article argues that support for Occupy was higher than support for left-protest candidates.

Finally, besides the outright misrepresentation of Soc. Alt's history and position towards elections, we get this, the only semi-political piece of the article:

"As Lance and others wrote here, the left's time and resources were better utilized building struggles outside the electoral arena last fall--like the spreading fight to defend public education, building on the Chicago teachers' strike, or the strike wave among low-wage workers at Wal-Mart and other workplaces."

Which of course is a borderline tautological argument, by not running candidates the left proves that running in elections is not an arena for struggle and that's why we don't run candidates. Of course, the significance of the Sawant campaign is that it disproves that but the writer of the article choose to keep quiet and, dishonestly, claim that Soc. Alt's argument is a "shibboleth".

No, it's a question of priorities. An "occupy" campaign if the movment had sustained itself could have been a rallying point.

Our argument is not that elections are NEVER an arena, just that this was not going to produce a real break from the Democrats or organize much of anything other than the campaign itself.

And again, I think history showed that to be true - unless is there a large movement around Sawant that I am totally unaware of. Do you honestly think that the people who voted for Sawant are now convinced of socialism or even class struggle activism? Do you honestly think that they would vote again for a candidate put forward by SA in opposition to Democrats? Do you honestly believe that support for this candidate represents a consious and meaningful break from the Democrats?

Now, I've been involved in several election campaigns, including unity lists with other organizations on the left, the idea that electoral campaigns "take away" from ordinary political work is, of course, absolute nonsense. Is it hard work? Sure it is. Does it *take away* from the other work we're doing? Quite the opposite. Of course, ISO has participated in electoral campaigns so they should know this.Fucking up our priorites and sucking useful organizing time was pretty much our experience with elections other than in 2000... when there was a broader sentiment rejecting Democrats, neo-liberalism, and lesser-evilism and Nader could be a rallying point for some of that anti-globalization sentiment.

If SA only wanted a passive endoresment, then who cares if we did or did not support - what would it have mattered? If they wanted active support, then it wasn't in a collaborative spirit, it was a desire for some extra foot soldiers for door-knocking. What kind of support exactly did SA desire?

I think the article is correct, at this point when nothing can be done, making a stink about this still comes off as sour grapes at best and point-scoring at worst.

Or they could look at the experience of the Sawant campaign. But perhaps the entire article is, ironically given the accusations, you and it levels, not about any kind of genuine debate on how to relate to the elections, but just a dishonest attempt at sectarian point scoring?What has been built by this? What progress has been made? How are conditions for struggle better now that 30% of voters passivly cast their ballots for unknown poltical reasons?

Jimmie Higgins

23rd January 2013, 11:47

Christ, you mean, ISO (I am assuming you are, even if you are not, this still applies to you) is so paranoid, so worried that a couple of potential recruits will go to SA as a result of their endorsement?No we've been in coalitions with SA and we have endoresed protest candidates in the past. We just don't think this is a useful strategy in present circumstances because frankly, such a campaign represents no wider class force, it has support and that is good on the level that Majakovskij described: gaining some credibility or precident for a socialist candidate in that district. I could be wrong but I honestly doubt that if a cerdible Republican was in the race that Sawant would have recieved the votes like that because I don't think this campaign represented a broader shift in consiousness.

Let me let you in on a little secret: few people join socialist sects from electoral campaigns, those with previous organizing experience know this.Well if these campaigns don't convince more people of a socialist position, then what's the point?

Isn't it sad in the very first article that SW writes about a socialist getting 29% of the vote, it is written after the campaign and it is used to snipe at SA for SA's political criticisms?We also criticized soc-dem Bernie Sanders winning an election while at the same time recognizing that there are some benifical things in that people are not as scared off by the tag "socialist" - but his positions and politcs give support to the Democratic party and his election did not materially help workers organize or even represent any sort of sentiment among the working class - people liked his positions on some things and that's about the extent.

We supported the Greens in 2000 (and Nader in 2004 though I think this was a mistake) not because of their positions - which are further from us than Peace and Freedom or PSL or some other groups that run candidates - but because we thought it might become a rallying point for an anti-democratic party unionists and people in the anti-globalization movement. Taking a stand against lesser-evilism in that instance would have created a vehicle for larger forces and could have opened up political splits in the trade-unions and open up a broader political discussion of what is ingnored by the 2-party consensus. This was an effort we supported because we thought it had the potential to lead to something, a more solidified opposition on the Left that would be less suceptable to caving to the Democrats. Without the globalization movement and whatnot, the Greens themselves became suceptable to caving to the Democrats and took a "safe-state" strategy of not challenging the Democrats and so we revoked our support.

Incidentially our "mistake" in continuing to support Nader was in thinking that his campaign could rally together some of the anti-war forces against supporting Kerry like most of the movement. Although we didn't think so at the time, I think this was a desire to kind of skip over actual poltical development rather than an attempt to solidify an actual existing mood or development. In other words, Nader would have given anti-war voters a "real choice" and they would vote for him and then this would revitalize the anti-war movement as more stridently opposed to Democratic support for the war. I think the Sawant campaign would have been repeating this mistake - hoping that a movement against austerity would materialize out of just voting sentiment? Instead we chose to concentrate on the existing forces in 2012 (which tended to be small grassroots efforts by new activists and organizers) and help build more direct efforts like pickets and so on. In Oakland alone we were in a coalition led by family memebers of people killed by Oakalnd PD, this movement in Sept and Oct shut down city council meetings. We also were involved in Wall Mart pickets and Nurses pickets. There were election issues here locally that we debated supporting and in the end declined in favor of these other struggles. So the broad sentiment among membership and leadership was to focus on local organizing, soldiarity with the CNT strike, not electoral poltics which we thought would just be an unenthusiastic sweep for Obama anyway due to lesser-evil sentiments.

Lucretia

23rd January 2013, 20:10

well, that should be obvious if you read anything at all that Soc. Alt. has written about the 2012 election in general and the Sawant Campaign specifically. Endorsements and active participation from other socialist orgs. The call for "200 Occupy Candidates". The call for united left alliances in the 2013 local elections, specifically in Seattle but hardly limited to that.
Did the campaign help build Socialist Alternative? Sure it did. Was it just "an exercise in party-building"? Obviously not.

This is a sad attempt at an argument. According to you, the SA's candidacy was not objectively about party-building because, well, the SA said it wasn't or didn't want it to be. Despite the fact that, as you admit, the campaign did, in fact, help build the party and did not, in fact, help create a mass fight-back against bourgeois politics. This was the ISO's point entirely about why it didn't endorse -- the candidacy in no way represented broader forces of resistance, and therefore objectively could be nothing other than a party-building campaign regardless of what the SA wanted to call it or wanted it to be. And that's leaving aside the larger problem of the SA's strange calculation that electoral campaigns in the absence of grassroots struggle leads to grassroots struggle rather than misplaced faith in electoralism (the only other alternative is that it is an exercise in connecting people to their party, and thus connecting them to an organization dedicated to grassroots struggle, but as we already know, this supposedly wasn't their purpose). As much as i disagree with the ISO's endorsement of, and working on behalf of, Nader in 2000, they at least held no illusions about their strategy for doing so -- to build contacts and work alongside people at a grassroots level. Something they could do because the Nader campaign, unlike the one we are talking about, was in fact representative or an organic explosion of grassroots organizing and unrest.

And as a Scandinavian, you might not be aware of this in the way the JH and I (Americans) are, but it is very common in American electoral politics for obscure third-party candidates to get a 10-20% chunk of random protests votes in districts where only one of the major parties is running a candidate. As JH said, this does not mean that 20% were suddenly open to socialist politics or had any idea what the third party even represented. That you might not know this is understandable -- hell, I have no idea how Swedish electoral politics works. But that you would presume to claim to know it, then tell other people who would have a much better understanding that they are full of "bunk"? Well, that's about what I would expect from somebody who is clearly talking out of his ass. I would expect better from you.

Crux

23rd January 2013, 21:50

Well then let me give you guys the shortest answer possible. Yes, I believe we can build from this result, "we" not just denoting my comrades in Soc. Alt. but the left generally, well in Seattle anyway.
Ty Moore - Lessons From the Vote Sawant Campaign (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF4nDZYuDCc)

Kshama Sawant - Building a United Left Challenge to Democrats and Republicans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQJAYL4ARrc)

redredred

11th February 2013, 03:12

Well if these campaigns don't convince more people of a socialist position, then what's the point?

I know that you may not see the difference, but non-sect socialists realize that there is a difference between getting people into your sect and winning them over to socialism

redredred

11th February 2013, 03:13

Isn't it sad in the very first article that SW writes about a socialist getting 29% of the vote, it is written after the campaign and it is used to snipe at SA for SA's political criticisms?
We also criticized soc-dem Bernie Sanders winning an election while at the same time recognizing that there are some benifical things in that people are not as scared off by the tag "socialist" - but his positions and politcs give support to the Democratic party and his election did not materially help workers organize or even represent any sort of sentiment among the working class - people liked his positions on some things and that's about the extent.

You didn't answer the question, and Sawant, unlike Sanders, is really a socialist.

blake 3:17

16th February 2013, 05:33

Rather than sect bashing, maybe it'd be better for folks to actually participate in a few electoral campaigns and go from there. It is an opportunity to talk to regular working people about issues which affect them. And instead of telling them what to think, hear what they have to say.

It's also a good chance to learn about the sheer mechanics of electoral politics -- getting papers in on time, finding a pool of support, figuring out local issues, learning about running databases and fundraising drives.

A few years back I was a scrutineer at an advance poll for a very competitive riding. I showed up at the polling station and the head poll clerk told me I couldn't do it because of the colour of my shirt -- I had a Tshirt on that was the campaign colour of one of the main parties -- he was nice enough to lend me a sweater to cover it up. But I learnt a lot of slightly esoteric knowledge about elections -- very exact definitions of ridings, keeping accurate records, and so on down the line.

I don't have a problem with socialist politics being advanced by populist means -- I think it's actually a big part of the solution to where revolutionary socialists are at -- but be conscious of their opportunities and pitfalls.

Well then let me give you guys the shortest answer possible. Yes, I believe we can build from this result, "we" not just denoting my comrades in Soc. Alt. but the left generally, well in Seattle anyway.
Ty Moore - Lessons From the Vote Sawant Campaign (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF4nDZYuDCc)

Kshama Sawant - Building a United Left Challenge to Democrats and Republicans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQJAYL4ARrc)

The stuff in the videos is really not very good. Occupy Homes prevented 6 foreclosures or evictions? The Republican Right was soundly defeated? The first is so what (not to knock any of the activists involved) and the Republicans were not seriously defeated. The popular vote was very close and could easily have swung the other way.

redredred

16th February 2013, 05:59

Jimmie Higgins

17th February 2013, 06:00

Fair enough, but I do think that people on here who are critical of the ISO's rabid sectarianism in this matter have participated in electoral politics and are tired of sects acting in their own interests rather than the interests of the anti-capitalist movement.

The point about the ISO's widely-condemned sectarianism and tantrums over this have been made and we have all moved on, but it is a lesson learned (hopefully, though not likely, for the ISO as well).

This is some ironically sectarian shit here. You baseless accuse another group of sectarianism - a group that works with other groups in coalitions and in shared projects almost constantly. We are not the ones still harping on this and trying to score sect-points off of this and "only now wrote about it" because of this inane after-the-fact complaining. If we wanted to act sectarian towards this effort, maybe we would have stood outside of the events and handed out counter-literature or something.

Second, in effect you are claiming that this one effort by this one group in one region is "the anti-capitalist movement". Absurd.

Take a breath, gain some perspective, and grow the hell up.

Le Socialiste

17th February 2013, 06:41

Couldn't help but notice that at least 5 of redredred's 7 posts are spent bashing the ISO (2 of which were to old threads made 1-2 years ago). I have no problem with engaging people in a debate about the ISO's politics and practices, but this is just silly.

And people really need to get over this Sawant campaign 'controversy'. Most people have moved on (at least the ones I've spoken to), and the fact that few posters have bothered to post in this thread indicates they couldn't be bothered, either. People need to move on, ffs.

Devrim

17th February 2013, 06:44

People who know me on here will know that I have no sympathy whatsoever with the ISO, yet this thread is almost making me develop a little.

What I get from this thread from looking from afar is that the CWI stood a candidate who the ISO didn't support. The CWI are now whinging about this.

Anybody who had even the vaguest knowledge of these two international tendencies would know that they have two completely different attitudes toward electoral politics.

I don't know the specifics in the US, but basically 'Cliff' organizations fluctuate between setting up fronts where they are the dominate partner and calling for a vote for mainstream parties they view as somehow more 'progressive', which usually means social democrat, but can go as far as Islamicist. The CWI have a more consistent long term tactic of trying to build a mass 'left' social democratic Party.

Given this I fail to see how anybody could think that the ISO were being sectarian over this. It is not what they do, and I don't think anybody, including the CWI, actually expected them to do it.

To me it just seems like taking an easy opportunity to take a very easy cheap shot at them, and is more than a bit pathetic.

Why should they support the CWI? Perhaps they think this election was all rather pointless.

What next, Sparts criticizing anarcho-pacifists in being sectarian in refusing to back North Korea's right to nuclear weapons?

As I said at the start I don't have more sympathy for the ISO. Nor do I have any for the CWI. This is suppose makes me sort of objective in this case, and to me the CWI come out of it looking worse.

Devrim

redredred

17th February 2013, 08:12

What is silly is tracking another's posts. Talk about too much time on your hands.

redredred

17th February 2013, 08:28

The anti-capitalist movement, yes, it's about socialists not working together, not unique with your sect, others don't do it either,that is what this is ultimately about.

"a group that works with other groups in coalitions and in shared projects almost constantly." Do you really want to go down this path? You think there are complaints on this thread about your sect now, just open up this can of worms. I don't want to go down this path because talking about your sect is old.

The rest of your hyperbole is just canned response.

Jimmie Higgins

17th February 2013, 09:12

"a group that works with other groups in coalitions and in shared projects almost constantly." Do you really want to go down this path? You think there are complaints on this thread about your sect now, just open up this can of worms. I don't want to go down this path because talking about your sect is old.

The path of some anonamous poster with no accountability or even a social reputation on this website to maintain slinging mud and making accusations that would be hard to either prove or disprove? No thanks. If you want to debate if a socialist movement was created in the Pacific Northwest through this campaig or why the ISO didn't feel that supporting protest candidates would gain much traction or move things forward in this election, then fine, let's debate it - although I think I have laid out my argument already.

Considering that I worked with people from PSL (who I disagree with politically) spent months in Occupy Oakland working with anarchists and other lefties as well as small-"l" liberal activists in the movement (all of whom I have various degrees of disagreement with), your claims of our sectarianism don't jive with my experiences one bit.

It's totally absurd. I have argued exactly why we decided - a little less than a year before the election - that general austerity pressures would not manifest as an electoral revolt in all likelyhood and that the small more direct activities of workers would be more benificial for the development of class fight-back. WE DISAGREE, so fine. I still think the election results show that WE were correct about the overall political consiousness. Sometimes we are incorrect but we try and learn from things like that.

If Sawant had emerged as a 21st century Debs, then we probably should have come, hat in hand, and said, gee we were wrong this is a rallying point for a new left. But sorry, I do not think that was the case - Occupy was something more of that and we particupated in that - but none of the protest candidates really made much traction and I don't think that Washington voters are 30% socialist now.

For the life of me I don't see how disagreeing over something like this could possibly be seen as sectarian. And I don't know what you see "Socialists working together" as, but if we were brought in at the end of the campaign - weeks before the election after the platform and strategy and debates had all been settled - how is that working "together" and not us "working for"? I'm all for working with other people on the left of all stripes and I have done so and our organizationd does so as well. We helped create Labor Solidarity campaigns in my local Occupy and most of the other organizers were members of other organized groups from IWW to other Trotskyists. Some of it was hell frankly and some old-timers just couldn't resist diving into their old sectarian grandstanding against everyone else in the room, but overall for a time we and other radicals could get people with a general agreement about how radicals should relate to labor struggles into a room together and work on this common project. What we didn't do was set up a committee run by our members and tell others to join and if they didn't then dennounce them for "being against rank and file organizing". Some other leftists in Occupy who I respect wanted to make a splinter committee of just radicals and we declined because we thought that would be too insular and the project we wanted to work on involved building up links beteen Occupy activists and local labor struggles. Does it make us sectarian for working with some socialists and not others? Or does it just mean we saw what needed to happen differently?

ArtF

8th December 2013, 03:57

Update, the ISO in their latest piece on Sawant, "Election breakthrough for a Seattle socialist," by Chris Mobley offered ZERO criticism--a complete puff piece complete with endorsement of Sawant. When their eldest member in the city was asked on the steps of the SEIU headquarters in Seattle, "What is the difference between the ISO and the SA?" the reply was a disappointing but predictable, "We're revolutionary, and they are not!"

Neither the SA nor the ISO have bothered to respond to our criticism of Sawant titled, "We need an Alternative to Socialism on a Leash"

-AF

Tolstoy

11th December 2013, 17:02

I really do detest the ISO for that, but what else can you expect from the Amway of Socialism?

Jimmie Higgins

11th December 2013, 18:23

I really do detest the ISO for that, but what else can you expect from the Amway of Socialism?

Why would you detest the "Amway of Socialism" for not supporting the campaign and wish that the group had? Would you not detest our group if we had been volunteers for SA's effort?

You could also read what I said about her first election campaign.

In retrospect to the election win this time, I have to say I'm surprised the campaign was as successful as it was, and it's pretty great that even if she hadn't won, she had actually helped shift the debate to the left.

Internally people in our group have been debating this and some think we were too skeptical because of our own past experiences in this sort of thing (which I am), but I'm not convinced of that at this point even though I do think that SA deserves credit and the election victory helps raise the legitimacy of Socialism, if only because it flies in the face of conventional wisdom in the US about "alien socialism".

Again I don't have a wooden stand against any involvement in elections, but I'm still skeptical of the long-term or strategic orientation of something like this right now. I think in that sense, being able to rally around the Seatac thing was a way to actually help build something real in class terms (as opposed to symbolic or just electoral...). I think that (building something around a tangible class demand), more than Socialists running for election, is the real positive example to take from this.

Anyway I was pleasantly surprised by the results this time around and was wrong to be as pessimistic, but I still don't know if it's the right strategy for radicals to take right now and I worry that with the election over and Sawant actually in that position will be isolated, marginalized maybe resulting in pessimism about insurgent campaigns from people who took a chance and voted for her. The important factor IMO will be if the actual forces brought together can maintain an actual street and grassroots thing that would give real power and weight to this.

DaringMehring

12th December 2013, 06:09

ISO's behavior predictable. Though they say they support left-independent electoral challenges to the Democrats, they don't support Sawant because she's from another socialist group (hence they would be giving free publicity to the others, and they would not be able to control the campaign's message, etc.) Then when she wins, write some articles trying to get high off it, to build excitement and recruiting.