Seattle: Socialist to face off against Democratic incumbent in city hall race. [Archive]

Lenina Rosenweg

9th August 2013, 20:51

1. Its only city council.

2. She is the only other person running for the seat, other than the incumbent.

3. Its seattle.

So "large" numbers of people will vote against an incumbent for a local community college economics professor, who is a "community activist". That isn't particularly ground breaking.

Not to mention, SALT is still the fucking enemy, aren't they? I couldn't care less if there is a member of some Trot party on the city council, it won't make the tear gas sting any less...

Kshama teaches economics part time at Seattle Central Community College, a school with a working class student body. She is currently only teaching one class at very low pay. Because of her activism in Seattle Occupy, her refusal to use a pro-neoliberal textbook and her candidacy against the liberal Democrat Frank Chopp in the Washington State House of Rep her employer essentially fired her. After a struggle they rehired her and allowed her to teach the one class.

Why the quotation marks after community activist? Kshama has been very active against the rampant racist police brutality in Seattle, protested the police SWAT raid against anarchists, and recently was arrested while protesting an eviction.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/home/947965-129/sawant-arrested-griffin-according-eviction-council

Also why is my organization the "fucking enemy" LOL!

We do not regard electoral politics as a route to socialism.The purpose of elections for socialists isn't to win them but to help educate the working cclass. In our campaign SocAlt has been doing a lot to point out the massive hypocrasy of liberals and the Democrats who are arguing over cutbackswhile Amazon, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. pay no state corporate income tax.

Unlike Conlin, Sawant refuses to accept corporate donations. Her grassroots campaign has raised $25,000, predominantly in the form of small donations of $25 or less, and has mobilized over 125 volunteers. “We will make history by raising a grassroots army of over 300 volunteers, and run one of the biggest door knocking campaigns this city has seen to defeat Richard Conlin,” Sawant declared.

“Conlin has made clear where he stands, with corporations and the elite. By not representing the majority of struggling working people in this city, he has made himself obsolete.”

In their endorsement, The Stranger correctly point out that Sawant’s political opponent, Richard Conlin, “claimed to be a progressive environmentalist during his 16 years on the council, when in fact he has spent those four terms helping to kill mass transit, build new highways, and seek harsh penalties for panhandlers. He's not a progressive; he's a green-washing liberal fraud.”

BREAKING NEWS: Kshama Sawant Arrested Resisting Home Eviction
Posted by Vote Sawant · July 31, 2013 4:28 PM · 1 reaction
Despite months of concerted efforts by construction worker Jeremy Griffin to negotiate with Wells Fargo, the King County sheriff arrived today at Griffin's home to evict him. Jeremy Griffin has done everything he can to work with the bank to keep his home he's owned for 8 years, including writing a check for six months of advanced payment. Wells Fargo has flatly refused to negotiate because they can make more profits by reselling the home to a new homeowner.

http://www.votesawant.org/

Lenina Rosenweg

9th August 2013, 21:04

I don't agree with this article but itsan interesting read

http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=9434

What MARLON PIERRE-ANTOINE and some anarchists don't understand is the Transitional Program, worked out by Marxists at the time of the German Revolution and more fully elaborated by Trotsky.It is not socialist in and of itself but provides a method to develop class consciousness, avoiding opportunist "popular front" tactics on one hand and ultraleft sectarian isolation on the other.

Popular Front of Judea

9th August 2013, 22:29

I don't pay SALT dues but I have to say Sawant walks the walk. (Bonus points for teaching economics)

Kshama teaches economics part time at Seattle Central Community College, a school with a working class student body. She is currently only teaching one class at very low pay. Because of her activism in Seattle Occupy, her refusal to use a pro-neoliberal textbook and her candidacy against the liberal Democrat Frank Chopp in the Washington State House of Rep her employer essentially fired her. After a struggle they rehired her and allowed her to teach the one class.

Why the quotation marks after community activist? Kshama has been very active against the rampant racist police brutality in Seattle, protested the police SWAT raid against anarchists, and recently was arrested while protesting an eviction.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/home/947965-129/sawant-arrested-griffin-according-eviction-council

Also why is my organization the "fucking enemy" LOL!

We do not regard electoral politics as a route to socialism.The purpose of elections for socialists isn't to win them but to help educate the working cclass. In our campaign SocAlt has been doing a lot to point out the massive hypocrasy of liberals and the Democrats who are arguing over cutbackswhile Amazon, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. pay no state corporate income tax.

http://www.votesawant.org/

KurtFF8

9th August 2013, 22:55

Sawant, if elected, would either have to act much like any other mayor in the bourgeois dictatorship, or they would be out on the street as soon as possible.

Not necessarily, I don't know much about their program so I can't speak to what she would do in particular but when Communist Party's in the West (and in particular France and Italy) ran municipalities they instituted very different kinds of programs and rule than their right wing counterparts. Of course they come with a lot of baggage (in part because of their focus on election and re-election) but there is certainly plenty of opportunity in having Marxists in local offices that isn't provided otherwise with hostile city administrations. And especially in the current climate for the Left in the US which is still at quite a low point. But like I said, I'm not too familiar with the Socialist Alternative or their program so I'm not sure what would come from their victory here. On the surface I don't see why other Leftists would oppose it though.

Martin Blank

10th August 2013, 01:42

I've said for a long time that the term "socialist" has become such a catch-all phrase that it's lost all meaning. The Sawant campaign only reaffirms that fact. The only thing "socialist" about her campaign is its name. The rest is radical-liberal reformism (or even sub-reformism, in the case of certain demands).

What MARLON PIERRE-ANTOINE and some anarchists don't understand is the Transitional Program, worked out by Marxists at the time of the German Revolution and more fully elaborated by Trotsky. It is not socialist in and of itself but provides a method to develop class consciousness, avoiding opportunist "popular front" tactics on one hand and ultraleft sectarian isolation on the other.

There you go again, hiding behind a concept you don't understand. The Transitional Program is not a political suicide pact; it does not give license to adopt a platform of demands that does precisely nothing to advance revolutionary struggle. One only needs to look at the demands written in the Transitional Program and contrast them to Sawant's platform to see what I mean.

For example, in terms of wages and hours, the Transitional Program calls for a sliding scale in order to fight against inflation and unemployment, with a minimum wage and state-recognized right to a job serving as the foundation. Sawant's program, on the other hand, calls for a set $15/hour minimum wage (a number currently popular with the business unions organizing fast-food workers), no right to employment and no sliding scale to offset rising prices or unemployment.

Similarly, while the Transitional Program calls for the organization of workers' militia and the general arming of the working class in response to attacks by the ruling classes and their state, Sawant's program pleads for "civilian review boards" that, based on all hitherto experience, are little more than rubber stamps that excuse every act of police terrorism.

And there are a whole slew of demands from the Transitional Program that don't find even an echo of acknowledgement in Sawant's platform: factory committees, public works, abolition of "business secrets" (one would think this demand would make an appearance in the land of Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks!), workers' control (even if the Trot version is only a scheme), expropriation of certain enterprises, expropriation of failing enterprises, expropriation of the banks, etc.

You may argue this is not 1938, and you'd be right. But where your argument fails is when you realize these demands are not conjunctural. They are based on the same objective conditions we still face today. And, according to the Old Man, transitional demands are supposed to be based on both "today's conditions and [...] today's consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat." It seems that most of you who prattle on about the Transitional Program or "transitional demands" -- or even a "transitional method" -- forget the first of the two halves of their basis (today's conditions) and emphasize the second, even though it can be disputed as to what the state of consciousness is among "wide layers of the working class".

The reality is that people are voting for Sawant, not because she's a socialist, but in spite of it. They are voting for a higher minimum wage, rent control and better public transportation in a formally non-partisan election where she was competing among Democrats. Don't get me wrong, those are decent reforms, but they shouldn't be dressed up as being "socialist".

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

10th August 2013, 01:49

Not necessarily, I don't know much about their program so I can't speak to what she would do in particular but when Communist Party's in the West (and in particular France and Italy) ran municipalities they instituted very different kinds of programs and rule than their right wing counterparts. Of course they come with a lot of baggage (in part because of their focus on election and re-election) but there is certainly plenty of opportunity in having Marxists in local offices that isn't provided otherwise with hostile city administrations. And especially in the current climate for the Left in the US which is still at quite a low point. But like I said, I'm not too familiar with the Socialist Alternative or their program so I'm not sure what would come from their victory here. On the surface I don't see why other Leftists would oppose it though.

So when the Communist Party ran Napoli in the 1970's it was a great success? It wasn't at all an entirely pointless endeavour that ended up hurting them electorally in the end and having no real long-term effects at all?

It was the exact same shit as your average social-democrats being in charge - which, admittedly, is little surprising since this is what former communists who have resigned to useless electorialism end up as anyhow. When then followed mass-unemployment in the wake of western capitalism's de-industrialisation, there was no remedy to be offered. The "communists" in power meant nothing, because within the framework of capitalism, any efforts will be undermined and in vain, forcing the "communists", even if those are sincere, to do as all other establishment parties. At the very best they will be temporary.

Lenina Rosenweg

10th August 2013, 02:30

There you go again, hiding behind a concept you don't understand. The Transitional Program is not a political suicide pact; it does not give license to adopt a platform of demands that does precisely nothing to advance revolutionary struggle. One only needs to look at the demands written in the Transitional Program and contrast them to Sawant's platform to see what I mean.

For example, in terms of wages and hours, the Transitional Program calls for a sliding scale in order to fight against inflation and unemployment, with a minimum wage and state-recognized right to a job serving as the foundation. Sawant's program, on the other hand, calls for a set $15/hour minimum wage (a number currently popular with the business unions organizing fast-food workers), no right to employment and no sliding scale to offset rising prices or unemployment.

Similarly, while the Transitional Program calls for the organization of workers' militia and the general arming of the working class in response to attacks by the ruling classes and their state, Sawant's program pleads for "civilian review boards" that, based on all hitherto experience, are little more than rubber stamps that excuse every act of police terrorism.

And there are a whole slew of demands from the Transitional Program that don't find even an echo of acknowledgement in Sawant's platform: factory committees, public works, abolition of "business secrets" (one would think this demand would make an appearance in the land of Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks!), workers' control (even if the Trot version is only a scheme), expropriation of certain enterprises, expropriation of failing enterprises, expropriation of the banks, etc.

You may argue this is not 1938, and you'd be right. But where your argument fails is when you realize these demands are not conjunctural. They are based on the same objective conditions we still face today. And, according to the Old Man, transitional demands are supposed to be based on both "today's conditions and [...] today's consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat."

The reality is that people are voting for Sawant, not because she's a socialist, but in spite of it. They are voting for a higher minimum wage, rent control and better public transportation in a formally non-partisan election where she was competing among Democrats. Don't get me wrong, those are decent reforms, but they shouldn't be dressed up as being "socialist".

The Sawant campaign calls for (from the website)

Fund Human Needs, Not Corporate Greed
* Raise the minimum wage to $15/hr.
* A Millionaire’s Tax to fund mass transit, education, and living-wage union jobs providing vital social services.
* End corporate welfare. Tax freeloading corporations. Reduce the unfair tax burden on small businesses, homeowners & workers.
* Unionize Amazon, Starbucks & low-paid service workers.
* No layoffs or attacks on public sector unions!

Environmental Sanity
* Put the brakes on the coal trains! Words are not enough – the council needs to pass an ordinance & organize mass protests to make Seattle coal-free.
* End the traffic disaster. Dramatically expand public transit & bikeways so cars aren’t necessary to meet day-to-day transit needs.

Affordable Housing
* We need rent control!
* End homelessness in Seattle. Fully fund services for the disabled, veterans, seniors, & families in crisis.

Fight Police Brutality & Racism
* Build a mass movement against police brutality & racial profiling. Create an elected civilian review board with full powers over the police. No SPD drones.
* The council should campaign for immediate, unconditional citizenship rights for all undocumented immigrants. Enact a moratorium on Seattle deportations.

Quality Public Schools
* Stop defunding public schools. Lower class sizes. Support Seattle teachers & students boycotting the MAP standardized test.
* Empower students, parents, and teachers to democratically develop culturally relevant curriculum. Expand anti-bullying efforts & curriculum promoting LGBTQ equality, anti-racism, and anti-sexism.

Socialist Alternative calls for

Create living-wage union jobs for all the unemployed through a massive public works program to develop mass transit, renewable energy, infrastructure, healthcare, education, and affordable housing.

Free, high quality healthcare for all. Replace the failed for-profit insurance companies with a publicly funded single-payer system as a step towards fully socialized medicine.

No budget cuts to education & social services! Full funding for all community needs. The federal government should bail out states to prevent cuts and layoffs. A massive increase in taxes on the rich and big business, not working people.

Raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hour, adjusted annually for cost of living increases and regional differences, as a step towards a living wage for all.

A minimum guaranteed weekly income of $500/week for the unemployed, disabled, stay-at-home parents, the elderly, and others unable to work.

Stop home foreclosures and evictions. For public ownership and democratic control of the major banks.

No more layoffs! Take bankrupt and failing companies into public ownership and retool them for socially necessary green production.

Free, high quality public education for all from pre-school through college. Full funding for schools to dramatically lower teacher-student ratios. Stop the focus on high stakes testing and the drive to privatize public education.

Repeal all anti-union laws like Taft-Hartley. For democratic unions run by the rank-and-file to fight for better pay, working conditions, and social services. Full-time union officials should be regularly elected and receive the average wage of those they represent.

For a guaranteed living wage pension.

Shorten the workweek with no loss in pay and benefits - share out the work with the unemployed and create new jobs.

End the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bring all the troops home now!

Slash the military budget.

Repeal the Patriot Act and other attacks on democratic rights.

Fight global warming - Massive public investment in renewable energy and efficiency technologies to rapidly replace fossil fuels.

A major expansion of public transportation to provide low fare, high-speed, and accessible mass transit.

Public ownership of the big energy companies. All workers in polluting industries should be guaranteed re-training and new living-wage jobs in socially-useful green production.

Equal Rights for All

Fight discrimination on the grounds of race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, age, and all other forms of prejudice. Equal pay for equal work.

End police brutality and the institutional racism of the criminal justice system. Invest in rehabilitation, job-training, and living-wage jobs, not prisons! Abolish the death penalty.

Full legalization and equal rights for all undocumented immigrant workers.

Fight sexual harassment, violence against women, and all forms of sexism.

Defend a woman's right to choose whether and when to have children. Publicly funded, single-payer health care system with free reproductive services, including all forms of birth control and safe, accessible abortions. Comprehensive sex education. Paid maternity and paternity leave. Fully subsidized, high-quality child care.

Equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, including same-sex marriage.

Repeal NAFTA, CAFTA and other "free trade" agreements which mean job losses and a race to the bottom for workers and the environment.

Take into public ownership the top 500 corporations and banks that dominate the U.S. economy and run them under the democratic management of elected representatives of the workers and the broader public. Compensation to be paid on the basis of proven need to small investors, not millionaires.

A democratic socialist plan for the economy based on the interests of the overwhelming majority of people and the environment. For a socialist United States and a socialist world.

This sounds pretty "transitional" to me. Seriously though Lev Davidovich wrote "The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Task of the Fourth International" in 1938. The historical context is important. Capitalism was in a severe depression, worse than the one today. There was an extensively radicalized working class but there had been huge setbacks for the left. Fascism won the Spanish Civil War. The workers movement was crushed in Germany with the rise of Hitler. The Soviet Union was seen as bureaucratically degenerated. The task was to develop proletarian leadership.

The US and the world today is in a depression, soon to get worse. Capitalism has no way out of the crisis. The difference today is that class consciousness, especially in the US, is at a very low level.In 1938 the US had mass based or lose to mass based communist and socialist parties. This does not exist today. We do call for putting Amazon, et under public ownership. To say, "let's organize worker's councils and seize the means of production" will just sound silly in the current context.

If Kshama is eleted obviously she will not be able to do any of these things.She will be able to help build worker's resistance.This can't be done in an ultra left fashion.Granted, there has been debate over the proposal for civilian review boards over the police.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

10th August 2013, 02:40

I think people are a little confused when they write off her election as somehow counterproductive for a socialist.

What I think is destructive for a Socialist movement is when a Socialist gets elected, then calls some reformist policy proposals "Socialist", pretends that they are being revolutionary, and either ends up getting both thrown out of office and tarring the term "socialism" or moving to the right and similarly tarring the term "socialism". I have no problem, however, with a socialist taking office, saying that they are a Socialist but recognizing that their policy proposals are reforms WITHIN the Capitalist system designed to mitigate the harms of this system for the greater majority. I don't think any socialists should have a problem with that. The issue was always with Socialists getting elected and, as the German Social Democrats did, adopting reformist Capitalism to retain power. That doesn't make all socialists running for office and making reforms into wolves in sheep's clothing.

The only way to get our name out there is to become politically relevant. One way is to do that by forcing concessions through strikes and worker's organization, and another is to gain some influence in the political machinery. The issue is that we stick to our guns when elected by refusing to drop demands for a broader revolution, and publicly recognizing that our reforms are at best a minimal attempt to alleviate these problems within the system and to build working class power/solidarity etc. As long as the differentiation between reformist capitalism, the transitional program and the ideal socialist society is kept in mind as a necessary part of the political analysis, there will not be the ideological water-muddying which happened to the German Social Democrats and other European "socialist" parties. As much as anything else, if these reforms are successful it will weaken the power of the rich, forcing them to take more assertive actions to stop reforms (thereby dropping the masquerade of the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie")

SonofRage

10th August 2013, 02:48

How successful has the Transitional Program been historically? Really, how successful has Trotskyism been? Not very.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

Alan OldStudent

10th August 2013, 02:50

Where are the SALTs on this forum? I guess I will have to do their work for them. Here in Seattle a Socialist Alternative member has just come in second in the primary race against the incumbent Democrat city council member. 49 percent for the incumbent, 33 for the socialist challenger.

I think Sawant has a actual chance of winning come this November. She is such a change from the bland neoliberal Democrat she is up against.
I'm in Tacoma, close to Seattle, and I'm thrilled for her. My hearty congratulations to Socialist Alternative. I know several SA comrades and like them personally. Although I have some differences of opinion with them, I'm proud to support this candidacy.

Regards,
Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

MarxSchmarx

10th August 2013, 05:05

This comic summizes the situation:

http://i.imgur.com/Q7AX2hu.jpg?4

I've said for a long time that the term "socialist" has become such a catch-all phrase that it's lost all meaning. The Sawant campaign only reaffirms that fact. The only thing "socialist" about her campaign is its name. The rest is radical-liberal reformism (or even sub-reformism, in the case of certain demands).

There you go again, hiding behind a concept you don't understand. The Transitional Program is not a political suicide pact; it does not give license to adopt a platform of demands that does precisely nothing to advance revolutionary struggle. One only needs to look at the demands written in the Transitional Program and contrast them to Sawant's platform to see what I mean.

For example, in terms of wages and hours, the Transitional Program calls for a sliding scale in order to fight against inflation and unemployment, with a minimum wage and state-recognized right to a job serving as the foundation. Sawant's program, on the other hand, calls for a set $15/hour minimum wage (a number currently popular with the business unions organizing fast-food workers), no right to employment and no sliding scale to offset rising prices or unemployment.

Similarly, while the Transitional Program calls for the organization of workers' militia and the general arming of the working class in response to attacks by the ruling classes and their state, Sawant's program pleads for "civilian review boards" that, based on all hitherto experience, are little more than rubber stamps that excuse every act of police terrorism.

And there are a whole slew of demands from the Transitional Program that don't find even an echo of acknowledgement in Sawant's platform: factory committees, public works, abolition of "business secrets" (one would think this demand would make an appearance in the land of Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks!), workers' control (even if the Trot version is only a scheme), expropriation of certain enterprises, expropriation of failing enterprises, expropriation of the banks, etc.

You may argue this is not 1938, and you'd be right. But where your argument fails is when you realize these demands are not conjunctural. They are based on the same objective conditions we still face today. And, according to the Old Man, transitional demands are supposed to be based on both "today's conditions and [...] today's consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat." It seems that most of you who prattle on about the Transitional Program or "transitional demands" -- or even a "transitional method" -- forget the first of the two halves of their basis (today's conditions) and emphasize the second, even though it can be disputed as to what the state of consciousness is among "wide layers of the working class".

The reality is that people are voting for Sawant, not because she's a socialist, but in spite of it. They are voting for a higher minimum wage, rent control and better public transportation in a formally non-partisan election where she was competing among Democrats. Don't get me wrong, those are decent reforms, but they shouldn't be dressed up as being "socialist".

How successful has the Transitional Program been historically? Really, how successful has Trotskyism been? Not very.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

I think all of these criticisms are well taken. But one thing they neglect is that even in America, where the "socialist" label is a proverbial kiss of death in terms of electoral politics, so many people (at least in one otherwise left-leaning urban jurisdiction) vote for a candidate that is openly socialist, and a Trot at that.

As you all point out, we should have no illusions about this Sawant. However, it is in my view a small step in the right direction when large numbers of people see these reformists in America as alternatives worth voting for rather than part of an unspeakable conspiracy to destroy "the American way of life".

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th August 2013, 07:00

What MARLON PIERRE-ANTOINE and some anarchists don't understand is the Transitional Program, worked out by Marxists at the time of the German Revolution and more fully elaborated by Trotsky.It is not socialist in and of itself but provides a method to develop class consciousness, avoiding opportunist "popular front" tactics on one hand and ultraleft sectarian isolation on the other.

Transitional demands are supposed, as Trotsky puts it, to be connected to "the process of daily struggle" and to provide "a bridge between present demands and the socialist program of the revolution". Sawant's programme does not meet these criteria. Elections alone are not exactly "daily struggle", and raising the minimum wage does not go against the basis of capitalist society (in fact, in certain situations it might help it) - unlike the sliding scale of wages and hours.

KurtFF8

10th August 2013, 14:10

So when the Communist Party ran Napoli in the 1970's it was a great success? It wasn't at all an entirely pointless endeavour that ended up hurting them electorally in the end and having no real long-term effects at all?

I was thinking more of their rule in Emilia-Romagna which lasted for a while. My knowledge of this area is somewhat limited (and more so in other areas) but there is an interesting book on this (http://books.google.com/books/about/The_French_and_Italian_Communist_Parties.html?id=9 mB5N9JH6BMC) which compares the French and Italian parties which I'm mostly through and recommend. But I suppose that's a side discussion.

It was the exact same shit as your average social-democrats being in charge - which, admittedly, is little surprising since this is what former communists who have resigned to useless electorialism end up as anyhow. When then followed mass-unemployment in the wake of western capitalism's de-industrialisation, there was no remedy to be offered. The "communists" in power meant nothing, because within the framework of capitalism, any efforts will be undermined and in vain, forcing the "communists", even if those are sincere, to do as all other establishment parties. At the very best they will be temporary.

There's no question that ultimately they slid right into a social-democratic reformism (which interestingly made them the sole main social-democratic forces in the various countries in question). But I wouldn't go as far as to say that it is simply because they participated in elections and won posts. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater here and should rather look at what opportunities exist here and what dangers there are.

Tim Cornelis

10th August 2013, 15:54

Transitional demands are only effective if there's a working class movement rallying behind those demands. Otherwise it's just social-democracy.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

10th August 2013, 16:06

Reforms are won by the struggles of the workers themselves, not by electing a "socialist" politician.

The Douche

10th August 2013, 16:10

Kshama teaches economics part time at Seattle Central Community College, a school with a working class student body. She is currently only teaching one class at very low pay. Because of her activism in Seattle Occupy, her refusal to use a pro-neoliberal textbook and her candidacy against the liberal Democrat Frank Chopp in the Washington State House of Rep her employer essentially fired her. After a struggle they rehired her and allowed her to teach the one class.

You're assuming to much. I didn't suggest her community college teacher position put her in the 'ivory tower of academia' or whatever, I was suggesting it made it her a tame, respectable, reasonable person, the sort of person "you want on a city council", the qualities, and more importantly, the emphasis on them by the campaign, demonstrates and appeal to bourgeois respectability.

Why the quotation marks after community activist? Kshama has been very active against the rampant racist police brutality in Seattle, protested the police SWAT raid against anarchists, and recently was arrested while protesting an eviction.

Again, you assume to much. I am not suggesting that she is lying, and not in fact a community activist. Just that she is in fact a community activist, just like the president, just like the kind of people "you want on city council", it is, again, an appeal to bourgeois respectability, bourgeois political practice, and an abandonment of the revolutionary and communist position.

Also why is my organization the "fucking enemy" LOL!

The actions of your organization (in this particular incident, since I'm not interested in discussing why SALT and all other Leninists are the enemy) legitimize the bourgeois state, your organization takes a partisan position in civil war, entering into government (not even just dialogue or whatever, but actually becoming part of government) is siding with the party of order, against the party of insurrection.

This is why we draw these lines and differentiate between leftist (like you and SALT) and communist (like people who fight against the bourgeois state, the bosses, their trappings like Seattle city council, and for communism).

Martin Blank

10th August 2013, 18:11

This sounds pretty "transitional" to me. Seriously though Lev Davidovich wrote "The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Task of the Fourth International" in 1938. The historical context is important. Capitalism was in a severe depression, worse than the one today. There was an extensively radicalized working class but there had been huge setbacks for the left. Fascism won the Spanish Civil War. The workers movement was crushed in Germany with the rise of Hitler. The Soviet Union was seen as bureaucratically degenerated. The task was to develop proletarian leadership.

Thank you for proving my argument that Sawant's platform is sadly liberal, even when compared with SAlt's own platform. Why weren't any of those vaguely (and arguably) "transitional" demands in her platform to begin with? How many of those 39,000 people who voted for her actually saw SAlt's list of demands? And if that number is only a fraction of those who actually voted for her, then how can you argue that voters made an informed choice for a self-described socialist?

As I pointed out in my last post, those demands from the Transitional Program were not conjunctural -- i.e., based on the conditions of the moment. As I recall, the whole point of those demands was that they were epochal and applicable to capitalist society in its period of decline and decomposition. Conjunctural demands (e.g., the U.S. SWP's demand for a referendum on going to war) were meant to be formulated by each section in accordance with their specific national conditions as a supplement to those listed in the program, not a substitute.

The US and the world today is in a depression, soon to get worse. Capitalism has no way out of the crisis. The difference today is that class consciousness, especially in the US, is at a very low level. In 1938 the US had mass based or close to mass based communist and socialist parties. This does not exist today. We do call for putting Amazon, etc., under public ownership. To say, "let's organize worker's councils and seize the means of production" will just sound silly in the current context.

Why would it "just sound silly" to advocate for your own program or platform? That's the very basis of being a communist party: consistently advocating and fighting for a communist program. That's what separates a party from a pressure group.

It is unprincipled to claim to stand for workers' councils and seizure of the means of production if you never bother to fight for them. You don't need "mass based or close to mass based communist and socialist parties" to fight for that which you believe. All you need is confidence in your own program.

If Kshama is elected obviously she will not be able to do any of these things. She will be able to help build worker's resistance. This can't be done in an ultra left fashion. Granted, there has been debate over the proposal for civilian review boards over the police.

Again, why is it considered "ultra-left" to fight for your program? You can tell a lot by that for which people fight. If all you fight for openly, publicly is a series of piecemeal reforms, then you should expect that people will view you as little more than a "socialist"-sounding reformer.

Martin Blank

10th August 2013, 18:23

I think all of these criticisms are well taken. But one thing they neglect is that even in America, where the "socialist" label is a proverbial kiss of death in terms of electoral politics, so many people (at least in one otherwise left-leaning urban jurisdiction) vote for a candidate that is openly socialist, and a Trot at that.

As you all point out, we should have no illusions about this Sawant. However, it is in my view a small step in the right direction when large numbers of people see these reformists in America as alternatives worth voting for rather than part of an unspeakable conspiracy to destroy "the American way of life".

Being a "socialist" in America at this point in history is not a "kiss of death"; this kind of self-loathing McCarthyism needs to be rejected. Because the word "socialist" is such a vague and meaningless term, and has been applied to everyone from Barack Obama to Noam Chomsky, it should not surprising that a self-described socialist running in a non-partisan primary race for a local position could do well. Most of those who voted for her probably don't even realize that she is an ostensible Trotskyist, thinking more that she is a DSA-type "democratic socialist" -- a radical liberal in close orbit of the Democratic Party.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th August 2013, 19:23

Reforms are won by the struggles of the workers themselves, not by electing a "socialist" politician.

To an extent, reforms can be won by purely parliamentary means, usually in an extremely mutilated form. The thing is, such reforms can be rescinded by purely parliamentary means as well. No substantial, lasting reforms are possible in the absence of an active workers' movement.

And in any case, the point of the Transitional Programme is not to win reforms, but to organise the class to struggle for those reforms. In fact, it probably isn't possible to enact every transitional demand in the bourgeois state. The transitional programme replaces the minimal programme and is supposed to be more radical, more connected to the maximum programme - but many Trotskyist groups act as if it is a minimum programme, and reserve the maximum programme for speeches.

Again, an elected socialist politician could turn the parliamentary body they belong to into a tribune for socialist propaganda - assuming anyone listens to debates in the city council - but in order to do that, they have to stop running away from their own position.

Popular Front of Judea

10th August 2013, 21:06

An update: The counting of the late arriving ballots puts Sawant at 40.92% to the incumbents 41.02. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/08/09/late-ballot-trend-continues-forecast-nail-biting-in-november

Ladies and gentlemen we have a serious contender.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

10th August 2013, 21:09

Nobody is really dogging her for not calling for actual socialism...is it okay to you that she leave that part out...forget the goal..

Glitchcraft

10th August 2013, 21:37

I would also like to know why SALT is the "fucking enemy"

I have heard they support the police as working class brothers, I don't know if that's true but that would convince me of leaning towards "enemy". If so I'd like to see an article defending this position then I'll decide. But as usual in my short time using this forum I see a lot of reactionary statements with no source or citation or anything supporting these opinions.

Do you have any citations or evidence to support that they are the "fucking enemy"?

I am just asking because I really do not know their positions. Unless your saying that all Trots are enemies, then I don't care what you have to say any more.

argeiphontes

11th August 2013, 04:02

^People dislike Trotskyist groups, presumable for their authoritarianism. I should know, I was in the ISO for a while... I thought they were alright overall but needed to modernize their views and rhetoric. And those kitschy papers we heroically tried to sell... ;-)

Based only on their website, SocAlt / SALT doesn't seem that bad, but who knows what the ultra-secret exclusionary cadres are thinking ;-)

As for the candidate, I only wish I lived there so I could vote for her... ( Acutally, I also need an IT job ;-) )

I don't think the educational/acceptance component can be underestimated. When you say socialism to people outside of this board, two things come to mind: Sweden or Stalin. The first is a social democracy that's somehow vaguely inappropriate for U.S. exceptionalists here because the taxes are too high and there's less "freedom" or "competition" or take-your-pick vague value, and the second are "those murderous commie bastards who we fought the cold war with and trapped all those people behind the Berlin Wall."

It would be nice if they thought "oh, that seattle woman who gave workers a $15 minimum wage without the sky falling in." That seems reasonable to people.

Just 2 cents...

Jimmie Higgins

11th August 2013, 09:56

She is not running for mayor, she wasn't the only candidate besides the incumbent (she will be now) and yes its reformism but to my experience its useful to have some reformist "radicals" in the opposition on the city council (i sure miss our "provo" party), you can inside info, they can invite you to make a ruckus, you can invite them as legal observers and the powers that be sometimes throw them a bone that can land you some organising space, a youth center or a loudspeaker van..

I'm not doubting that you have seen such things be helpful, but I think that speaks to the political culture of your home, and it lacks an understanding of the political culture of the US.

I thought this was a helpful back and forth. I think there would be some benifit to have a sort of inside critic who could metaphorically heckle from the back of the class and use their position to be able to be a bigger bullhorn for a movement. But if it's a situation where the person is just representing a sort of general angst and not say, being the voice of an oppositional occupy or anti-austerity movement (or a broader radical working class movement that actually has socialist aims) then they are just going to be kind of hanging out there in the wind and might either stay principled and just be ostracized (because there is no social force that can back them) or will have to make accomodations.

Maybe there is a sort of coalition of occupy and fight for $15 grassroots activists who are mobilizing behind the candidate in an anti-austerity basis, but if that area is like the bay area, these groups are probably too small to mobilize beyond a strictly activist base. Maybe I'm wrong and the candidate can kind of become a focal point for an anti-austerity base, but I'm doubtful and I think efforts would be better spent trying to help create those networks which then might produce a larger base for other political possibilities from running a protest candidate to more direct community and workplace methods.

If people vote for a protest candidate in isolation of an effort in helping popularize a social movement to get that reform, then they are going to expect the candidate to devliver themselves - and if they can't then people who voted out of disatisfaction will just say, "well we tried that, now we need to support people who can play the game". If they support a candidate who is clearly part of an representing a larger movement, then it's more likely that people will see an election as a chance to start more organizing, rather than a chance to sit back and hope that the candidate delivers. This would be more like the situation Psycho described - but I think in the US we are at the point of trying to put an opposition together.

Sasha

11th August 2013, 10:57

Crux

11th August 2013, 13:15

I thought this was a helpful back and forth. I think there would be some benifit to have a sort of inside critic who could metaphorically heckle from the back of the class and use their position to be able to be a bigger bullhorn for a movement. But if it's a situation where the person is just representing a sort of general angst and not say, being the voice of an oppositional occupy or anti-austerity movement (or a broader radical working class movement that actually has socialist aims) then they are just going to be kind of hanging out there in the wind and might either stay principled and just be ostracized (because there is no social force that can back them) or will have to make accomodations.

Maybe there is a sort of coalition of occupy and fight for $15 grassroots activists who are mobilizing behind the candidate in an anti-austerity basis, but if that area is like the bay area, these groups are probably too small to mobilize beyond a strictly activist base. Maybe I'm wrong and the candidate can kind of become a focal point for an anti-austerity base, but I'm doubtful and I think efforts would be better spent trying to help create those networks which then might produce a larger base for other political possibilities from running a protest candidate to more direct community and workplace methods.

If people vote for a protest candidate in isolation of an effort in helping popularize a social movement to get that reform, then they are going to expect the candidate to devliver themselves - and if they can't then people who voted out of disatisfaction will just say, "well we tried that, now we need to support people who can play the game". If they support a candidate who is clearly part of an representing a larger movement, then it's more likely that people will see an election as a chance to start more organizing, rather than a chance to sit back and hope that the candidate delivers. This would be more like the situation Psycho described - but I think in the US we are at the point of trying to put an opposition together.
While obviously being a bit far removed from the action myself it is worth remembering that the demand for 15$/h was a demand that came out of the fast-food strikes not something made up by the Sawant campaign.
Then there's the SAFE campaign against foreclosures (http://www.votesawant.org/breaking_news_kshama_sawant_arrested_resisting_hom e_eviction).
And, I would argue, the endorsements from union locals is also another factor worth taking into account. The aim is to build a movement or rather work as a point of unity for movements already on the way. I have no crystal ball so I can't say if it will succeed or not but I would say what we've seen so far is positive and not something that takes away from building those networks you mentioned. A case in point would again be pushing the 15$/h into the electoral debate where most of the Dem's have felt compelled by the strikes to say they support an increase in the minimum wage but none support the actual demands of the strike.

The Douche

11th August 2013, 16:37

Lenina Rosenweg

11th August 2013, 18:05

I don't always agree w/Carl Davidson but this ccomment on The North Star blog, puts things into perspective

Carl Davidson August 7, 2013 at 11:44 am
You can run left campaigns two ways, and both are valid in promoting our movement. One is to unite a militant minority, where you do revolutionary education around socialism and the bridges to it. The other is to unite a progressive majority. In the latter, you have to pay attention to what demands the masses see as important, what’s one their minds, what they are willing to embrace as their own that will both win seats and widen class consciousness and popular untiy. Do either one well, and you’ll make gains. Try to mush them together, especially in non-revolutionary circumstances, and you make a big mess either way. BTW, if I were in Seattle, I’d work and vote for her

Binh

12th August 2013, 21:11

Re: excitement -- when was the last time a Trot got 20,000 votes in a local race?

More discussion her: http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=9516

The transitional program is as useless today as it was in 1938, but that's a whole different discussion. http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=8095

The Douche

12th August 2013, 21:13

Crux

13th August 2013, 10:23

Why is that exciting?
Well if nothing else you've got to appreciate how this is shaking up the local Democrats. I mean I am open to discuss the wider strategy and tactics too if you want. Right now I am very hungover though but I've been meaning to post a longer post in this thread addressing the issues that has been brought up.

This is also pretty decent:
The real meaning of Kshama Sawant’s stunning numbers (http://waliberals.org/the-real-meaning-of-kshama-sawants-stunning-numbers/2013/08/12/)

Binh

13th August 2013, 20:08

Well if nothing else you've got to appreciate how this is shaking up the local Democrats. I mean I am open to discuss the wider strategy and tactics too if you want. Right now I am very hungover though but I've been meaning to post a longer post in this thread addressing the issues that has been brought up.

This is also pretty decent:
The real meaning of Kshama Sawant’s stunning numbers (http://waliberals.org/the-real-meaning-of-kshama-sawants-stunning-numbers/2013/08/12/)

Look, some people are just plain uninterested in radicals beating Democrats and Republicans at the polls and popularity contests. They prefer the revolutionary left remain weak and isolated so that they can be prominent trolls on sites like this.

Bea Arthur

13th August 2013, 20:50

This old lady has seen at least two generations of radicals seduced by the appeal of gaining an electoral foothold, only to find out that they are just replicating the system of power that they spent years of their lives fighting against. A seat on a city council for a supposed radical or Marxist or anarchist means next to nothing as far as advancing the struggle goes, though it does impede it by raising hopes in electoralism as a viable preparatory route to workers power.

SonofRage

13th August 2013, 23:00

Look, some people are just plain uninterested in radicals beating Democrats and Republicans at the polls and popularity contests. They prefer the revolutionary left remain weak and isolated so that they can be prominent trolls on sites like this.

Right, because electoral victories for socialist candidates is the key to the revolutionary left being strong and breaking out of its isolation...

Do you really believe that?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

Popular Front of Judea

13th August 2013, 23:27

The passionate discussion here of a city council candidate in a mid-sized American city shows the extent of the weakness of the contemporary left. In the event of Sawant's win the results will not be as glorious or as dire as the discussion here implies.

Face it folks there is no one right strategy, there is no unified left to pursue that strategy. There is room for everyone. (Even the fans of Enver Hoxha. :rolleyes:)

Alan OldStudent

14th August 2013, 11:43

Glitchcraft

14th August 2013, 15:17

Look 5 posts above yours and you won't have to ask me a stupid question ever again.

That doesn't answer my question Douche Bag Asshole.. Maybe explain something instead of just being a Douche... Just becasue you say something doesn't make it true and just becasue your an asshole about saying it doesn't make it true either.

This old lady has seen at least two generations of radicals seduced by the appeal of gaining an electoral foothold, only to find out that they are just replicating the system of power that they spent years of their lives fighting against. A seat on a city council for a supposed radical or Marxist or anarchist means next to nothing as far as advancing the struggle goes, though it does impede it by raising hopes in electoralism as a viable preparatory route to workers power.

You should listen to Bea Arthur.

Are we talking about a revolutionary party advocating that the workers take state power or a reformist group that wants to work within the system?
Lets look at the Demands.

*Fund Human Needs, Not Corporate Greed
* Raise the minimum wage to $15/hr.

This is a decent demand and doesn't seem to contradict Trotskys transitional program.
They are Trots right?

* A Millionaire’s Tax to fund mass transit, education, and living-wage union jobs providing vital social services.
* End corporate welfare. Tax freeloading corporations. Reduce the unfair tax burden on small businesses, homeowners & workers.

This tax the rich stuff is just straight reformism though. I mean tax reform? How is that not reform? Reduce the taxes on small business? That's not really advancing the cause of workers taking power. And I just can't find that Trotsky quote where he says we need to protect the petite bourgeois from over burdening taxes. Because sheltering small business isn't anywhere in the transitional program.

* Unionize Amazon, Starbucks & low-paid service workers.
* No layoffs or attacks on public sector unions!

These statements do not seem to conflict with Trotskys Transitional Program. Maybe that’s the Trotsky part of the program I guess.

*Environmental Sanity
* Put the brakes on the coal trains! Words are not enough – the council needs to pass *an ordinance & organize mass protests to make Seattle coal-free.
* End the traffic disaster. Dramatically expand public transit & bikeways so cars aren’t *necessary to meet day-to-day transit needs.

These Demands do not really do much to advance workers power. If anything it seems like pandering to the greenies. There's nothing socialist about appealing to environmentalists. There are no socialist environmentalists those people are called socialists. Shutting down coal mines should be nationalize the coal mines at least. Let the coal miners run the mines. Democratic control of the power companies.
If its a "socialism in one city" your going for why not call for making the local power companies public utilities again but bikeways? Bikeways To where? From the housing Co-op to the Whole foods market? Where are the Bikeways demands in the transitional program? In any revolutionary program. I can't seem to find where Rosa Luxemburg or Lenin or Kautsky or anyone ever demanded greener transportation.

*IAffordable Housing
* We need rent control!
* End homelessness in Seattle. Fully fund services for the disabled, veterans, seniors, & families in crisis.

Not a bad thing to fight for but not particularly revolutionary. Democrats call for these things all the time.

*Fight Police Brutality & Racism
* Build a mass movement against police brutality & racial profiling. Create an elected *civilian review board with full powers over the police. No SPD drones.

Again I cannot find "civilian review boards" in any Trotsky or Lenin anywhere. Citizen review seems a lot more like "working within the system" rather than advancing the power of the working class. And the whole idea of using electoral politics is to help empower the workers isn't it or at least educate them in a revolutionary program? I haven't really seen where citizen review boards have had any success. Have you watched the news lately? Public oversight doesn't work on workers safety or corporate violation of environmental laws or any thing else it's ever been applied to. What makes you think it will work on cops of all things?
Socialism is about the workers taking power, state power. A workers state and Democratic power over the means of production. Not having a committee over see the power. I personally sympathise with the whole "get rid of that shitty state apparatus" line of reasoning but ill read your committee over site arguments if you have any.

Quality Public Schools
* Stop defunding public schools. Lower class sizes. Support Seattle teachers & students boycotting the MAP standardized test.
* Empower students, parents, and teachers to democratically develop culturally relevant curriculum. Expand anti-bullying efforts & curriculum promoting LGBTQ equality, anti-racism, and anti-sexism.

"democratically develop"? is this a watered down "control of the means of production"?
Schools should be democratically run by the teachers and students. Schools need to be integrated. That's super important. Schools need to be free from privatisation, schools need to be safe from police occupation. There's a lot you could say about schools.
BUT
Instead addressing some of the mammoth problems there with our education system she goes with the trendy bullying cause taken up by liberal housewives and Michelle Obama herself. Hard to take anyone too seriously if they tail the first ladies politics.
``
Even the Socialist Alternative lines are weak

* 'Stop home foreclosures and evictions. For public ownership and democratic control of the major banks.'

"Major Banks"??? how about ALL Banks!

* "No more layoffs! Take bankrupt and failing companies into public ownership and retool them for socially necessary green production."

Why just the failing ones? what kind of revolution is this? and more with the green production. What is "socially necessary green production"? that makes no sense.

*"Public ownership of the big energy companies."

Just the Big ones? Just the energy companies? Not the farms, Not the auto plants, Not the ISPs and Telecoms just the Big Energy guys?

These are blatantly reformist demands and reformists groups are an obstacle to revolution, by definition as well as throughout history.

It would be one thing to run for office with a revolutionary program, then the merits of running for public office could be worth debating. But there really isn't a debate when your arguing about the revolutionary prospects of a reformist party running for office.
There simply aren't any. I don't see how it opens the door for an actual socialist party either. You can almost be sure that they will not let socialist parties of any kind into higher branches of office. The SAlt is a soft sell and the only reason to do that is to not offend the ruling class. Tell it like it is. The working class is not going to be semantically tricked into taking state power. Watering down your message to run for public office is counter revolutionary.
Is SAlt going to suddenly become more revolutionary when they get more people elected? Will they demand the abolition of private property then, Not just the "Big Energy Guys"? When their pay check becomes hinged on courting the electorate will they suddenly have more revolutionary demands? The magic 8 ball says "signs point to no".

Reformism is an obstacle to revolution. At least according to Lenin and Trotsky.
I just call them a bunch of silly greenies parading as socialists but some would call them "the fucking enemy" and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with them.

Popular Front of Judea

14th August 2013, 22:14

Speaking as a proletarian that has to live in this city I will vote for her come this November. Hell I might even put some posters up in my neighborhood. If her election doesn't bring the revolution one day closer I can live with that.

Fascinating to see how bike lanes bring revolutionaries and reactionaries together. "Petit bourgeois reformism!" "Social engineering!" "Green pandering" "War on cars!".

Glitchcraft

14th August 2013, 22:22

QUOTE=Popular Front of Judea "If her election doesn't bring the revolution one day closer I can live with that."

How many days further away is it worth?

My point is they claim to be Trots but I don't see where that is accurate. If they claimed to be a reformist group group of Social Democrats I'd say sure they fit that, but they aren't with the Lenin and the Trotsky as they claim to be.

If so I must be reading some other Lenin and some other Trotsky and should be writing on some other forum.

nizan

15th August 2013, 00:59

'But...but....what about the transitional program?!?!'

Trotskyist rhetoric 101.

GiantMonkeyMan

15th August 2013, 01:27

If all they were doing was running in elections on this platform then I would agree that they are merely reformist but they are also engaging directly in anti-eviction campaigns, unionising low-paid workplaces and anti-police work in communities. Most of their election platform seems geared towards Seattle (the bike stuff, the eco stuff etc) and isn't going to bring down capitalism but it might get together the working class who will. Hopefully the campaign will reveal that even basic reformist goals are impossible for workers to win when faced with the austerity agenda and the ridiculous layer of bureaucrats in bourgeois politics. Expose the system for the sham it is and then encourage workers to build an alternative.

Binh

20th August 2013, 21:51

Right, because electoral victories for socialist candidates is the key to the revolutionary left being strong and breaking out of its isolation...

Do you really believe that?

Historically it's never been done any other way in bourgeois democracies.

SonofRage

21st August 2013, 13:15

Historically it's never been done any other way in bourgeois democracies.

Historically, how has that worked out?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

Binh

21st August 2013, 18:03

Historically, how has that worked out?

Quite well. The revolutionary left has never broken out of its isolation without participating in bourgeois elections.

Crux

21st August 2013, 19:28

Kshama Sawant's Stunning Result in Seattle Primary - Socialist Breakthrough Highlights Path for Independent Politics (http://www.votesawant.org/seattle_primary_breakthrough)

Art Vandelay

21st August 2013, 20:18

Jimmie Higgins

21st August 2013, 20:43

This thread has actually been priceless. The amount of armchair leftists on here, who have probably done shit all when it comes to organizing, criticizing an open Trotskyist, with clear support in the communities is just so typical of the left. Not only are they raising demands to help improve local living standards, for example the call for a 15$ minimum wage is something most people would never have thought possible, but Sawant has personally been involved with militantly protecting working class people's homes from evictions, which has ended, on occasion, with her wearing matching silver bracelets.
I don't think it's a question of her dedication or conviction, or even if radicals should vote for her if they live there.

But I can understand the frustration, there've been some dogmatism, strawpeople, as well as shallow cheap shots thrown around IMO.

How on earth do you think a movement is built?
[/QUOTE]well yeah, that's the question and the source of disagreement in the thread.

SonofRage

21st August 2013, 20:55

Her direct action is far more exciting. I'd like to see explicit calls for things like community assemblies from which policy could originate. If she actually won, the goal should be to start creating dual power.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

21st August 2013, 21:13

Very good Article here (http://waliberals.org/the-real-meaning-of-kshama-sawants-stunning-numbers/2013/08/12/)

From the Washington Liberals Article:

It is impossible to run a credible race for local races without garnering support from the local Democratic Party district organizations, and if possible an endorsement by those organizations. In particular, this means the 36th, (Ballard/Phinney/Magnolia/Queen Anne), the 43rd (Greenlake/Wallingford), the 34th (West Seattle) and the 37th, (Capitol Hill/Central District/Madrona/Beacon HIll). Conlin picked up the 34th, 36th and 37th.

And Kshama? Noting Seattle’s history as a one party town, the organization that Kshama belongs to, Socialist Alternative, stated that “the Democratic Party machines…totally run these cities in the interests of the rich and powerful.” For her part, Kshama ran in headlong opposition to the Democratic Party, declaring Conlin to be a “corporate-pandering politician” and “a poster boy for out of touch politicians.”. . .

Since this is a one-party town, the economic elites use their ties to the political elites who operate inside the Democratic Party to push policy and perks that allow them to flourish. . . But of course, since it is the Democratic Party, which has a mix of progressives, liberals and centrists at the precinct level, consideration and allowances are made for progress on social issues – support for gay marriage being an example. The overall effect is a whole lot of socially liberal happy talk masking a very conservative economic agenda.

That really is quite a positive development. However, there are some things the article left unanswered:

Seeing as Socialist Alternative ran in "headlong opposition" to the Democratic Party, it seems that this has merely been an outspoken "campaign" against the Party with little to no institutional, actual Party building and competition to "take over the districts". What I mean is: the Democratic Party has campaign offices in the 34th, 36th, 37th districts of Seattle. This is actual control. If there is a crisis and the community's demand for food, water or whatever rises, the Democratic Party district offices are the only political organizations with the institutional means to capitalize on the community's demands.

Getting 35% of the popular vote is all well and good, but votes are immaterial.
Until the Socialist Alternative "organization" becomes an actual Party, with a mass membership, its own finances, worker services, and an institutional character to a point where its district party offices will be the necessary place of bidding for any successful political campaign and harmonious community living, this will just remain some interesting news.

Besides that, the Socialist Alternative needs to build a communist program, a basic compass for the party that constitutionally ties its leadership to a continental wide military overthrow of the bourgeois armed forces and building of the future society.

Sentinel

22nd August 2013, 00:16

Topic split, discussion on the campaign of Ty Moore in Minneapolis has been moved into a new thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ty-moore-cwi-t182797/index.html). I am also editing the title of this one for them not to get mixed up.

SonofRage

22nd August 2013, 04:23

Quite well. The revolutionary left has never broken out of its isolation without participating in bourgeois elections.

When I think of the history of the U.S. left and organizations that could be said to have truly been "the vanguard," I think of the old IWW and of the Black Panther Party. Neither of these groups wasted time in electoral politics.

The old Socialist Party of America had electoral victories and were basically kept from participating in the state by the bourgeoisie in any meaningful way. After Eugene Debs, they quickly drifted into reformism. We all know where the CPUSA ended up.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

Martin Blank

22nd August 2013, 05:14

Nobody is really dogging her for not calling for actual socialism...is it okay to you that she leave that part out...forget the goal..

Actually, the point I was trying to make was precisely that Sawant's platform says nothing about revolution, the workers' republic, etc. It's the kind of reformist "sewer socialism" that would even make Victor Berger blush with shame.

This thread has actually been priceless. The amount of armchair leftists on here, who have probably done shit all when it comes to organizing, criticizing an open Trotskyist, with clear support in the communities is just so typical of the left. Not only are they raising demands to help improve local living standards, for example the call for a 15$ minimum wage is something most people would never have thought possible, but Sawant has personally been involved with militantly protecting working class people's homes from evictions, which has ended, on occasion, with her wearing matching silver bracelets. How on earth do you think a movement is built?

No one has criticized Sawant for being an "open Trotskyist", having "clear support in the communities" or being "involved with militantly protecting working class people's homes from evictions". Her campaign is being criticized because her platform is liberal reformism, and bears no real relationship to her self-professed politics. A liberal who is arrested remains a liberal, just as a liberal program advanced by a radical (or revolutionary) with an arrest record is still a liberal program.

Binh

22nd August 2013, 15:29

Very good Article here (http://waliberals.org/the-real-meaning-of-kshama-sawants-stunning-numbers/2013/08/12/)
Seeing as Socialist Alternative ran in "headlong opposition" to the Democratic Party, it seems that this has merely been an outspoken "campaign" against the Party with little to no institutional, actual Party building and competition to "take over the districts". What I mean is: the Democratic Party has campaign offices in the 34th, 36th, 37th districts of Seattle. This is actual control. If there is a crisis and the community's demand for food, water or whatever rises, the Democratic Party district offices are the only political organizations with the institutional means to capitalize on the community's demands.

Getting 35% of the popular vote is all well and good, but votes are immaterial.
Until the Socialist Alternative "organization" becomes an actual Party, with a mass membership, its own finances, worker services, and an institutional character to a point where its district party offices will be the necessary place of bidding for any successful political campaign and harmonious community living, this will just remain some interesting news.

A very important point. More on the party-building question here: http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=9585

When I think of the history of the U.S. left and organizations that could be said to have truly been "the vanguard," I think of the old IWW and of the Black Panther Party. Neither of these groups wasted time in electoral politics.

The old I.W.W. was never even able to build a relatively stable organization much less become influential in the working class as a whole. Their membership would swell during strikes like in the 1912 Lawrence Textile strike but then collapse once it was over. Furthermore, Big Bill Haywood worked with congressman and Socialist Party member Victor Berger to open congressional hearings on conditions in the mills, giving the strike crucial national attention that helped them win. See: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/61/

Neither the I.W.W. nor the B.P.P. wasted time on electoral politics, that's true. But it wasn't too hard for the state to waste them when the time for that came. Neither of them were successful models if we're talking about something more than fleeting popularity.

The old Socialist Party of America had electoral victories and were basically kept from participating in the state by the bourgeoisie in any meaningful way. After Eugene Debs, they quickly drifted into reformism. We all know where the CPUSA ended up.

Well, if you're willing to use negative developments that took 4-5 decades to happen (none of which was inevitable) as "proof" that the I.W.W. and B.P.P. -- who were defeated in 1 decade or less -- were superior, so be it.

Jimmie Higgins

22nd August 2013, 23:26

http://beautone.tumblr.com/image/51802205665

The panthers did begin to engage in electoral politics... Both in individual cities and nationally. I think they campaigned for Shirley Chisholm. Of course for the purposes of this discussion, I don't think the historical example translates. The bpp were part of a surging militancy and at a time when electoral politics in cities were being opened up; black coalitions were able to wield electoral power and sometimes run the city administration. I think there are debates specific about the panthers and those elections, the question of the Democratic Party, for example, but in a way trying to figure out how to deal with elections was also probably an unavoidable part of grassroots militants jockeying against liberal groups to represent the black community at that specific time.

SonofRage

23rd August 2013, 14:42

Well, if you're willing to use negative developments that took 4-5 decades to happen (none of which was inevitable) as "proof" that the I.W.W. and B.P.P. -- who were defeated in 1 decade or less -- were superior, so be it.

The Communist Party started supporting the Democratic Party in 1935 under Stalin's orders to support Roosevelt in the 1936 election. I'm no mathematician, but I don't think that's "4-5 decades."

KurtFF8

23rd August 2013, 15:19

The Communist Party started supporting the Democratic Party in 1935 under Stalin's orders to support Roosevelt in the 1936 election. I'm no mathematician, but I don't think that's "4-5 decades."

Well it wasn't exactly that consistent, considering that in the 1948 election the CP supported Wallace over Truman.

Decolonize The Left

23rd August 2013, 16:09

Actually, the point I was trying to make was precisely that Sawant's platform says nothing about revolution, the workers' republic, etc. It's the kind of reformist "sewer socialism" that would even make Victor Berger blush with shame.

No one has criticized Sawant for being an "open Trotskyist", having "clear support in the communities" or being "involved with militantly protecting working class people's homes from evictions". Her campaign is being criticized because her platform is liberal reformism, and bears no real relationship to her self-professed politics. A liberal who is arrested remains a liberal, just as a liberal program advanced by a radical (or revolutionary) with an arrest record is still a liberal program.

Well, as a working class person I would much rather have $15/hr and someone coming to defend my house from repossession than your abstract calls for a revolution. And, it looks like, so would 33% of Seattle. Can you really blame them?

So.... really the problem isn't her. She's actually doing something. The problem is people who criticize people doing something and demand that they be 'more revolutionary.' You want to be more revolutionary? You run for city council in Seattle under a revolutionary platform.

Ocean Seal

23rd August 2013, 16:49

As someone who earns considerably less than $15/hr could we please stop making light of that potential development. I understand the notion that you can't effect socailist change from the post of a bourgeois governor, but in a country so backwards as the US, can we please just try to get some things. I'm miserable enough here.

Anti-White

23rd August 2013, 19:06

... Sawant has personally been involved with militantly protecting working class people's homes from evictions ...

That made me fucking laugh.

Ocean Seal

23rd August 2013, 20:50

That made me fucking laugh.
I'm curious as to why that's funny.
Is it because it's not a worthwhile cause?
Or is it because she couldn't prevent every family in Seattle from being evicted?

Popular Front of Judea

23rd August 2013, 21:07

No don't you see, she should have helped them burn their petit bourgeois houses and then marched with them down to the statehouse to seize power. Duh.

I'm curious as to why that's funny.
Is it because it's not a worthwhile cause?
Or is it because she couldn't prevent every family in Seattle from being evicted?

RedBen

23rd August 2013, 21:13

That made me fucking laugh.
your posts make me laugh troll

Tolstoy

23rd August 2013, 22:50

This comic summizes the situation:

http://i.imgur.com/Q7AX2hu.jpg?4

Are you kidding me? A major city just may get a Socialist city councilwoman and your getting your own bullshit anarchist ideals confused with socialism. Obviously money and the states going to be preserved, and she has to try to do whats within her means which means trying to institute a living wage. Plus this is becoming part of a bigger trend, another Socialist Alternative candidate Ty Moore is likely going to be elected to the city council of Minneapolis

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

24th August 2013, 00:17

As an 8.50 minimum wage service worker, I fully understand OceanSeal and others' enthusiasm at the prospect of having an open Socialist advocating a 15$ dollar minimum wage get more than a third of the city's votes - but, besides the organizational criticisms I've already given, what I am unclear about is just how "militant" the Socialist Alternative truly is.
First: How many members does the Socialist Alternative have in Seattle? Does the Socialist Alternative "encourage" members to arm themselves with guns? Are capable party members organized into "red" action squads to protect workers from abuse? Has this massively successful city branch of the Socialist Alternative dared to think about openly advocating the replacement of the abusive bourgeois Seattle police force by a democratic, workers community task force? Has it not yet occured to the Seattle city Party leadership that programs of solidarity and alternative culture, suchas food banks, community plays, recreational/sporting activities, would radically increase the well being of worker members?

How conscious is the leadership of the need for organized violence in taking control of a territory for workers to govern freely? To what extent has a central party intelligence, knowledge storing apparatus been established and potential military situations in cities been collaboratively worked on by this capable leadership? To what extent is there a free culture within the organization to debate these vital subjects?
Something tells me there are not too many strategic, military minded comrades in the Socialist Alternative leadership.

Popular Front of Judea

24th August 2013, 00:31

Just what planet are you from? Do you see any potential risks to what you are asking? Are you at all aware of the history of the Black Panthers? Why are you asking these questions in an open forum, searchable by Google for fucks sake?

Does the Socialist Alternative "encourage" members to arm themselves with guns? How conscious is the leadership of the need for organized violence in taking control of a territory for workers to govern freely? To what extent has a central party intelligence, knowledge storing apparatus been established and potential military situations in cities been collaboratively worked on by this capable leadership?

Martin Blank

24th August 2013, 00:39

Well, as a working class person I would much rather have $15/hr and someone coming to defend my house from repossession than your abstract calls for a revolution. And, it looks like, so would 33% of Seattle. Can you really blame them?

So.... really the problem isn't her. She's actually doing something. The problem is people who criticize people doing something and demand that they be 'more revolutionary.' You want to be more revolutionary? You run for city council in Seattle under a revolutionary platform.

Sorry, August. You're wrong, as usual. The problem is her. She is the one running for city council on a platform that any liberal Democrat -- including you, apparently -- would be comfortable with supporting, while sending out her "comrades" in SAlt to shill for her liberal electoral campaign.

It's not a matter of her campaign being "more revolutionary". Her campaign is not revolutionary at all! In fact, it's barely reformist. It's the same kind of social-democratic crap we've come to expect from "socialist" electoral efforts.

People talk about the "Battered Liberal Syndrome" -- the affliction rampant among liberal voters that pushes them to vote for anything with a "D" at the end of their name, even if doing so only makes matters worse. What we're seeing here is "Battered Leftist Syndrome". Just because Sawant has an "S" at the end of her name doesn't mean that a vote for her is a vote for "socialism". If anything, that "S" stands for "swindle" ... or, in the case of you and the rest of the cheerleading section, "sucker".

Popular Front of Judea

24th August 2013, 01:11

It's more like "battered worker" syndrome. Most working class voters -- myself included -- don't give a shit about what letter follows a candidates name. The question for us is whether they will follow through on their rhetoric. If Sawant can mobilize the "other Seattle" more power to her.

People talk about the "Battered Liberal Syndrome" -- the affliction rampant among liberal voters that pushes them to vote for anything with a "D" at the end of their name, even if doing so only makes matters worse. What we're seeing here is "Battered Leftist Syndrome". Just because Sawant has an "S" at the end of her name doesn't mean that a vote for her is a vote for "socialism". If anything, that "S" stands for "swindle" ... or, in the case of you and the rest of the cheerleading section, "sucker".

Crux

24th August 2013, 01:53

nizan

24th August 2013, 02:00

This thread has actually been priceless. The amount of armchair leftists on here, who have probably done shit all when it comes to organizing, criticizing an open Trotskyist, with clear support in the communities is just so typical of the left. Not only are they raising demands to help improve local living standards, for example the call for a 15$ minimum wage is something most people would never have thought possible, but Sawant has personally been involved with militantly protecting working class people's homes from evictions, which has ended, on occasion, with her wearing matching silver bracelets. How on earth do you think a movement is built?

Oh no, the poor trot is upset over general opposition to the notion of waged labor, how terribly revolutionary. And they even put your bureaucratic darling in handcuffs, over activism, that certainly seals the question then.

Luckily for us, history has never seen an anarchist jailed for much of anything, so we're really left with little to say at this point. To think, if we were only arrested more, we would have the grandest of all movements, the most widely circulated of all the papers, and the most monthly due collections of all the parties! Oh, damn the folly of the anarchist!

Martin Blank

24th August 2013, 07:33

You go on believing that, Miles. I think our record speaks for itself.

Your record does speak for itself, but you shouldn't be too happy about that. How are your "comrades" in the UK prison guards union doing these days?

But yeah of course, who cares about minimum wages and fastfood strikes? Clearly only soc. dems.

It's one thing to care about them, which we all do. It is something else entirely to consciously limit one's political platform to being a faded echo of the business union officialdom, which is exactly what you so-called "revolutionaries" have done. In fact, you can't even match the "radicalism" of the more liberal sections of the Democratic Party (e.g., Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren) that point out how the minimum wage, if it was tied to productivity, would be about $23/hour. I guess that's just "too revolutionary" for you social democrats.

Crux

24th August 2013, 10:46

Your record does speak for itself, but you shouldn't be too happy about that. How are your "comrades" in the UK prison guards union doing these days?

It's one thing to care about them, which we all do. It is something else entirely to consciously limit one's political platform to being a faded echo of the business union officialdom, which is exactly what you so-called "revolutionaries" have done. In fact, you can't even match the "radicalism" of the more liberal sections of the Democratic Party (e.g., Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren) that point out how the minimum wage, if it was tied to productivity, would be about $23/hour. I guess that's just "too revolutionary" for you social democrats.
Doing illegal strikes and calling for general strikes by the TUC as a whole. Not that the SP run the POA or anything. Don't see what that has much to do with the U.S though, as far as I know the Prison Officer's unions in the U.S are about as yellow and guild-like as they come. Anyway if that's the best you can do...

Of course when I was talking about our record, given what this thread is about, I was talking of the record of our elected representatives. For instance if you think our councillors in, say Haninge Stockholm, are sell-out social democrats, as you likely do, you do that simply based on your own dogmatism. Nothing else.

No. What we are doing is taking up the demand put forward by the striking fastfood worker's themselves Of course to you the fastfood strikes is obviously just a "faded echo of union officialdom", whereas we raise the demand because it is the one raised by worker's actually in struggle, we want to use this election campaign to help aid their cause. You are being disingenuous if you think 15$/h is all we want and were this struggle to be successful we'd just pack it up and call it quits. The transitional demand we are fighting for is after all a living wage, but you knew that already. Also we are fighting for union rights in the fastfood industry, clearly a sign of our wretched social democraticism.

I know I am being snarky and all, but I think my points stand. That is 1) the record of our elected councillors elsewhere is not one of social-democratic sell out but of acting as an auxiliary to the extra parliamentary struggle. We are not electoralists. 2) the choice of the 15$/h demand comes out of an ongoing worker's struggle, our intent is to aid and connect with that struggle. It's not a limitation in our program but a way for us to put ourselves squarely on the side of the demand the worker's are actually raising, in contrast to the "progressive" Democrats in Seattle who have paid some lip-service but refused to raise that specific demand. In the same way as we would support worker's fighting against cut-backs winning a fight like this is merely a step on the way. Indeed the more important value coming from this is that it would show that when worker's put their collective power behind demands, ie through strikes, we can win. This will help us build confidence and organization to go further. This is the key here, not the specific number.

RedBen

24th August 2013, 11:47

Just what planet are you from? Do you see any potential risks to what you are asking? Are you at all aware of the history of the Black Panthers? Why are you asking these questions in an open forum, searchable by Google for fucks sake?

Workers-Control-Over show just a little more guile. this is not some right wing forum for militias.

Crux

24th August 2013, 12:09

Workers-Control-Over show just a little more guile. this is not some right wing forum for militias.

Nor is it really relevant for this thread. If you want to have a discussion on revolutionary military tactics this not the thread to do it in.

Martin Blank

24th August 2013, 21:50

Doing illegal strikes and calling for general strikes by the TUC as a whole.

Awww. The poor screws feel so oppressed and exploited. Why not just shed tears for scabs while you're at it?

Not that the SP run the POA or anything.

No, they just give them a ready platform.

Don't see what that has much to do with the U.S though, as far as I know the Prison Officer's unions in the U.S are about as yellow and guild-like as they come. Anyway if that's the best you can do...

Your organization's position on cops has everything to do with Sawant's electoral campaign. If she was to be elected to the Seattle City Council, she will have to vote on the city's budget for the police department. How will she vote? Will she vote to give the Seattle cops everything they want so they can better repress poor and working people?

You might try to pass this off as a non-issue, but it is very relevant. The pro-cop position your organization has puts you on the other side of the class line from the working class -- especially African American and Latino workers, as well as our brothers and sisters on strike. It's not a matter that the cop "unions" are "yellow and guild-like". It's a matter that the cops are the armed bodies of the capitalist state -- the enforcers of the ruling classes' "law and order"!

Of course when I was talking about our record, given what this thread is about, I was talking of the record of our elected representatives. For instance if you think our councillors in, say Haninge Stockholm, are sell-out social democrats, as you likely do, you do that simply based on your own dogmatism. Nothing else.

I can't speak to the specifics of what your councillors do where you are. But I can say this: If they hold the CWI's pro-cop positions, then they are not on the same side of the class line as communists.

No. What we are doing is taking up the demand put forward by the striking fastfood worker's themselves

The $15/hour demand did not come from the fast food workers themselves. It came from the union officials who are behind the local organizing.

Of course to you the fastfood strikes is obviously just a "faded echo of union officialdom",

This is just dime-store slander, and you know it.

whereas we raise the demand because it is the one raised by worker's actually in struggle, we want to use this election campaign to help aid their cause.

Our members and supporters have been involved in building up working-class solidarity for the fast food strikes (including the wildcats) from the beginning. But the difference here is that while your organization tails the union officials, we seek to win the fast food workers to a class-struggle perspective. This means going beyond the weak-willed pleas of the unions officialdom and fighting for more than what capitalism's loyal labor lieutenants think the ruling classes will accept.

You are not "aiding their cause" by tailing the bureaucrats of the SEIU and echoing their demands. All you are doing is giving legitimacy to the union officials who will end up "negotiating" their defeat.

You are being disingenuous if you think 15$/h is all we want and were this struggle to be successful we'd just pack it up and call it quits.

Like you're being disingenuous about our support for the fast food workers going on strike?

The transitional demand we are fighting for is after all a living wage, but you knew that already. Also we are fighting for union rights in the fastfood industry, clearly a sign of our wretched social democraticism.

In a sense, yes. It is a sign of your social democratism. Communists fight for more than a set-in-stone "living wage", and we don't settle for the base minimum that the agents of the ruling classes inside the ranks of labor think is possible. The whole point of fighting for a sliding scale of wages and hours, instead of set numbers, is to end unemployment and neutralize the effects of inflation. (I seem to recall reading that somewhere -- some document written by Trotsky in the late 1930s, IIRC.) Today, a $15/hour wage might be effective (it's not, actually), but tomorrow, after inflation wipes out the advantage, $15 may be a starvation wage. It's fine that the workers are taking up the demand for a $15/hour minimum wage, and we unconditionally support their efforts to attain it. But we communists don't limit ourselves to tailing the union officials.

As for "union rights" for fast food workers, the issue is not a matter of law. It's a matter of leadership. The reason that the SEIU and UFCW officials set up this organizing effort was to cut off the growth of more radical, independent union formations, like UE and even the IWW, which have had growing (but moderate) successes in organizing small-shop workplaces. They're playing the same "turf war" game that the AFL played with the CIO in the 1930s and the IWW in the 1910s, seeking to plant their flag early so they can scream "jurisdiction" to the National Labor Relations Board when workers try to organize a fighting union.

Communists fight for workers to organize themselves and lead their own struggles, not be managed. If that means spurning the AFL-CIO/CTW officials and joining UE, the IWW or even establishing a revolutionary industrial union, then we support them in that effort. We don't tail the business unions and abdicate our responsibility to educate workers on what a union can be.

Crux

24th August 2013, 21:58

Your organization's position on cops has everything to do with Sawant's electoral campaign. If she was to be elected to the Seattle City Council, she will have to vote on the city's budget for the police department. How will she vote? Will she vote to give the Seattle cops everything they want so they can better repress poor and working people?

You might try to pass this off as a non-issue, but it is very relevant. The pro-cop position your organization has puts you on the other side of the class line from the working class -- especially African American and Latino workers, as well as our brothers and sisters on strike. It's not a matter that the cop "unions" are "yellow and guild-like". It's a matter that the cops are the armed bodies of the capitalist state -- the enforcers of the ruling classes' "law and order"!
No it's not a non-issue. If you had read anything, anything at all, that the Sawant campaign has said on the SPD maybe you'd have a clue.

The $15/hour demand did not come from the fast food workers themselves. It came from the union officials who are behind the local organizing.

This is just dime-store slander, and you know it.

Our members and supporters have been involved in building up working-class solidarity for the fast food strikes (including the wildcats) from the beginning. But the difference here is that while your organization tails the union officials, we seek to win the fast food workers to a class-struggle perspective. This means going beyond the weak-willed pleas of the unions officialdom and fighting for more than what capitalism's loyal labor lieutenants think the ruling classes will accept.

You are not "aiding their cause" by tailing the bureaucrats of the SEIU and echoing their demands. All you are doing is giving legitimacy to the union officials who will end up "negotiating" their defeat.

Like you're being disingenuous about our support for the fast food workers going on strike?

In a sense, yes. It is a sign of your social democratism. Communists fight for more than a set-in-stone "living wage", and we don't settle for the base minimum that the agents of the ruling classes inside the ranks of labor think is possible. The whole point of fighting for a sliding scale of wages and hours, instead of set numbers, is to end unemployment and neutralize the effects of inflation. (I seem to recall reading that somewhere -- some document written by Trotsky in the late 1930s, IIRC.) Today, a $15/hour wage might be effective (it's not, actually), but tomorrow, after inflation wipes out the advantage, $15 may be a starvation wage. It's fine that the workers are taking up the demand for a $15/hour minimum wage, and we unconditionally support their efforts to attain it. But we communists don't limit ourselves to tailing the union officials.

As for "union rights" for fast food workers, the issue is not a matter of law. It's a matter of leadership. The reason that the SEIU and UFCW officials set up this organizing effort was to cut off the growth of more radical, independent union formations, like UE and even the IWW, which have had growing (but moderate) successes in organizing small-shop workplaces. They're playing the same "turf war" game that the AFL played with the CIO in the 1930s and the IWW in the 1910s, seeking to plant their flag early so they can scream "jurisdiction" to the National Labor Relations Board when workers try to organize a fighting union.

Communists fight for workers to organize themselves and lead their own struggles, not be managed. If that means spurning the AFL-CIO/CTW officials and joining UE, the IWW or even establishing a revolutionary industrial union, then we support them in that effort. We don't tail the business unions and abdicate our responsibility to educate workers on what a union can be.
Yawn. More misrepresentation. I was pretty clear already but you must have simply not read what I wrote. If that is how you intend to go about this I see nothing of interest coming out of this exchange at all. Keep fighting your straw men.

Martin Blank

24th August 2013, 22:50

No it's not a non-issue. If you had read anything, anything at all, that the Sawant campaign has said on the SPD maybe you'd have a clue.

Actually, I've read everything on her campaign website, including all of her statements on the Seattle PD. At no point in her statements does she say that the state needs to be broken up or forcibly disarmed by the working class, or that workers have the right to defend themselves against police terror. Instead, she raises the liberal-reformist demand for a "civilian review board". The history of these bodies is one of rubber-stamping and legitimizing police violence.

New York City has had a Civilian Complaint Review Board for six decades -- since 1953. Has it even slowed down the number of incidents of police terrorism? Nope. In fact, the CCRB has been used to whitewash acts of police brutality and repression. This is what Sawant is advocating for Seattle. All of her complaining about the actions of the Seattle PD mean nothing when her "socialist alternative" is the same kind of institution that has excused the murderers of Abner Louima, Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell and numerous others -- the same body that has let the "stop-and-frisk" policy stand.

Maybe if you and your comrades had a shred of principle when it comes to the role of the capitalist state, you'd know that Sawant is trying to sell shit as chocolate ice cream.

Yawn. More misrepresentation. I was pretty clear already but you must have simply not read what I wrote. If that is how you intend to go about this I see nothing of interest coming out of this exchange at all. Keep fighting your straw men.

I've read every word you've written on here. It seems to me that the issue is that you're losing the political argument, so you scream "straw man" and run for the hills. Explain where I've misrepresented you. If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be that hard to do.

Martin Blank

24th August 2013, 22:52

Ele'ill

24th August 2013, 23:08

Sorry, August. You're wrong, as usual.

This is so cheesy blatant cattiness that I actually laughed out loud. If I were AW I would put this in my signature. I tend to agree with miles and psycho. Skeptical but it can sometimes be useful but not in any conventional sense

Glitchcraft

25th August 2013, 02:11

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/pic/11/11536.gif

This CWI banner says it all.
End of story.
They support the pigs.
They are the "fucking enemy"

This SAlt article is a nice foot rub to the racist, violent, don’t eating, rapist, murderers that oppress the fuck out of us.
http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/state/ch4.html

So yeah an elected socialist that wants to council with the cops before the next WTO type event in Seattle is probably not working to advance the power of the workers.
More like Static Demands than transitional.

Popular Front of Judea

25th August 2013, 05:19

As if your HO scale party does.

At least you're honest about your defeatism and pessimism. I can respect that. But I don't think you really have the right to speak for "most working class voters".

Martin Blank

25th August 2013, 08:28

As if your HO scale party does.

That is something we'd never presume to do, even if we were a party of 1 million members.

GiantMonkeyMan

25th August 2013, 08:28

This CWI banner says it all.
End of story.
They support the pigs.
They are the "fucking enemy"
Valid criticism and all. However, not everyone who works in prisons are screws. British prisons usually have 1/3 prison officers and the rest are cleaners/caterers/admin staff etc. When prisons are closed it usually sends prisoners from local areas to mass, over-crowded prisons far away from where their relatives can visit. Angela Davis in 'Are Prisons Obselete?' talks about how prisons can destroy local economies and when they're closed the people who work in them join the dole que because there's nothing else, much like the miners had no other jobs available when the pits closed because the local economy was based soley around the pits. One day we'll break open the prisons but until then I'd prefer not to have G4S coming in and running over-crowded hell-holes.

Glitchcraft

25th August 2013, 22:40

When prisons are closed it usually sends prisoners from local areas to mass, over-crowded prisons far away from where their relatives can visit. Angela Davis in 'Are Prisons Obselete?' talks about how prisons can destroy local economies and when they're closed the people who work in them join the dole que because there's nothing else

By this logic
Car wrecks are good for the economy, it gives work to ambulance drivers and body shop workers. War is also good for the economy. I don't think being good for the economy means good for the workers.

Popular Front of Judea

25th August 2013, 23:18

Kudos to J.P./H.M./M.S./? for diverting the thread. I would assume that Marxists as a rule would oppose the privatization of the management and ownership of government assets.

Thirsty Crow

25th August 2013, 23:28

Kudos to J.P./H.M./M.S./? for diverting the thread. I would assume that Marxists as a rule would oppose the privatization of the management and ownership of government assets.
Why you'd say that? Does state ownership on its own somehow guarantee better conditions and rights for employed workers, or maybe lower prices and better quality of a commodity? In what way is the capitalist state, as an owner, always a better option for the working class?

It seems to me that such views are the product of the rampant fetishism of the national state within the left. Obviously, no clear understanding of the object in question can be reached if this fetishism is doing its own thing, so to say, behind your back.

Of course, this doesn't mean that I do not support, fully at that, militant struggle when conditions, jobs and rights are endangered - and to be clear, in a great deal of instances where privatization is planned these are endangered. It's just that this alleged "rule" actually mystifies a good part of the problem.

GiantMonkeyMan

25th August 2013, 23:39

By this logic
Car wrecks are good for the economy, it gives work to ambulance drivers and body shop workers. War is also good for the economy. I don't think being good for the economy means good for the workers.
You misunderstand me completely, either I didn't explain myself carefully enough or you're being obtuse. No revolutionary party should ever be proud of a banner saying 'no prison closures' but we've seen the devastating result of deindustrialisation and closing the pits in the northern England has had on local communities. Just like mining towns and the pits, the towns in which prisons are located often become highly tied in with the presence of the prison as the only source of employment. Having jobs is generally better for workers than not having jobs. Would prefer for the jobs not to be in prisons, of course.

Martin Blank

26th August 2013, 00:04

Kudos to J.P./H.M./M.S./? for diverting the thread. I would assume that Marxists as a rule would oppose the privatization of the management and ownership of government assets.

No one has diverted the thread, unless you consider the end of uncritical cheerleading to be a "diversion". We are talking about Sawant's platform and what it would mean for workers in Seattle. I understand that you're just another burned-out leftist, but these political issues matter.

Crux

26th August 2013, 00:30

Actually, I've read everything on her campaign website, including all of her statements on the Seattle PD. At no point in her statements does she say that the state needs to be broken up or forcibly disarmed by the working class, or that workers have the right to defend themselves against police terror. Instead, she raises the liberal-reformist demand for a "civilian review board". The history of these bodies is one of rubber-stamping and legitimizing police violence.

New York City has had a Civilian Complaint Review Board for six decades -- since 1953. Has it even slowed down the number of incidents of police terrorism? Nope. In fact, the CCRB has been used to whitewash acts of police brutality and repression. This is what Sawant is advocating for Seattle. All of her complaining about the actions of the Seattle PD mean nothing when her "socialist alternative" is the same kind of institution that has excused the murderers of Abner Louima, Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell and numerous others -- the same body that has let the "stop-and-frisk" policy stand.

Maybe if you and your comrades had a shred of principle when it comes to the role of the capitalist state, you'd know that Sawant is trying to sell shit as chocolate ice cream.

I've read every word you've written on here. It seems to me that the issue is that you're losing the political argument, so you scream "straw man" and run for the hills. Explain where I've misrepresented you. If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be that hard to do.
How about every single step of the way? Listen, I've already outlined the reasons why 15$/h is part of our demands. Agree or disagree, but at least acknowledge what I am saying to you. So far you've done no such thing.

For instance you are now under the delusion that the Sawant campaign wants to take the CCRB from NY and move it to Seattle. An interesting argument, especially knowing how big fans we are of NYPD. Yes, that's sarcasm. I'm ready to have an actual political argument when you are, Miles.

Popular Front of Judea

26th August 2013, 00:43

Let me clarify: If you reread my post it in no way advocates for state ownership? Can I make a generalization here and say that Marxists stand for the collective ownership of enterprises? State ownership is just one option. Employee cooperatives are another option. Here in Seattle we have a number of cooperatives of various types and the power company is municipally owned.

Why you'd say that? Does state ownership on its own somehow guarantee better conditions and rights for employed workers, or maybe lower prices and better quality of a commodity? In what way is the capitalist state, as an owner, always a better option for the working class?

It seems to me that such views are the product of the rampant fetishism of the national state within the left. Obviously, no clear understanding of the object in question can be reached if this fetishism is doing its own thing, so to say, behind your back.

Of course, this doesn't mean that I do not support, fully at that, militant struggle when conditions, jobs and rights are endangered - and to be clear, in a great deal of instances where privatization is planned these are endangered. It's just that this alleged "rule" actually mystifies a good part of the problem.

Popular Front of Judea

26th August 2013, 00:56

How is this germane to the discussion about the city council race in Seattle?

How are your "comrades" in the UK prison guards union doing these days?

Crux

26th August 2013, 01:01

As for "union rights" for fast food workers, the issue is not a matter of law. It's a matter of leadership. The reason that the SEIU and UFCW officials set up this organizing effort was to cut off the growth of more radical, independent union formations, like UE and even the IWW, which have had growing (but moderate) successes in organizing small-shop workplaces. They're playing the same "turf war" game that the AFL played with the CIO in the 1930s and the IWW in the 1910s, seeking to plant their flag early so they can scream "jurisdiction" to the National Labor Relations Board when workers try to organize a fighting union.

Communists fight for workers to organize themselves and lead their own struggles, not be managed. If that means spurning the AFL-CIO/CTW officials and joining UE, the IWW or even establishing a revolutionary industrial union, then we support them in that effort. We don't tail the business unions and abdicate our responsibility to educate workers on what a union can be.
Ah, Miles, I now see you actually did put forward something that was at least not just a fabrication of the SA position but a position of your own.
So I'll address it.

By way of quoting a certain Russian. Let's see if you can figure out who, hell you'll probably even know the book and chapter:
"Millions of workers in Great Britain, France and Germany are for the first time passing from a complete lack of organisation to the elementary, lowest, simplest, and (to those still thoroughly imbued with bourgeois-democratic prejudices) most easily comprehensible form of organisation, namely, the trade unions; yet the revolutionary but imprudent Left Communists stand by, crying out "the masses", "the masses!" but refusing to work within the trade unions, on the pretext that they are "reactionary", and invent a brand-new, immaculate little "Workers’ Union", which is guiltless of bourgeois-democratic prejudices and innocent of craft or narrow-minded craft-union sins, a union which, they claim, will be (!) a broad organisation."

But this was after all written by a man who for most of his political career was a card-carrying Social Democrat. The comrades in Socialist Alternative are, unsuprisngly, only following in his tradition when we intervene in the AFL-CIO affiliated unions. Or, heaven forbid, fight for a minimum wage demand coming out of the fastfood strikes. Don't those stupid worker's know about inflation? Right, Miles?

Thirsty Crow

26th August 2013, 01:06

Let me clarify: If you reread my post it in no way advocates for state ownership? Can I make a generalization here and say that Marxists stand for the collective ownership of enterprises? State ownership is just one option. Employee cooperatives are another option. Here in Seattle we have a number of cooperatives of various types and the power company is municipally owned.
I know that your post doesn't advocate a form of ownership (I assume that this refers to the period of transformation - the DotP - and communism).

I just wonder where this "rule" of opposing privatization comes from since it implies that the capitalist state (municipal ownership or ownership at the national level, makes little difference if any) and its ownership and management is under any conditions, in all places and at all times, somehow preferable to individual private ownership (we're talking capitalism, right? not dotp or communism).

Crux

26th August 2013, 01:14

I know that your post doesn't advocate a form of ownership (I assume that this refers to the period of transformation - the DotP - and communism).

I just wonder where this "rule" of opposing privatization comes from since it implies that the capitalist state (municipal ownership or ownership at the national level, makes little difference if any) and its ownership and management is under any conditions, in all places and at all times, somehow preferable to individual private ownership (we're talking capitalism, right? not dotp or communism).
Well, make a case for where privatization would be preferable. And then compare it to the number of times and places where it would not be.

Sorry, Popular Front of Judea, I promise to post more stuff more directly related to the campaign soon.
Just a general reminder, myself included, this thread is on Socialist Alternatives City Council campaign in Seattle.

Popular Front of Judea

26th August 2013, 01:16

Good question. (Really it is.) How about starting a new thread about it?

I know that your post doesn't advocate a form of ownership (I assume that this refers to the period of transformation - the DotP - and communism).

I just wonder where this "rule" of opposing privatization comes from since it implies that the capitalist state (municipal ownership or ownership at the national level, makes little difference if any) and its ownership and management is under any conditions, in all places and at all times, somehow preferable to individual private ownership (we're talking capitalism, right? not dotp or communism).

Popular Front of Judea

26th August 2013, 01:21

To my knowledge the UE doesn't have a presence here in Seattle nor has the local IWW taken the lead in organizing fast food workers. UE and IWW members here please correct me if I am wrong.

As for "union rights" for fast food workers, the issue is not a matter of law. It's a matter of leadership. The reason that the SEIU and UFCW officials set up this organizing effort was to cut off the growth of more radical, independent union formations, like UE and even the IWW, which have had growing (but moderate) successes in organizing small-shop workplaces. They're playing the same "turf war" game that the AFL played with the CIO in the 1930s and the IWW in the 1910s, seeking to plant their flag early so they can scream "jurisdiction" to the National Labor Relations Board when workers try to organize a fighting union.
.

Thirsty Crow

26th August 2013, 01:30

Well, make a case for where privatization would be preferable. And then compare it to the number of times and places where it would not be.

The point of my post is exactly that communists, on one level, should not pose the question in such a way as this can cloud the understanding of the capitalist state. On another level, every single instance of workers' conditions, wages, rights etc being threatened, by whatever kind of a process, is to be opposed, but this doesn't necessarily imply a universal "lesser evil" view of state ownership. This also relates to the danger of opportunism, and broader theoretical and practical problems of the relationship between the organization, its role and practice, and the working class.

Good question. How about starting a new thread about it?Well, it's probably a good idea, but frankly, I don't have the time at hand to really go into this on a more deep level (since this is not only one isolated problem or process, but a whole complex of related issues), so start why not start another thread yourself and see who'd chime in?

Decolonize The Left

26th August 2013, 01:52

Sorry, August. You're wrong, as usual. The problem is her. She is the one running for city council on a platform that any liberal Democrat -- including you, apparently -- would be comfortable with supporting, while sending out her "comrades" in SAlt to shill for her liberal electoral campaign.

It's not a matter of her campaign being "more revolutionary". Her campaign is not revolutionary at all! In fact, it's barely reformist. It's the same kind of social-democratic crap we've come to expect from "socialist" electoral efforts.

People talk about the "Battered Liberal Syndrome" -- the affliction rampant among liberal voters that pushes them to vote for anything with a "D" at the end of their name, even if doing so only makes matters worse. What we're seeing here is "Battered Leftist Syndrome". Just because Sawant has an "S" at the end of her name doesn't mean that a vote for her is a vote for "socialism". If anything, that "S" stands for "swindle" ... or, in the case of you and the rest of the cheerleading section, "sucker".

While I appreciate your rather sad opening quip and your speech on reformism, etc... you really missed my point.

My point is that I'm a worker. I got bills. Maybe I live in Seattle. Maybe I have kids. Maybe I have a mortgage, credit card debt, car payments, whatever: I've got daily shit to deal with. And maybe $15/hr means a whole lot to me because it will help me deal with my shit. That's reality.

Then you pop in all "NOT SOCIALIST! blah blah blah" yeah I know. I really don't care about how non-socialist you think something is because, re-read what I just posted, I got shit to deal with. So you can take your internet rant about who's more or less revolutionary or reformist and scream all you want; the point here is that working class people have shit to deal with and higher wages helps with that.

So like I said originally: if you want something more revolutionary, get off the fucking couch and go run for Seattle city council under a revolutionary platform. I'd vote for you probably (I don't live in Seattle, this is hypothetical). But right now, as a working class person, I'm going to vote for the person who gets me $15/hr.

Everything else is sectarian piss throwing contests. You wanna be a revolutionary? Let's talk about what we need as workers. I, for one, need higher wages. How about you?

Martin Blank

27th August 2013, 00:26

For instance you are now under the delusion that the Sawant campaign wants to take the CCRB from NY and move it to Seattle. An interesting argument, especially knowing how big fans we are of NYPD. Yes, that's sarcasm. I'm ready to have an actual political argument when you are, Miles.

Sawant's platform states, "Create an elected civilian review board with full powers over the police." She fleshes this out slightly in a press release, saying the board should have the power to hire and fire the police, and subpoena power. This is the same kind of power that NYC's CCRB has. Since we both know that this reform demand would be implemented under capitalism, only a delusional utopian would think it would be any different in its fundamentals than what we see in New York. And only a delusional utopian (or a conscious deceiver) would continue to peddle this line as if it would work better somewhere else.

Ah, Miles, I now see you actually did put forward something that was at least not just a fabrication of the SA position but a position of your own. So I'll address it.

By way of quoting a certain Russian. Let's see if you can figure out who, hell you'll probably even know the book and chapter:
"Millions of workers in Great Britain, France and Germany are for the first time passing from a complete lack of organisation to the elementary, lowest, simplest, and (to those still thoroughly imbued with bourgeois-democratic prejudices) most easily comprehensible form of organisation, namely, the trade unions; yet the revolutionary but imprudent Left Communists stand by, crying out "the masses", "the masses!" but refusing to work within the trade unions, on the pretext that they are "reactionary", and invent a brand-new, immaculate little "Workers’ Union", which is guiltless of bourgeois-democratic prejudices and innocent of craft or narrow-minded craft-union sins, a union which, they claim, will be (!) a broad organisation."

But this was after all written by a man who for most of his political career was a card-carrying Social Democrat. The comrades in Socialist Alternative are, unsuprisngly, only following in his tradition when we intervene in the AFL-CIO affiliated unions. Or, heaven forbid, fight for a minimum wage demand coming out of the fastfood strikes. Don't those stupid worker's know about inflation? Right, Miles?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Seriously?! You're trying to accuse me of saying we shouldn't work in the business unions? You really are desperate, aren't you?

It's one thing to work inside the business unions. Our members do that every day. (Speaking personally, I've probably done more work in unions than the above-average CWI member will ever do in their lifetime.) But it is another thing entirely to tail the union officials and limit your own activity to the parameters set by the loyal labor lieutenants of capital, which is what we're arguing about here.

I find it quite fascinating that you equate tailing the union officials with working inside the business unions.

How is this germane to the discussion about the city council race in Seattle?

See all the arguments about Sawant's "civilian review" demand above.

To my knowledge the UE doesn't have a presence here in Seattle nor has the local IWW taken the lead in organizing fast food workers. UE and IWW members here please correct me if I am wrong.

There is a whole world outside of Seattle, y'know.

My point is that I'm a worker. I got bills. Maybe I live in Seattle. Maybe I have kids. Maybe I have a mortgage, credit card debt, car payments, whatever: I've got daily shit to deal with. And maybe $15/hr means a whole lot to me because it will help me deal with my shit. That's reality.

I can understand the appeal of a political candidate advocating a higher minimum wage. And I can understand why, under the current conditions, workers would want to support that candidate. But that's not what this argument is about. The issue here is whether or not a platform of such reformist demands is "socialist" -- whether it actually represents a "socialist alternative" or is merely another liberal quick-fix.

We shouldn't be deceiving ourselves or other workers by presenting the platform Sawant is running on as "socialist", to say nothing of "revolutionary". If SAlt and the CWI believe that the best method for organizing in this period is to eschew all talk of revolution or revolutionary change and just work on minimal reforms under capitalism, then they should be honest and open about that. But we also shouldn't humor them or deceive our fellow workers by considering such reformists to be revolutionaries.

So like I said originally: if you want something more revolutionary, get off the fucking couch and go run for Seattle city council under a revolutionary platform.

I don't live in Seattle, and I don't think anyone can get anything revolutionary out of the ruling classes' electoral system.

The last electoral campaign I participated in, which was a run made by a member of the Detroit Working People's Association for the city's Board of Education in 2005, did stand on a revolutionary platform of workers' control of the school district, and had the support of all the unions in the city, including the six public school workers' unions (who donated thousands to the campaign). The city's leftists -- DSA, SP, CP, WWP, Solidarity, RWL, SEP, etc. -- all opposed her, either backing her opponent (a self-appointed "community leader" who quietly favored vouchers and charter schools) or abstaining because our platform was "too revolutionary".

She won about 40 percent of the vote in the primary and, officially, 44 percent in the general (but we suspect that number was higher and the election was effectively stolen). We considered a recount, but the Justice Department seized all the ballots from the election before we could get the filing together.

I wasn't the candidate; I was the campaign manager. It was not my first electoral campaign, but it was my last.

Popular Front of Judea

27th August 2013, 01:10

To clarify the Justice Department was doing a general investigation of voting irregularities -- zombie voters etc. -- when it seized the ballots. Correct?

Oh and may I ask if the candidate was indeed your wife?

She won about 40 percent of the vote in the primary and, officially, 44 percent in the general (but we suspect that number was higher and the election was effectively stolen). We considered a recount, but the Justice Department seized all the ballots from the election before we could get the filing together.

Martin Blank

27th August 2013, 01:31

To clarify the Justice Department was doing a general investigation of voting irregularities -- zombie voters etc. -- when it seized the ballots. Correct?

Most likely. I don't think their seizing of the ballots had anything to do with our campaign, if that's what you're asking.

Oh and may I ask if the candidate was indeed your wife?

Why? Is that supposed to matter for something?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

27th August 2013, 01:54

Popular Front of Judea

27th August 2013, 02:07

1. Sawant is running for a city council seat.

2. The city council is 9 members. Sawant can be the 5th vote of a progressive majority.

3. With the election of Sawant there will be no Seattle commune, no replay of the General Strike. The police will not be disbanded and replaced by a worker militia.

I can live with that.

OK, really though, sincerely, what does diverting resources into a Mayoral race do for striking fast food workers, undocumented immigrants, tenants, and everyone else whose issues show up in her platform, relative to putting those resources into parliamentary struggle? What are the odds that, if elected, Sawant will actually be able to pass any of the reforms in question? On the other hand, what could a mobilization on a similar scale accomplish if its end was bringing the fight to the streets, and not the voters to the polls?

Kassad

27th August 2013, 02:18

Her campaign website reads like a Dennis Kucinich promotion at worst and a Green Party candidate at best. I can't find the word "revolution" anywhere, but I really wouldn't expect anything better from "Socialist" Alternative that endorsed the hyper-xenophobe Ralph Nader back during the 2000 and 2004 elections, I believe. Frankly, I find it really depressing how all these ostensibly revolutionary groups, from the International Socialist Organization (ISO) to Solidarity to Socialist Alternative/Appeal/Action/Organizer preach all this Marxist rhetoric only to blend in with the Greens every time the bourgeois election cycle comes around.

Sawant isn't going to win and even if she did, it would just be a victory for the phonies that seek to build the revolutionary party with their lowest common denominator programs. If you're swimming with the stream, you're doing something wrong. Nothing new under the sun.

Crux

27th August 2013, 21:59

Wait, so the Mayor sets the minimum wage? That's wacky! Where I'd live, we'd need a real struggle to force the hand of the province to raise the minimum wage to $15, not just a single "socialist" with a seat at the table. Like, we'd need to build a serious campaign to fight like hell for it. In a way that would almost be better, since it could be a vehicle for providing practical experience to working class organizers . . . but, I mean, if you can just elect Sawant and "Bam! $15/hour!" - well, that sounds dandy. [/condescending tone]

W/r/t the Civilian Review Board, it's good that she's taking a position of real principled solidarity with working class people against their enemies in blue, and not soft-peddling some liberal friendly "bad apples" pro-cop bullshit. I'm sure pushing for a civilian review board is a really great way of organizing people in solidarity with criminalized communities and prisoners. Of course, the real practical advantages of a civilian review board will more than compensate for any lack of a long term strategic orientation vis- the police.
Oh, I guess I said, "[/condescending tone]" earlier. Ooops.

OK, really though, sincerely, what does diverting resources into a Mayoral race do for striking fast food workers, undocumented immigrants, tenants, and everyone else whose issues show up in her platform, relative to putting those resources into parliamentary struggle? What are the odds that, if elected, Sawant will actually be able to pass any of the reforms in question? On the other hand, what could a mobilization on a similar scale accomplish if its end was bringing the fight to the streets, and not the voters to the polls?
Great thing that's not what the Sawant campaign is saying then, right?
Let me quote from that article (http://www.votesawant.org/seattle_primary_breakthrough) I posted earlier:

Fighting for a $15/hr Minimum Wage
“We don't promise that … one electoral campaign is going to shift everything dramatically. We're activists, and ultimately, this space has to be occupied by mass movements and grassroots struggle, and this is something we have to do together. And that is the most empowering message that any electoral campaign can take to working people”, said Sawant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J27c46hP3Jc).

Socialists recognize that elections are unfavorable terrain for the working class and insufficient by themselves to carry out real change. The power of corporate money and media dominates politics under capitalism, and history shows that all real victories for working people have been won by mass movements.

Passing a $15/hr minimum wage – the signature issue of Sawant’s campaign - will require massive and active support, with major protests on the streets and low-wage workers carrying out coordinated strikes in their workplaces. Sawant is using her platform to help build just such a movement, mobilizing for the protests and actions called by fast food workers against their dismal pay and conditions, and putting the issue of raising the minimum wage to $15/hr on the political agenda and exerting pressure on all the candidates running for city office to clarify where they stand on this vital issue for working people and youth.

[...]

But most important will be the development of struggle this fall. The “viability” of Sawant’s politics depends on workers and youth moving into mass action. An upturn in protests, strikes and other actions would be decisive. Sawant has made clear she will use her campaign to help spur on any such movements.

Win or lose in the general election, Sawant and Socialist Alternative have already seriously shaken up the formerly sleepy political landscape in Seattle. Sawant’s campaign has already helped to build support for a series of radical demands, especially the need for a $15/hr minimum wage, raising the sights and confidence of Seattle’s workers and activists.

Crucially, Sawant has succeeded in putting socialism on the map in Seattle. Her campaign has fueled a public debate on capitalism and socialism and demonstrated the growing support for socialist ideas.
As for the issue of community control of police, again, allow me to quote from something already posted:
Reform and revolution

We were putting forward democratic demands, but demands that go to the heart of the role of the police as an instrument of the bourgeois state and raise the need for the working class to defend its own interests in the current battle over the role of the police. Were we (as some will no doubt argue) pandering to the current consciousness of the working class and failing to defend the Marxist programme on the state?
On the police, we were putting forward immediate, democratic demands, which are always part of a transitional programme. They corresponded to the consciousness of the advanced layers of the working class, who wanted a democratic check on the police. The setting up of democratic police committees cannot be ruled out in a future period of heightened class struggle. Whether they will be achieved, how far they will go, will be determined by the strength of working-class struggle. An element of democratic accountability over the police would help create more favourable conditions for working-class struggle. But such an element of 'workers' control' could not last indefinitely. Either the workers would move forward to a socialist transformation of society, or the ruling class would move to destroy the elements of democratic control.
The concession of elected police committees under pressure from the working class would be a progressive development. However, if this gave rise to illusions that, as Michael puts it, the police are "an isolated entity which can become removed, or extracted, from the clutches of the bourgeois state through working-class control of local watch committees" that would be a negative development.

During the 1918 German revolution (as noted in the section on the police in The State: A Warning to the Labour Movement, pp46-47) the Berlin police were in fact "extracted from the clutches of the capitalist state", and the revolutionary workers appointed Emil Eichorn, a leader of the Independent Social Democrats, as police chief. This was a positive step, so far as it went, but could only be a very temporary situation. The failure of the workers to consolidate power through new proletarian organs of state power meant that the Berlin police, together with other 'revolutionised' institutions, succumbed to the bloody counter-revolution (for which the right-wing Social Democratic leaders provided a political cover).
With regard to democratic police committees (or a new form of watch committees), we clearly warned against any illusion in the step by step reform of the police or other state bodies into socialist institutions:
"If the working class is to preserve the economic gains and the democratic rights that it has wrested from the capitalists in the past, it must carry through the socialist transformation of society. Past gains cannot be preserved indefinitely within the rotten framework of a crisis-ridden capitalism. In transforming society, it is utopian to think that the existing apparatus of the capitalist state can be taken over and adapted by the working class. In a fundamental change of society, all the existing institutions of the state will be shattered and replaced by new organs of power under the democratic control of the working class. While basing itself on the perspective of the socialist transformation of society, however, the labour movement must advance a programme which includes policies which come to grips with the immediate problems posed by the role of the police." (The State..., pp53-54)

Michael quotes this passage. But how (he asks) can we, on the one side, advocate democratic police committees while, on the other, warn that the police cannot be reformed into a worker-friendly institution? He sees this as a "contradiction [that] is too great to ignore".

But it is no more contradictory than demanding any other reform under capitalism. Reforms can be won through struggle, but we warn that they will not be lasting gains under capitalism. In the field of democratic rights do we not defend the right to jury trial, legal aid, procedural safeguards for defendants, and so on? Clearly, such legal rights do not guarantee real 'justice', which is impossible on a juridical plane without a deeper social justice, which is impossible in capitalist society. But it would be absurd to argue that such legal and civil rights are of no consequence for the working class. Such rights have been won, clawed back by the bourgeoisie, re-established for a period, and so on. Demands for social reforms and democratic rights will always remain an important part of our transitional programme. Legal and civil rights, like the right to vote, freedom of political association, etc, create more favourable conditions for working-class struggle. Demands for democratic control of the police are no different, in principle, from demands for other democratic rights. Doesn't the demand for universal suffrage, for instance, reinforce the illusion that an elected parliament can control the executive of the capitalist state?

(Speaking personally, I've probably done more work in unions than the above-average CWI member will ever do in their lifetime.) Don't you mean our Second Life, Miles? :rolleyes: Honestly I couldn't care less what you imagine we do or don't do. Your sectarian nonsense falls on its own. Again, I'm ready to have an actual debate when you are. I'm still waiting.

Martin Blank

28th August 2013, 00:18

Don't you mean our Second Life, Miles? :rolleyes:

Ah, the "Second Life" Big Lie rises again. Is that all you people have? I mean, every time you all get into a political corner, you pull this out and think it excuses your opportunism and tailing of the ruling classes.

If you really want an answer to this, I have no problem explaining it. There is nothing shameful in it, as far as I'm concerned.

Honestly I couldn't care less what you imagine we do or don't do. Your sectarian nonsense falls on its own. Again, I'm ready to have an actual debate when you are. I'm still waiting.

Then answer the point I made about the "civilian review board". Answer the point about supporting cops. Answer the point about transitional demands. Answer the point about not even talking about revolution, the state or even "socialism". You have no more excuses to dodge this issue. Put up or shut up.

Crux

28th August 2013, 01:07

Ah, the "Second Life" Big Lie rises again. Is that all you people have? I mean, every time you all get into a political corner, you pull this out and think it excuses your opportunism and tailing of the ruling classes.

If you really want an answer to this, I have no problem explaining it. There is nothing shameful in it, as far as I'm concerned.

[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=1][SIZE=2]

Then answer the point I made about the "civilian review board". Answer the point about supporting cops. Answer the point about transitional demands. Answer the point about not even talking about revolution, the state or even "socialism". You have no more excuses to dodge this issue. Put up or shut up.
That's rich, Miles, considering the self-righteous nonsense I was responding to.

Ah, it is as I suspect. You cannot read. If you'd stop stroking your bruised little ego for a moment and re-read the post you just "responded" to perhaps you will find your answer there. Now it probably won't be an answer you'll like but if your posts are going to be anything but a sectarian charade, address the arguments actually being made. Or don't but then you should probably do that another place than in this thread. And no, you don't get to tell me to "shut up". I hear revleft has this lovely little blog function. Maybe that would be a better place for you to post your...insights?

Martin Blank

28th August 2013, 01:55

Ah, it is as I suspect. You cannot read. If you'd stop stroking your bruised little ego for a moment and re-read the post you just "responded" to perhaps you will find your answer there.

I read your post. I've read every post in this thread more than once. But the issue here is not what I read. The issue here is the opportunism, reformism and social democratism of the so-called "Committee for a Workers' International".

You can't deal with the political criticisms, so you make personal attacks.

You can't answer how your calls for "democratic control" of the armed agents of the capitalist state would be anything other than a rubber stamp of police violence and terrorism, so you talk about my "ego".

You can't respond to the criticism about your tailing of the labor lieutenants of capital, so you question my reading ability.

You can't explain why Sawant doesn't talk about revolution or even "socialism" in her reformist platform, so you resurrect a discredited piece of slander concocted by a pair of agents provocateur who outed a communist to their boss.

Any respect I had for you and other CWI members is officially gone. You're nothing more than pro-cop anti-worker yellow "socialists" masquerading as "revolutionary Marxists". Go back to the Second International where you belong!

Now it probably won't be an answer you'll like but if your posts are going to be anything but a sectarian charade, address the arguments actually being made. Or don't but then you should probably do that another place than in this thread.

What argument? You haven't responded to anything I've said. Sure, you posted an article from 1981 on "democratic control" of the cops, but that doesn't answer how Sawant's demand for civilian review would be any different than the CCRB in New York. You posted a quote from Trotsky from the 1930s about working in business unions, but that doesn't explain why you tail the union officials. And you've been completely silent on the liberal reformism of Sawant's "sewer socialist" platform. You've answered nothing. All you've done is condescend and make personal attacks. You're an embarrassment and I don't know how anyone can take you seriously.

And no, you don't get to tell me to "shut up".

I'll tell you to shut up whenever the fuck I feel like it, you yellow labor skate.

I hear revleft has this lovely little blog function. Maybe that would be a better place for you to post your...insights?

And I hear the Democratic Party is looking for a new face to deceive workers and keep them in line. Maybe that would be a good job for "comrade" Sawant. Oh wait!...

Sasha

28th August 2013, 10:57

Go back to the Second International where you belong!

that must be the most revleft defining insult i have ever heard :laugh: and you bolded it too.. aaahw

MarxSchmarx

28th August 2013, 12:43

GiantMonkeyMan

28th August 2013, 14:33

At the end of the day it's a difference in tactics and we'll see which attempt will garner support of the working class, develop conciousness and build for the revolution.

Crux

28th August 2013, 15:25

MB and Crux:

Let's try to keep the discussion respectful. References to people becoming "desperate" or "bruised little" egos aren't constructive. You both raise legitimate and relevant arguments, so do try to stick to critiquing the praxis and theory rather than the poster themselves and ancillary points about the poster's disagreement with either of you. Thanks.
Certainly. Unless Miles here suddenly starts addressing the arguments being made I see no point in responding to him further. Now I've already tried to respond to the how's and why's of our position and if anyone would like me to elaborate on that I can certainly do that. But as far as I'm concerned Martin Blank has been flaming for quite a bit already, before I choose to respond. Now perhaps I should have just reported it to someone instead. Anyway, yes, I'll refrain from responding to MB any further. If he considers this a "win" for him then so be it. Of course, he says, interestingly that Sawant doesn't talk about socialism. I invite anyone to read through votesawant.org themselves and judge the truthfullness of MB's statement.
End of.

Art Vandelay

28th August 2013, 18:16

Any respect I had for you and other CWI members is officially gone. You're nothing more than pro-cop anti-worker yellow "socialists" masquerading as "revolutionary Marxists". Go back to the Second International where you belong!

This was priceless...:laugh:..its like the ultimate caricature of the sectarian leftist.

Martin Blank

28th August 2013, 18:34

Let's try to keep the discussion respectful.

Fuck that. Crux and the rest of the CWI are a bunch of unprincipled cop-loving social democrats. They may try to duck and dodge the issues, but the fact remains. I have no respect for cop apologists and I will not be "respectful" or be nice about it. The sooner that every worker knows that the CWI are the kept "socialists" of the capitalist state, the better.

Martin Blank

28th August 2013, 18:36

This was priceless...:laugh:..its like the ultimate caricature of the sectarian leftist.

Coming from a bunch of unprincipled social democrats, I consider this a badge of honor.

Decolonize The Left

28th August 2013, 20:18

Fuck that. Crux and the rest of the CWI are a bunch of unprincipled cop-loving social democrats. They may try to duck and dodge the issues, but the fact remains. I have no respect for cop apologists and I will not be "respectful" or be nice about it. The sooner that every worker knows that the CWI are the kept "socialists" of the capitalist state, the better.

Wow dude. You need to calm down.

You want to overthrow capitalism? You want a worker's revolution? Trying to piss all over your fellow comrades is totally counter-productive and isolates you, and whatever party to which you want claim allegiance.

You do us all a disservice with this shit. And I get your point - I really do: You honestly believe that these people aren't socialist or revolutionaries or whatever because of a certain history or current platform. Alright fine. You've got beef over fucking sematics. You don't think they are "socialists." You don't think they are "revolutionaries." Who gives a fuck what they call themselves? Are they or are they not helping out working class folks? That's the question. That's how the Black Panthers got support: not because they called themselves whatever but because they helped out their community.

The fucking point is the working class - my class - and how fucked we are daily. I'm fucked daily. My girlfriend is double fucked daily (she's unemployed at the moment). We've got shit we gotta deal with and I don't need to call myself whatever the fuck you think I should call myself so that you don't feel insulted when I don't wave your fucking banner around. You dig?

And what's extra fucked about all this is that I don't even live in Seattle. But here we are holding our steaming shit up to see who's shit is more real and fresh when some people could be getting an extra five bucks an hour out of all this. Five bucks an hour is 200 a week, 800 a month at full time. That pays for a lot of shit: my girlfriend could get some healthcare. I could start saving. So why don't you stop measuring your dick and painting it red and start thinking about the people who would benefit from this?

Devrim

28th August 2013, 20:33

Alright fine. You've got beef over fucking sematics. You don't think they are "socialists." You don't think they are "revolutionaries." Who gives a fuck what they call themselves? Are they or are they not helping out working class folks?

I don't think they are socialists or revolutionaries.

Nor do I think that they are helping working class folks.

But here we are holding our steaming shit up to see who's shit is more real and fresh when some people could be getting an extra five bucks an hour out of all this. Five bucks an hour is 200 a week, 800 a month at full time. That pays for a lot of shit: my girlfriend could get some healthcare. I could start saving. So why don't you stop measuring your dick and painting it red and start thinking about the people who would benefit from this?

Well no, they won't. Electing one person in a municipal election is not going to change the minimum wage.

More to the point, this is the CWI. They are Trotskyists. This is a transitional demand. They don't think that there is going to be a $15 minimum wage either.

Devrim

Crux

28th August 2013, 20:58

Well no, they won't. Electing one person in a municipal election is not going to change the minimum wage.

More to the point, this is the CWI. They are Trotskyists. This is a transitional demand. They don't think that there is going to be a $15 minimum wage either.

Devrim
Actually...

Fighting for a $15/hr Minimum Wage
“We don't promise that … one electoral campaign is going to shift everything dramatically. We're activists, and ultimately, this space has to be occupied by mass movements and grassroots struggle, and this is something we have to do together. And that is the most empowering message that any electoral campaign can take to working people”, said Sawant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J27c46hP3Jc).

Socialists recognize that elections are unfavorable terrain for the working class and insufficient by themselves to carry out real change. The power of corporate money and media dominates politics under capitalism, and history shows that all real victories for working people have been won by mass movements.

Passing a $15/hr minimum wage – the signature issue of Sawant’s campaign - will require massive and active support, with major protests on the streets and low-wage workers carrying out coordinated strikes in their workplaces. Sawant is using her platform to help build just such a movement, mobilizing for the protests and actions called by fast food workers against their dismal pay and conditions, and putting the issue of raising the minimum wage to $15/hr on the political agenda and exerting pressure on all the candidates running for city office to clarify where they stand on this vital issue for working people and youth.

[...]

But most important will be the development of struggle this fall. The “viability” of Sawant’s politics depends on workers and youth moving into mass action. An upturn in protests, strikes and other actions would be decisive. Sawant has made clear she will use her campaign to help spur on any such movements.

Win or lose in the general election, Sawant and Socialist Alternative have already seriously shaken up the formerly sleepy political landscape in Seattle. Sawant’s campaign has already helped to build support for a series of radical demands, especially the need for a $15/hr minimum wage, raising the sights and confidence of Seattle’s workers and activists.

Crucially, Sawant has succeeded in putting socialism on the map in Seattle. Her campaign has fueled a public debate on capitalism and socialism and demonstrated the growing support for socialist ideas.

Lenina Rosenweg

28th August 2013, 21:01

The CWI has said that a major disability with the Occupy movement was that it was anti-political. If Occupy had put up even 200 candidates for political office it could have dramatically changed the political dialogue in the US. This did not happen, the moment passed and Occup died from a mixture of police repression, the year long US presidential election, and its own lasitude. What of it remains-primarily eviction blockakes, Socialist Alternative has been playing a leading role in.

Obviously people elected to a city council seats won't directly change a lot. The purpose is to build a movement. The Democrats and Obama have lost credibility.The purpose of an election campaign, and if elected, to holding a seat, is to push hard to build a working class movement.

Seattle is a "proudly liberal" city. It was and probably still is Obama country.High tech companies are big employers there.It has a large LGBT community who were very enthusiastic about "marriage equality". People were literally dancing in the streets the night gay marriage and weed was legalized. Seattle has large student and self conscious hipster elements.

Nearby Tacoma is traditionally blue collar. The largest employer is Boeing,a major military contractor. The company even has its own incorporated town. While not in Kshama's district this does imply much mixed consciousness.

How do you connect with these people?

Ironically for this forum many supporters have criticized Kshama's campaigning for mentioning socialism.In her speeches (on Youtube) Kshama has talked about socialism and putting Yahoo, Amazon, etx under public ownership. She has ably called out the hypocrasy of the liberal Democrats who run Washington State.

A $15 minimum wage will make a huge different in working people's lives.Its an important cause to build a movement around.

Talk of "communization theory", a"human strike", the latest manifesto written by the Invisible Committee ,or some super abstract theory popular on libcom is a ticket to irrelevancy at a time when the class desperately needs leadership.Likewise talk of worker's councils seizing Jeff Bezo's warehouses or a Boeing areospace plant.At this stage this is far from people's understanding.Wehave to connect with people wherethey are at.

I would just ask the ultraleft critics to spend a little time listening to Kshama on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3phth27dSU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT07ghQgPUg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KPvmJ514p4

Devrim

28th August 2013, 21:04

Actually...

Actually what? People are talking in this thread like if this woman gets elected there will be a rise in the minimum wage. There won't be. You know that as I do.

Also as I said it is a transitional demand.

Devrim

Lenina Rosenweg

28th August 2013, 21:17

Brotto RÃ¼hle

28th August 2013, 21:21

Crux's post #132 should pretty much explain things.In the US states and (I believe) municalipities do have the ability to set a minimum wage. No, if Kshama is elected this probably in and of itself won't raise the minimum wage. it will be an important part of building a movement to do this. Doing nothing and criticizing from the sidelines won't bring about a$15 min. wage either.

Ah, glorious parliamentarism. Need not rise up, ye proles, for our running for office will spark the revolution, and fix your problems along the way! What, strike? Why this talk of direct mass action?! Just mark the ballot for me!

Liberals...

Lenina Rosenweg

28th August 2013, 21:28

Ah, glorious parliamentarism. Need not rise up, ye proles, for our running for office will spark the revolution, and fix your problems along the way! What, strike? Why this talk of direct mass action?! Just mark the ballot for me!

Liberals...

So where specifically did we say we advocate a parliamentary road to socialism? Can you show me where the CWI advocates this?As has been said many times we are trying to build a movement.

What pray tell is your means of creating a working class movement and leadership?

Devrim

28th August 2013, 21:32

No, if Kshama is elected this probably in and of itself won't raise the minimum wage.

Which is the point I was making. Many people on this thread have been talking like it will.

it will be an important part of building a movement to do this.

I don't think it will. Unfortunately I don't think there is going to be a movement that will increase the minimum wage in Seattle by over 50%. More to the point I don't think that the CWI believes that it will either. It is, as I have already stressed a transitional demand.

As I am too lazy to go and look it up in Trotsky, I am going to quote Wiki on what a transitional demand is. Their explanation is pretty accurate:

Transitional demands differ from calls for revolution (a maximum programme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_programme)) in that they call for primarily economic demands that could be achieved under capitalism. So "Rule by workers' councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_council)" would not be a transitional demand, as it would imply the overthrow of capitalism. Examples of transitional demands would be "Employment for all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment)" or "Housing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home) for all," demands that sound reasonable to the average citizen, but are practically impossible for capitalism to deliver on. Trotsky held that, while socialists should not hide their programme, it was essential to plan a possible route to it.

The bit in bold puts it very clearly. What I would suspect that the leadership of the CWI think is that this is a demand that is 'practically impossible for capitalism to deliver on'. In the current crisis, the lowest paid, and by logical extension the least powerful workers are not going to get a massive 50%+ pay rise. Everybody who thinks about this must realise this. The CWI does not make this demand thinking that it is achievable. The fact that some of their own members don't realise what a transitional demand, which is a key tenant of Trotskyism actually is doesn't mean that the leadership of the CWI don't, or that they genuinely think this will happen.

The validity of making transitional demands is another question. What I wanted to point out though was that people saying that those criticising this demand are somehow stopping people getting this pay increase is ludicrous.
Devrim

Lenina Rosenweg

28th August 2013, 22:02

This is true, that call for a 15$ an hour minimum wage is a transitional demand. Transitional demands, which for the most part can't be realized under capitalism, are designed to raise the level of class consciousness.

Actually I do think it can be realized if there is a major mass movement to push for it. The "last liberal president" in the US was Richard Nixon, a figure who was, rightfully, despised by liberal and leftists. Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, proposed a national healthcare system, had (admittedly weak) wage and price controls and even threatened to seize a steel company as well as other social democratic reforms.Nixon was far to the left of Obama.The reason is that there was a major mass movement pushing this.

Yes Nixon andOobama were/are managers of a capitalist state. In the 1970s the global ruling class did begin to feel threatened. The neoliberal rollback we have witnessed in the past few decades are in part a response to the revolutionary wave of that period.

So actually with a mass movement I think a $15 hour wage is possible. Beyond that I think the creation of a socialist society is possible within my life time. We have to fight for it.

I would not airily dismiss this demand saying we know its not possible, that its "merely" a transitional demand.We have to start somewhere.

Devrim

28th August 2013, 22:15

Beyond that I think the creation of a socialist society is possible within my life time. We have to fight for it.

I think it is possible in my lifetime too, and I probably have much less of it to go than you.;)1

This is true, that call for a 15$ an hour minimum wage is a transitional demand. Transitional demands, which for the most part can't be realized under capitalism, are designed to raise the level of class consciousness.

I don't think that they do 'raise the level of class consciousness, but that is another question.

My point was that voting for this woman is not going to give low-paid people a 50% increase. It is not.

More to the point though it is not just myself who thinks that. The CWI leadership almost certainly thinks that too. It is a transitional demand and as you put it they "for the most part can't be realized under capitalism". I don't believe that in the current circumstances this one can be, and I suspect that if you talked honestly with the leadership of your organisation they would admit the same thing.

Actually I do think it can be realized if there is a major mass movement to push for it.

If wishes were horses beggars would ride. I don't believe that either movement or class consciousness develop like this.

I also think that transitional demands are an approach which involves being fundamentally patronising and dishonest to the working class. It is like saying "ah, we know that this can't be achieved, but we can't explain it too you because you don't have the understanding we have".

Devrim

Brotto RÃ¼hle

28th August 2013, 22:18

So where specifically did we say we advocate a parliamentary road to socialism? Can you show me where the CWI advocates this?As has been said many times we are trying to build a movement.

What pray tell is your means of creating a working class movement and leadership?

I'm critiquing your parliamentary road to reforms, and in doing so, critiquing any notion you or the cwi may have that running for office is anything but ridiculous and counter productive.

Popular Front of Judea

28th August 2013, 22:30

Actually yes there may very well be. Will it be $15 an hour? Probably not. But is quite possible that Seattle will institute a city minimum wage, like San Francisco and Philly. So it will be a win for the working class. A small one yes, but a win nonetheless. As important as the bump of income will be the restoration of the feeling of efficacy that working people justifiably lack these days.

Actually what? People are talking in this thread like if this woman gets elected there will be a rise in the minimum wage. There won't be. You know that as I do.

Also as I said it is a transitional demand.

Devrim

Devrim

28th August 2013, 23:53

Actually yes there may very well be. Will it be $15 an hour? Probably not. But is quite possible that Seattle will institute a city minimum wage, like San Francisco and Philly. So it will be a win for the working class. A small one yes, but a win nonetheless. As important as the bump of income will be the restoration of the feeling of efficacy that working people justifiably lack these days.

So what you are saying is that this figure of $15 is not happening at all, but Seattle may institute some city minimum wage.

Is this in any way dependent on this woman being elected? Does one council member have the power to institute this policy?

Devrim

Lenina Rosenweg

29th August 2013, 00:36

Again, the purpose is to build a movement. A $15 minimum wage, or any progressive reform, not to speak of eliminating the capitalist mode of production, will obviously not happen without building a workers movement. The campaign to elect Sawant (as well as the Ty Moore campaign in Minnesota and the Seamus Whelan campaign in Boston) is a way of helping to build this.Its not "parliamentary cretinism", its not electioneering.

We see an election campaign as a way of connecting and helping to educate the working class. Most people are not socialists and have a very low level of class consciousness. The radical left in the US is tiny. Its likely the number of people who are in radical socialists organisations is less than 5,000. People in the US and other Western countries are conditioned to think in terms of elections when they think of politics.

Class consciousness can be developed by several things. Among this is constant propaganda (in the good sense) of the need and the possibility of seperating fromthe Democrats. They are our enemy.Another way is a win. A rise in the minimum wage, even by a small amount, against the opposition of liberal Democrats who preach austerity can build confidence for more battles.

Lenin advocated having delegates in the Duma. There is a huge difference between this and the Millerand case.Anyway if Kshama does win she'll get an office and some media time. We will be in a good position to further embarass ruling class politicians and corporate masters.

What would you recommend to raise class consciousness?

Popular Front of Judea

29th August 2013, 00:58

So what you are saying is that this figure of $15 is not happening at all, but Seattle may institute some city minimum wage.

Is this in any way dependent on this woman being elected? Does one council member have the power to institute this policy?

Devrim

As the fifth member of a progressive bloc in a nine member city council she has a certain power.

Devrim

29th August 2013, 01:10

As the fifth member of a progressive bloc in a nine member city council she has a certain power.

So who are the other four members of this 'progressive bloc', and what are their politics?

Its not "parliamentary cretinism", its not electioneering.

Forming alliances with other members of a 'progressive bloc' isn't parliamentary cretinism?

You are of course right. It is not parliamentary cretinism. It is not a parliament. It is municipal cretinism, which is the same thing, but just more pathetic.

Devrim

Popular Front of Judea

29th August 2013, 02:07

I would gladly give you an answer -- if you hadn't already discounted it beforehand. And to think people wonder why the left is so isolated.

So who are the other four members of this 'progressive bloc', and what are their politics?

Forming alliances with other members of a 'progressive bloc' isn't parliamentary cretinism?

You are of course right. It is not parliamentary cretinism. It is not a parliament. It is municipal cretinism, which is the same thing, but just more pathetic.

Devrim

Ismail

29th August 2013, 02:14

The problem is not participation on local or national politics, but the question of the existence of a vanguard which has its roots among the working-class and is capable of serving its interests independent of such participation. Case in point: imagine if during the Spanish Civil War there were only a bunch of individual communists in the Popular Front rather than the PCE as a conscious organization with its network of party cells, its practice of democratic centralism, etc. The ability of the individual communists to affect various changes in the government, to exert influence in the armed forces and in other fields would have been practically nil.

Even in conditions of illegality communists could find room for participation in local politics through blocs with non-communists willing to affect change. So for instance the History of the Party of Labor of Albania (1971, pp. 54-55) notes the following effort to implement the line of the Popular Front in Albania during 1937-38:

"the communists of the [Korça] group did their best to carry out the new line in Korça and scored important successes. They assumed the leadership of the city's democratic movement and extended their influence among the masses of the people who considered the communists as the most resolute champions of the people's interests. This became evident in the elections to county councils, to the council of the chamber of commerce, to the [Korça Youth] out-of-school organization, etc., and especially, at the municipal elections. The communists presented the list of candidates of the democratic bloc, which included also progressive bourgeois elements, for the new municipal council. In the June elections, the communists scored a brilliant victory. The democratic bloc won 86% of the vote, against the list sponsored by the capitalist group [backed by] the 'General Electric Company', although the latter spent large sums of money for elections and had the powerful backing of the state organs. With their work the communists shook the masses of electors out of the political lethargy and indifference into which they had sunk, and involved them actively in the political life of the city.

The new municipal council of Korça led by the communists took a number of steps of a democratic nature which were unprecedented in the practice of the municipal councils of the country. It held open meetings so that the electors might supervise its activity, it rid the municipal administrative apparatus of reactionary employees and replaced them with communists and democrats. It used part of the municipal funds to give financial aid to the poor and to build streets, aqueducts, etc., in the city quarters of the poor. It brought charges in court against the 'General Electric Company' with a view to annulling the concession it had obtained through bribery, etc.

The democratic bloc put forward by the branch of the Korça Communist Group in Durrës also won at the municipal elections held in July that year in that city. There were similar successes in Gjirokastra and Peqin."

Meanwhile a bourgeois work (Nicholas C. Pano's The People's Republic of Albania, 1968, pp. 35-36) notes that, in collaboration with progressive intellectuals, "Between April, 1936, and February, 1937, the members of the Korçë communist group were prominently involved in the publication of a bi-monthly review, Bota e Re ('The New World'), which at the height of its popularity enjoyed a circulation of 3,000, a figure greater than that of any other journal appearing at this period. Bota e Re devoted much of its space to discussions of social and economic problems... In February, 1937, the Albanian authorities forced Bota e Re to cease publication when they began to fear its impact upon the people."

And of course such activities were combined with work inside the workers' movement as well.

Such activities help confirm Lenin's words in "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder wherein he notes that criticism should be directed not against parliamentary participation, but against those leaders unable or unwilling "to utilize parliamentary elections and the parliamentary tribune in a revolutionary, communist manner."

RedCeltic

1st September 2013, 17:03

I know I have been gone from Revleft for a long time but I had assumed that Revleft still stood for REVOLUTIONARY Left and not REFORMIST Left!

Honestly, to think that a third party in the United States has any chance of getting a candidate elected is beyond delusional. The only point in running candidates is to educate and organize workers in the business of class struggle.

To put forth a bunch of reformist demands is useless and no it does not make you a revolutionary. "Socialism is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at an end. That is socialism; nothing short of that." Daniel De Leon

The problem with supporting minimum wage, not only does it not address constant cost of living rises, but it also is throwing your support behind wage slavery. The reformist will haggle with the capitalist for more "fair" rules to play by under their terms... while the revolutionary seeks a whole new game.

Third party politics should really be seen as a way to organize and to educate the working class on class struggle, but there must be a twofold front... as the old IWW slogan goes, "Direct action gets the goods" and as Emma Goldman had said "If voting changed anything they would make it illegal."

I do not think, organizing with a third party is totally useless, nor voting third party and letting your voice be heard is totally useless... but to put forth a watered down reformist platform with the delusion that the capitalists who control the elections would actually let you in office and somehow implement changes is delusional.

I Recommend Reform or Revolution by Daniel De Leon http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/works/1896/960126.htm For anyone truly interested in revolutionary left politics rather than reformist social democracy in the guise of socialism throwing out the label "Secterian" to any and all who disagree with their watered down capitalist views.

I would also like to point out that arguing against closing prisons is arguing in favor of the privatized prison industrial complex. The United States has more prisons and more prisoners than any other nation. (And we are not the most populated nation.) China which has the largest human population is 124th in prison population.